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

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

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

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

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

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

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

States Stare Down Reporting Deadlines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upgrading Technology, Modernizing Rural Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News senior correspondent Phil Galewitz and rural health care correspondent Arielle Zionts contributed to this report.

This <a target="_blank" href="/rural-health/rural-health-transformation-program-cms-state-contractors-ehr-patients/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

More than 80 of his customers who were enrolled in the same Medicare supplemental plan from the insurer Chubb got hit last August with a 45% increase.

“In my 49 years of doing biz as a broker, I’ve never seen a premium increase be effective immediately on everyone, instead of on their policy anniversary,” said Jaggi, whose brokerage scrambled to find more affordable options for clients. The policies pick up deductibles and other costs not covered in traditional Medicare, and without one there is no upper limit on how much a consumer might owe each year.

While 45% was an unusually big jump, Jaggi and other brokers say double-digit premium increases for Medicare supplemental, or Medigap, policies are becoming the norm.

A Chubb spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment on the increase.

More than 12 million people — of those in traditional Medicare — buy a Medigap policy. Others rely on some sort of retiree employer coverage or a different backup. About 13% of people in traditional Medicare don’t have supplemental coverage, according to KFF, meaning they could be vulnerable to large costs if they have a serious illness.

In the supplemental market, following big increases last year, rates appear to be rising again. In early 2026 filings with state insurance commissioners from Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, Mutual of Omaha, and UnitedHealthcare, rate increases for Plan G policies — the most commonly purchased supplement type — ranged from just in the first quarter, according to Nebraska-based consulting firm Telos Actuarial.

“While this is a small dataset across a select number of states, it’s an indication that carriers are looking to correct their premium rates in light of upward pressure on their claims experience,” said Brett Mushett, a consulting actuary with Telos.

Climbing Numbers

Premium rates vary based on the type of coverage chosen, where a beneficiary lives, and their age. For Plan G coverage, beneficiaries paid an in 2023, according to KFF. That amount has likely risen since.

“In some states, like Ohio, Medicare supplements for years would have a 3% to 5% year-over-year increase. Now it’s 10% to 15%,” said Amanda Brewton, owner of Medicare Answers Now, a marketing organization whose clients are sales agents.

In Alaska, Premera Blue Cross raised the premiums on its Plan G policies by nearly 12% for this year, according to rate sheets provided to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News by insurance agent Patricia Mack, who said another insurer raised rates by nearly 13%.

For example, a 65-year-old woman who last year would have been charged $172 a month for a Plan G policy would now face a monthly rate of $192, said Mack, who owns Alaska Insurance Benefits in Wasilla.

Premera spokesperson Courtney Wallace said in an email that Medicare makes changes to deductible and copayment rates each year, which affects supplemental plans that cover those increasing amounts.

Wallace also noted that the insurer saw higher medical service use among its members, “which further drove claims costs and ultimately impacted premiums.”

Agents and policy experts blame a range of factors for rising premiums: an increase in the use of medical services by beneficiaries; the aging of the population; increases in labor and medical costs; rules in some states governing Medigap plans; and people’s enrolling in — or getting out of — private Medicare Advantage plans.

“Five years ago, it was exceedingly uncommon to have a carrier with a rate increase of more than 10%. Now it’s very uncommon to see a rate increase below 10%, and it’s not uncommon to see it over 20%,” said Chalen Jackson, vice president for government affairs at Integrity, a Dallas-based company that sells life and health insurance.

Jaggi, who co-owns Jaggi Petry Insurance & Investments in Forsyth, Illinois, along with his daughter, said he eventually found other options for many of those 80-plus clients with the large increase, which came from an insurer that had previously been the lowest-cost option. But it wasn’t easy — and continuing increases are expected.

“These are unbelievable increases,” said Jaggi, who said he is seeing premium hikes exceeding 15% this year across a range of insurers.

Policy experts have outlined possible solutions, including for Congress to cap out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries or subsidize the purchase of Medigap coverage.

“Traditional Medicare is the only federal health insurance program without an out-of-pocket cap,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote in an email, adding that the program “needs to be updated and strengthened to protect the Medicare guarantee for American seniors.”

But making changes to Medicare that require congressional approval is unlikely in the current legislative environment, especially because adding an out-of-pocket cap would add costs to the federal budget.

How This Plays Out

People generally qualify for Medicare when they turn 65. Beneficiaries after they initially enroll in the traditional fee-for-service program to purchase a Medigap plan at standard rates without having to answer health-related questions.

Strict rules then kick in around when beneficiaries can enroll in or switch Medigap coverage and options become much more limited, with each one generally involving trade-offs or tough choices.

have what’s known as a “birthday rule,” which requires insurers once a year to allow people enrolled in a Medigap plan to change to different supplemental coverage — usually around their birthdays — without being medically underwritten. Those rules can help consumers, including those with health conditions, to switch.

An additional — Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, and New York — require insurers to offer at least one Medigap policy to all applicants either year-round or during an annual enrollment period, depending on the state. Changes are allowed no matter the person’s health.

Another option for those facing high Medigap costs is to leave traditional Medicare and enroll in a private-sector Medicare Advantage plan, which have out-of-pocket caps. But joining one means beneficiaries must generally rely on a set of in-network doctors and hospitals. And if they change their mind and want to go back to traditional Medicare, they have only a 12-month window in which to purchase a Medigap plan without passing health questions. After that, it can be more difficult.

“A lot of people don’t know that if they are in Medicare Advantage for a year, they can get turned down by a Medigap plan or charged really high premiums because of a preexisting condition, which for many people effectively traps them in MA plans,” said , a research associate at the liberal Center for American Progress and co-author of a on the issue.

There are some exceptions. For example, if a Medicare Advantage plan withdraws from a market or leaves the Medicare program, its enrollees can qualify for a supplemental plan without being asked health questions or charged more for having preexisting conditions.

For this year alone, about 2.6 million people when their insurer pulled out of their markets, according to KFF, and more than a million lost coverage for 2025. Many switched to other MA plans, but “somewhere around 440,000 of those people did go to a Medicare supplement policy,” sometimes because there was no other MA plan in their area, said George Dippel, president of Deft Research, a Minneapolis-based market research organization focused on insurance for older people. Deft is part of Integrity, the Dallas company.

Some Medicare experts note that anytime insurers enroll people whose health status they can’t consider — whether because of birthday rules or because their Medicare Advantage plan left the market and thus qualified them for an exemption from medical underwriting — it potentially exposes them to more health care utilization and higher costs, making them more likely to increase premiums across the board to offset the possible financial hit.

Another option mentioned by brokers for people looking to lower their costs is to consider one of the two types of Medigap plans that come with a deductible, which is currently just under $3,000 for a year. Those plans charge far lower monthly premiums than Medigap plans that pick up a much larger portion of annual amounts people must pay toward their Medicare services.

Still, “a lot of people are not comfortable with a $3,000 deductible,” Mack said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicare/medigap-medicare-advantage-premiums-rate-increase-few-alternatives/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Within a few days, Reynolds became so desperate that she and her husband had to physically restrain Jonah, dumping pain medication down his throat as he screamed in pain.

“It broke our hearts,” said Reynolds, who lived in Georgetown, Kentucky, at the time. “And I remember just thinking that it shouldn’t have to come to that.”

Reynolds couldn’t find a dentist with an opening who could treat Jonah, who is autistic and often resists dental exams due to hypersensitivity and anxiety. Over the course of five days, Reynolds took Jonah twice to a nearby emergency room as he struggled with persistent pain and a fever due to a likely infected tooth with an exposed nerve. The ER had no dentists; both times, the family was sent home with only pain medication and an ice pack.

Across the nation, more children are entering ERs for preventable tooth problems. Dentists, hygienists, and researchers attributed that trend to a shortage of pediatric dental care professionals in and worsening oral hygiene since the covid-19 pandemic. Tens of thousands of kids end up in the hospital for dental emergencies each year, according to Melissa Burroughs, senior director of policy and advocacy at the national health nonprofit CareQuest Institute for Oral Health.

ER visits for tooth problems unrelated to physical injuries for children under 15 years old from 2019 to 2022, according to a report released late last year by CareQuest. And local data reflects that national trend: At Children’s Hospital Colorado in the Denver area, nontraumatic dental cases, such as cavities or gum infections, in its ER increased 175% from 2010 to 2025, according to hospital spokesperson Sarah Bonar. In Kentucky, where Jonah lives, children’s visits to the ER for dental problems rose 72% from 2020 to 2024, according to the state.

Policy changes under the Trump administration are poised to worsen the trend. President Donald Trump’s 2025 federal budget reconciliation law, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, called for billions in cuts from Medicaid, which may force states to limit or drop dental coverage from the public insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities. New eligibility requirements for Medicaid in some states could affect kids’ access to dental care, even though children are guaranteed dental coverage under the program. Research shows that when parents lose Medicaid, even kids with coverage are more likely to have and to go to a dentist.

The Trump administration has also promoted skepticism about fluoride. show that fluoride in drinking water and topical fluoride treatments dramatically reduce tooth decay and prevent cavities. In recent months, the Food and Drug Administration against the use of fluoride supplements and the Environmental Protection Agency of “potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called fluoride a “” and “.” A 2025 study in JAMA Pediatrics linked high levels of fluoride with lower IQ in children — but only at concentrations the recommended level in public drinking water.

, a pediatric dentist at the University of Washington who studies fluoride hesitancy, worries that these anti-fluoride stances will further erode trust in fluoride treatment. Since the start of 2026, lawmakers in at least 15 states have introduced bills prohibiting or limiting fluoride in public drinking water. Utah and Florida in 2025 became the first states to enact fluoride bans.

“Will that have an effect on cavity rates?” Chi asked. “Absolutely.”

Severe Dental Cases Rise

Pediatric dentists Katherine Chin and Chaitanya Puranik said they are treating more patients like Jonah at Children’s Hospital Colorado. More severe cases have become more common, too. Puranik said he used to typically see patients with only one cavity, but now his patients are often coming in with tooth decay throughout their mouth.

During the pandemic, many dental offices , and studies show children also increased , a major risk factor for cavities. Severe cavities that lead to tooth extraction can affect , sometimes causing long-term problems with or .

Millions of people live in in the U.S., with scant dentists within driving distance. On top of that, only treat Medicaid patients, due to low reimbursement rates, which are on average of their typical dental charges, according to the American Dental Association.

Children with intellectual or developmental disabilities may especially struggle to access quality dental care. Few general dentists have sufficient pediatric training to care for kids with disabilities such as Jonah, who are easily overwhelmed or need to be sedated for an exam, , a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. Over have special health care needs, and those children are to have unmet dental needs. Their parents are also to finding a dentist.

When he was younger, Jonah would not let his parents brush his teeth, which led to cavities in his baby teeth, his mother said. After Jonah’s first visit to the ER, Reynolds found a general dentist with an opening. But unlike a trained pediatric dentist, she said, the dentist did not know how to examine Jonah in a way he could tolerate and wasn’t prepared to provide sedation. Jonah left without treatment and was soon back in the ER when his fever returned.

ERs Rarely Provide Solutions

, a pediatrician in Washington County, Maine, said he is fielding “the most horrifying cavities” at Down East Community Hospital.

ERs are often ill-equipped to treat dental concerns, Weitz said. Similar to the ER Jonah went to in Kentucky, Down East has no dentists on staff. Weitz often finds himself prescribing antibiotics as a temporary measure.

“But a month later, they’re back again because it’s flaring up again,” Weitz said.

As a potential solution, states such as Maine and Alaska are proposing to use money from the $50 billion to develop the oral health workforce or to create specialized dental care centers, which can better serve children with special health care needs on short notice. But those initiatives won’t address the loss of coverage anticipated from Medicaid cuts. California last year in state grants to develop or expand over 120 dental facilities to serve patients with special health care needs.

Jonah’s dental emergency cost Reynolds a week of work from her job as a dog groomer and Jonah three days of third grade, plus hundreds of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.

Eventually, Reynolds found an oral surgeon who extracted the tooth. But even that went poorly, she said. When Jonah became upset over a needle stick, the surgeon threatened to hold him down, Reynolds said. She said the surgeon left quickly after the procedure and never gave her a clear diagnosis of what caused Jonah’s pain. The procedure did resolve his toothache, but Reynolds said more professionals should know how to handle cases like Jonah’s, with sensitivity to the families. Four years later, forcing Jonah to take his pain meds still lives fresh in her memory.

“That will never leave my mind,” Reynolds said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/dental-care-emergency-rooms-special-needs-medicaid-shortage-areas/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Then 25 years old and six months pregnant, she drove herself to the emergency room in Ronan, Montana, on the Flathead Indian Reservation, where an ambulance transferred her to a larger hospital 60 miles away in Missoula. Once she arrived, the staff couldn’t detect her baby’s heartbeat. Swaney began to bleed heavily. She delivered a stillborn baby and was hospitalized for several days. At one point, doctors told her to call her family. They didn’t expect her to survive.

“It certainly changed my life — the experience — but my life has not been a bad life,” she told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Though her experiences were nearly 50 years ago, Swaney, a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, said Native Americans continue to receive inadequate maternal care. The data appears to support that belief.

In 2024, the most recent year for which data for the population is available, Native American and Alaska Native people had the among major demographic groups, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In response to this disparity, Native organizations, the CDC, and some states are working to boost tribal participation in state maternal mortality review committees to better track and address pregnancy-related deaths in their communities. Native organizations are also considering ways tribes could create their own committees.

State maternal mortality review committees investigate deaths that occur during pregnancy or within a year after pregnancy, analyze data, and issue policy recommendations to lower death rates.

According to 2021 CDC data, compiled from 46 maternal mortality review committees, 87% of maternal deaths in the U.S. were deemed preventable. Committees reported that , deaths among Native American and Alaska Native people were considered preventable.

Our matriarchs, our moms, are what carries a nation forward.

Kim Moore-Salas

State committees have received federal money through the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which President Donald Trump signed in 2018.

But the money is scheduled to dry up on Jan. 31, when the short-term spending bill that ended the government shutdown expires.

Funding for the committees is included in the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2026. That bill must be approved by the House, Senate, and president to take effect.

Native American leaders said including members of their communities in maternal mortality review committee activities is an important step in addressing mortality disparities.

In 2023, tribal leaders and federal officials met to discuss four models: a mortality review committee for each tribe, a committee for each of the 12 Indian Health Service administrative regions, a national committee to review all Native American maternal deaths, and the addition of Native American subcommittees to state committees.

Whatever the model, tribal sovereignty, experience, and traditional knowledge are important factors, said Kim Moore-Salas, a co-chair of the Arizona Maternal Mortality Review Committee. She’s also the chairperson of the panel’s American Indian/Alaska Native mortality review subcommittee and a member of the Navajo Nation.

“Our matriarchs, our moms, are what carries a nation forward,” she said.

Mental health conditions and infection were the leading underlying causes of pregnancy-related death among Native American and Alaska Native women as of 2021, according to the CDC report analyzing data from 46 states.

The CDC found an estimated 68% of pregnancy-related deaths among Native American and Alaska Native people happened within a week of delivery to a year postpartum. The majority of those happened between 43 days and a year after birth.

The federal government has a responsibility under signed treaties to provide health care to the 575 federally recognized tribes in the U.S. through the Indian Health Service. Tribal members can receive limited services at no cost, but the agency is underfunded and understaffed.

A that analyzed data from 2016 to 2020 found that approximately 75% of Native American and Alaska Native pregnant people didn’t have access to care through the Indian Health Service around the time of giving birth, meaning many likely sought care elsewhere. More than 90% of Native American and Alaska Native births occur outside of IHS facilities, . For those who did deliver at IHS facilities, a from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that 56% of labor and delivery patients received care that did not follow national clinical guidelines.

The 2024 study’s authors also found that members of the population were less likely to have stable insurance coverage and more likely to have a lapse in coverage during the period close to birth than non-Hispanic white people.

Cindy Gamble, who is Tlingit and a tribal community health consultant for the American Indian Health Commission in Washington, has been a member of the state’s maternal mortality review panel for about eight years. In the time she’s been on the state panel, she said, its composition has broadened to include more people of color and community members.

The panel also began to include suicide, overdose, and homicide deaths in its data analysis and added racism and discrimination to the risk factors considered during its case review process.

Solutions need to be tailored to the tribe’s identity and needs, Gamble said.

“It’s not a one-size-fits-all,” Gamble said, “because of all the beliefs and different cultures and languages that different tribes have.”

Gamble’s tenure on the state committee is distinctive. Few states have tribal representation on maternal mortality review committees, according to the National Indian Health Board, a nonprofit organization that advocates for tribal health.

The National Council of Urban Indian Health is also the participation of Urban Indian health organizations, which provide care for Native American people who live outside of reservations, in state maternal mortality review processes. As of 2025, the council had connected Urban Indian health organizations to state review committees in California, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

Native leaders such as Moore-Salas find the current efforts encouraging.

“It shows that state and tribes can work together,” she said.

In March 2024, Moore-Salas became the first Native American co-chair of Arizona’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee. In 2025 she and other Native American members of the committee developed guidelines for the American Indian/Alaska Native subcommittee and reviewed the group’s first cases.

The subcommittee is exploring ways to make the data collection and analysis process more culturally relevant to their population, Moore-Salas said.

But it takes time for policy changes to create widespread change in the health of a population, Gamble said. Despite efforts around the country, other factors may hinder the pace of progress. For example, maternity care deserts are growing nationally, caused by rapid hospital and labor and delivery unit closures. Health experts have raised concerns that upcoming cuts to Medicaid will hasten these closures.

Despite her experience and the ongoing crisis among Native American and Alaska Native people, Swaney hopes for change.

She had a second complicated pregnancy soon after her stillbirth. She went into labor about three months early, and the doctors said her son wouldn’t live to the next morning. But he did, and he was transferred about 525 miles away from Missoula to the nearest advanced neonatal unit, in Salt Lake City.

Her son, Kelly Camel, is now 48. He has severe cerebral palsy and profound deafness. He lives alone but has caregivers to help with cooking and other tasks, said Swaney, 73.

He “has a good sense of humor. He’s kind to other people. We couldn’t ask for a more complete child.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/rural-health/native-american-pregnancy-maternal-mortality-mothers-deaths-tribes/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

But there are strings attached.

In late December, President Donald Trump’s administration announced how much all 50 states would get under its new Rural Health Transformation Program, assigning them to use the money to fix systemic problems that leave rural Americans without access to good health care. Now, the clock is ticking.

Within eight months, states must submit revised budgets, begin spending, and show the money is going to good use. Federal officials will begin reviewing state progress in late summer and announce 2027 funding levels by the end of October.

The money — divided into unique allocations for each state, ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas — represents the first $10 billion installment from the five-year, $50 billion program. Congress created the fund as a last-minute sweetener in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer to offset the anticipated in rural communities from the statute’s nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid spending cuts over the next decade.

Federal officials crafted the fund to give states “space to be creative,” Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said on a call with reporters after announcing the funding Dec. 29. “Some states will fail, and we will learn from that.”

The money was divided according to a complicated formula.

In 2026, each state will receive an equal $100 million share for the first half of the money, plus additional funding from the second half. Oz’s staff steered payouts from the second portion based on each state’s rural score, as well as results from a “technical” scoring system for project proposals.

Within hours of the announcement, academics and researchers began to parse the awards to better understand why some states received more than others, including whether the awards reflected any partisanship or political favoritism.

At first glance, total awards do not appear to favor states governed by either Republicans or Democrats. But teased out the amount awarded for each state’s technical score, which is the part determined by the discretion of agency officials.

The analysis was performed at the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, which specializes in rural health. A Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News review of the Sheps Center data found that states with Republican governors tended to receive more money for the parts of their application based on the technical score. Democratic-controlled states crowded the bottom quarter of those technical score awards.

Overall, though, the state awards reveal wild variation in how much money each state will get per rural resident, almost a hundredfold difference between the top and bottom.

In an emailed statement to , a spokesperson for Arizona’s Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs accused the administration of shortchanging rural residents in the state, which was awarded $167 million this year from the program.

CMS spokesperson Chris Krepich said in an emailed statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that “politics played no role in funding decisions.”

On the December call, Oz pushed states to start working on policy actions championed by the administration — such as approving presidential fitness tests and restricting food benefits — that could require legislative approval.

Half of states promised to mandate the presidential fitness test, Oz said. Many states also proposed food waivers under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, which would limit low-nutrition items such as soda. He also said some states promised to teach health care professionals about nutrition. And others confirmed they will repeal certificate-of-need laws, which require companies to prove that new health facilities they want to open are necessary.

Krepich said CMS’ new Office of Rural Health Transformation is hiring program officers to serve as point people for three or four states. Many states are setting up their own offices to oversee the new funding.

Oz highlighted Alabama’s “big maternity initiative with robotics doing ultrasounds” and said states are tackling issues ranging from behavioral health to obesity.

A Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News review of state “” and “” released by CMS shows that many states plan to address the workforce challenges in rural areas. Delaware, for example, plans to use its funding to create the state’s first four-year medical school with a rural primary care track.

A third of states said they want to improve electronic health records, and every state mentioned telehealth.

Many state legislatures to distribute the funding to their state offices. Meanwhile, state officials are hiring staff, , and .

“I’m excited about what’s next,” said Terry Scoggin, former interim chief executive of the Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals, or TORCH. Texas was awarded the biggest allocation. The money will bolster a rural hospital funding bill Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed last year, Scoggin said.

More than two dozen cash-strapped rural hospitals in Texas to clinics since 2005, a nationwide trend that hit the Lone Star State particularly hard. The state has the largest rural population in the United States. Texas’ allocation amounts to about $66 per rural resident, . By contrast, Rhode Island was granted about $6,300 per rural resident.

Scoggin said he has “a ton of concerns” about companies taking the money instead of it helping rural hospitals and residents. “I was blown away about how many for-profit companies reached out.” The companies have also called rural hospitals and asked to work with them to apply for state money, he said.

The awards should be judged on how they benefit rural residents because “the stated goal of the program is to improve rural health,” said Paula Chatterjee, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania who co-authored on the transformation fund.

Researchers at the Sheps Center conducted the analysis to estimate how much money states received from the technical score, which is the portion of funding based on the quality of their proposals and state policy actions that align with “Make America Healthy Again” priorities.

New Mexico won the least amount of technical funding, with less than 10% of its award based on the discretionary metrics. Alaska won the largest technical award, according to the Sheps Center data.

Texas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Hawaii rounded out the top five recipients of technical funding. In addition to New Mexico, the other lowest technical awards went to Michigan, New Jersey, Arizona, and California.

Mark Holmes, director of the Sheps Center, declined to comment on whether he saw any political bias in the awards but said the nuance in the final portion of discretionary awards based on technical scores is important because those dollars can be redistributed and potentially clawed back in future years.

“We can be fairly certain that every state will get at least a slightly, if not a vastly, different amount next year based on this re-pooling and reallocation piece,” Holmes said.

States now have a limited time to show they’re using the money effectively to secure future funding.

But they can’t start spending yet. CMS followed standard grant procedures and is requiring each state to submit revised budgets before they can draw down money, Krepich said.

States have until Jan. 30 to resubmit their budgets, and CMS then has 30 days to respond, according to the standard . Under that timing, some states may not have cash in hand until March.

“CMS is working closely with states to complete this process as efficiently as possible,” Krepich said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/rural-health/rural-health-transformation-state-distribution-technical-scores-variation-deadlines/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

In Alaska and Michigan, legislators are nonetheless advancing bills to keep medical debt off consumer credit reports.

The attorneys general of California and Colorado said they would stand behind credit reporting laws enacted in those states in recent years, even as Colorado faces a lawsuit from debt collectors contesting such laws.

Indiana and Ohio lawmakers have dropped proposals to remove medical debt from credit reports but are pushing legislation that would extend other protections to patients who cannot pay their medical bills.

“ of Alaska voters don’t think credit reports should include medical debt,” said state Rep. , a Democrat there. “I’m not going to wait on the courts on the medical debt issue.”

An estimated 100 million Americans are . And a growing number of red and blue states have enacted laws to protect patients.

But federal policy on such debt boomeranged this year when President Donald Trump’s administration chose not to defend that would have removed medical debt from all Americans’ credit scores. And in October, Trump’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau do not have the authority to regulate consumer credit reports.

“It’s sort of a head-spinning, 180-degree reversal,” said , an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, which advocates for people with low incomes. She called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, now led by Project 2025 architect , the “evil twin” of its predecessor under President Joe Biden.

The bureau did not respond to requests for comment.

Eight days after the new federal guidance, debt collectors filed a lawsuit contesting Colorado’s 2023 medical debt credit reporting law, the first to require removal of some or all medical debt from credit reports.

Scott Purcell, CEO of , which is a debt collection trade group and a plaintiff in the Colorado suit, said removing the debt makes it harder to gauge creditworthiness, which he said would lead creditors to assume everyone is a riskier bet.

His also argues the Colorado law violates the First Amendment by suppressing “truthful commercial speech.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, called the lawsuit outrageous in a statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. His office, he said, “will strongly oppose all efforts to strip away critical medical debt protections.”

In California, Attorney General Rob Bonta, too, is standing firm on his state’s law regardless of how federal officials now interpret state rights. The Democrat told constituents in a : “Let me be clear: This remains the law in California.”

In other states still contemplating credit reporting laws, legislators are adjusting their strategy to account for the lawsuit and the Trump administration’s moves, by either ditching the plan to remove medical debt from credit reports or modifying such legislation.

Wu said her organization saw the federal change coming and had already urged state lawmakers to make pending legislation on credit reporting more lawsuit-proof by looking upstream and downstream of the credit reporting agencies. For example, Wu said, states can tell landlords, employers, or other credit report perusers that they cannot use a person’s medical debt history in their decision-making. And states can require health providers to include, in their contracts with debt collectors, limits on what they can tell credit reporting agencies about the bills they’re collecting.

“You’ll often hear providers say, ‘Oh, well, we don’t want to hurt our patients’ credit,’” she said. “Tell the debt collectors, ‘Don’t report this.’”

Alaska’s legislation has both elements: It bars landlords from making decisions about potential renters based on their medical debt history, and it bars providers and collectors from telling credit reporting agencies about patient debt.

Elsewhere, state lawmakers have opted out of trying to pass credit reporting provisions in proposed legislation. Indiana state Sen. , a Democrat, that tries to, among other things, cap interest rates, limit wage garnishment, and keep people from losing their homes over unpaid bills from medically necessary procedures. But he and his colleagues made a tactical decision to leave out credit reporting, after unsuccessfully including it in a similar bill last year.

“It’s out of legislative pragmatism,” Qaddoura said. “We want to be sure that you don’t get a piece of legislation killed with many benefits to tens of thousands of families just because one provision can’t go in.”

In Ohio, Democratic state Rep. made a similar calculation. She has been working on to ban wage garnishment over medical debt, cap interest rates for such debt at 3%, and scratch it from credit reports. She said she and other lawmakers recently removed the credit reporting portion.

“It’s better to pass something than nothing at all,” Grim said. “It still bans wage garnishment, which is a very aggressive, more-common-than-you-think practice. And it caps the interest rate.”

A recent found that, in Colorado alone, thousands of people each year have their wages garnished to pay back medical bills, and some people taken to court for medical debts never actually owed the money.

Legislative efforts to protect people from the effects of medical debt are often bipartisan, but that doesn’t mean they pass easily. Even before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reversed its stance on credit reports, several measures this year, and legislation failed in Wyoming and South Dakota that aimed to take medical debt off credit reports.

Americans are largely protected from having their credit scores dinged by small medical debts. In 2023, the three big credit bureaus — TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian — to remove medical debts under $500 from their credit reports, and the Consumer Data Industry Association, a trade group for the companies, confirmed they are still doing so.

Even so, lawmakers in several states said they are deciding whether and how to get ahead of the federal guidance with legislation that tackles additional, larger medical debt on credit reports.

“We know that this will need to get beefed up,” said , a Democratic state senator in Michigan, of . She isn’t sure what that will look like, though consumer advocates including Libby Benton hope to see the measure follow Wu’s strategy.

“These aren’t debts that people choose to take on. People might choose to buy a huge pickup truck and that’s a bad financial decision,” said Benton, director of the Michigan Poverty Law Program. “People don’t choose to have emergency heart bypass surgery.”

Yet both can end up on a credit report.

This <a target="_blank" href="/courts/credit-reports-medical-debt-state-legislation-cfpb-trump-reversal/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Federally recognized tribes can’t directly apply for a share of the rural health fund — only states can. And states aren’t required to consider tribes’ needs. But state applications for the five-year payout show some states with significant Native American populations did so anyway.

Workforce development, technology upgrades, and traditional healing are a few of the initiatives specifically aimed at Native American communities that some states included in their applications, which were due to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Nov. 5. The fund was a late addition to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in response to worries about the harm the spending reductions in Republicans’ bill would have on rural hospitals’ finances.

Some states, , Nevada, , are also considering setting aside 3% to 10% of their federal payouts to distribute among tribes. Washington proposed setting aside $20 million per year.

Federally recognized tribes have direct relationships with the U.S. government, but state governments also allocate resources to tribes and can create policies that support tribal priorities. States and tribes share concerns about the effect that the massive GOP budget bill, which President Donald Trump signed into law in July, will have on the U.S. health system. The law is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion and increase the number of uninsured by , according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Catherine Howden, a CMS spokesperson, said that states are required to develop their applications in collaboration with key stakeholders, including the state governments’ tribal affairs offices or tribal liaisons, as well as “Indian health care providers, as applicable.” But these entities do not include tribal governments or official tribal representatives.

Tribes can apply for Rural Health Transformation Fund subgrants through their states. But during a recent call with federal health officials, tribal leaders expressed frustration about being regarded as just another stakeholder in the issue rather than sovereign nations. Tribal sovereignty guides most government-to-government consultations over proposed federal actions that would have a substantial effect on tribes.

“Even in a scenario where tribal consultation is required, the quality and quantity of that tribal consultation on a state-by-state basis is all over the place,” said Liz Malerba, director of policy and legislative affairs for the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, which advocates for tribal nations from Texas to Maine. Malerba is a citizen of the Mohegan Tribe.

Federal policy works better when tribal nations are directly eligible for funding that supports essential services in their communities, Malerba said, adding that tribal leaders are concerned that the reach of the program into their communities will vary considerably.

There are and Native American and Alaska Native people in the U.S. The population faces a lower life expectancy and when compared with other demographics. The Indian Health Service, the federal agency responsible for providing health care to Native Americans and Alaska Natives, has been by Congress.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News analyzed how 12 states with significant Native American populations took tribes into account as they developed plans for the pot of federal money.

, , , and were among the states that held tribal consultations or listening sessions ahead of the Nov. 5 application deadline.

In states that did not initiate input from tribes, some Native American leaders made sure their voices were heard in other public hearings. Jerilyn Church, CEO of the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board, said she attended an October public meeting in South Dakota because she felt it was important for state leaders to consider how they could use the program’s resources on reservations. There are nine federally recognized tribes in the state, and Native American people make up 9% of the population.

“I felt like we needed to help be that advocate,” said Church, a citizen of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

In the proposed initiatives included in its rural fund application, South Dakota such as improved telehealth and funding for doula programs. It also said the state will continue meeting with the Great Plains tribal health board throughout the five-year funding cycle.

In Oklahoma — where more than 14% of the population is Native American, a higher share than in most other states — tribal representatives were invited to weigh in with the rest of the public when the state was gathering information for its application, the details of which have not been publicly released.

“We’ve welcomed input from any Oklahoman,” said state health department spokesperson Erica Rankin-Riley.

North Dakota in the Rural Health Transformation Program and included initiatives such as expanding physician residency slots with tribal-specific rotations and opportunities for farm-to-table food distributions. But that would have pledged 5% of its federal allotment to tribes. There are five federally recognized tribes in the state, and Native Americans make up nearly 5% of the population.

Some states did include proposals to fund high-priority initiatives for tribes.

for the rural fund included an initiative focused on improving health among Native American communities. Its goals include investing in workforce development for tribes, better care coordination between tribes and rural hospitals, and $2.4 million annually to support Washington State University’s rural health education programs, including its Indigenous health program.

included integrating Indigenous traditional healing in Alaska Native village clinics. It would include offering traditional-healing house calls, hands-on training for healers, and traditional-medicine training for health care providers and staff, according to the application.

One of would support the state’s nine federally recognized tribes in improving health outcomes. The state estimates the initiative would require $20 million per year, or 10% of the Rural Health Transformation Program award.

Whether or not states identified funding for tribes or included tribal priorities in their proposals, tribes will be eligible to apply to their states for subgrants of the Rural Health Transformation Program money. While larger tribes that have more resources, such as grant writers and staff to implement programs, could benefit, smaller tribes may struggle to produce competitive applications.

Church said that the Great Plains Tribal Leaders’ Health Board will know the fruits of its labor when states are notified of their rural health fund allotments by the end of the year.

“Hopefully the work that we did, the advocacy that we did, and the outreach,” Church said, “will result in resources getting to our tribes.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News South Dakota correspondent Arielle Zionts contributed to this report.

This <a target="_blank" href="/race-and-health/native-american-tribes-rural-health-transformation-program/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

“I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me,” Kennedy Democratic congressman in May.

Kennedy once expressed different views — for example, about the need to proselytize about exercise. As he , he wants to use the “bully pulpit” to “obliterate the delicacy” with which Americans discuss fitness and explain that “suffering” is virtuous.

“We need to establish an ethic that you’re not a good parent unless your kids are doing some kind of physical activity,” Kennedy told the podcaster in September 2024.

The Department of Health and Human Services is tasked with communicating information to protect and improve the health and well-being of every American. It provides reminders about vaccinations and screenings; alerts about which food is unsafe; and useful, everyday tips about subjects such as sunscreen and, yes, exercise.

Under Kennedy’s watch, though, HHS has compromised once-fruitful campaigns promoting immunizations and other preventive health measures. On Instagram, the agency often emphasizes Kennedy’s personal causes, his pet projects, or even the secretary himself. Former agency employees say communications have a more political edge, with “Make America Healthy Again” frequently featured in press releases.

Interviews with over 20 former and current agency employees provide a look inside a health department where personality and politics steer what is said to the public. Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News granted many of these people anonymity because they fear retribution.

One sign of change is what is no longer, or soon will not be, amplified — for instance, acclaimed anti-smoking campaigns making a dent in one of Kennedy’s priorities, chronic disease.

Another sign is what gets celebrated. On the official HHS Instagram account this year, out were posts saluting Juneteenth and Father’s Day. In, under Kennedy, were posts and .

Commenting on such changes, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in an email that “DEI is gone, thanks to the Trump administration.”

Some elected officials are pointedly not promoting Kennedy as a source of health care information. Regarding the secretary’s announcement citing unproven links between Tylenol and autism, Senate Majority Leader John Thune told MSNBC that, “if I were a woman, I’d be talking to my doctor and not taking, you know, advice from RFK or any other government bureaucrat, for that matter.” (Thune’s office did not respond to a request for comment.)

At since January show trust in Kennedy as a medical adviser is low. , from The Economist and YouGov, barely over a quarter of respondents said they trusted Kennedy “a lot” or “somewhat.”

The department’s online messaging looks “a lot more like propaganda than it does public health,” said Kevin Griffis, who worked in communications at the CDC under President Joe Biden .

Transition to a New Administration

The new administration inaugurated dramatic changes. Upon arrival, political appointees froze the health agency’s outside communications on a broader scale than in previous changeovers, halting everything from routine webpage updates to meetings with grant recipients. The pause created logistical snafus: For example, one CDC employee described being forced to cancel, and later rebook, advertising campaigns — at greater cost to taxpayers.

Even before the gag order was lifted in the spring, the tone and direction of HHS’ public communications had shifted.

According to data shared by iSpot.tv, a market research firm that tracks television advertising, at least four HHS ads about vaccines ended within two weeks of Trump’s inauguration.

“Flu campaigns were halted,” during a season in which a died from influenza, Deb Houry, who had resigned as the CDC’s chief medical officer, said in a Sept. 17 congressional hearing.

Instead of urging people to get vaccinated, HHS officials contemplated more-ambivalent messaging, said Griffis, then the CDC’s director of communications. According to Griffis, other former agency employees, and communications reviewed by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Nixon contemplated a campaign that would put more emphasis on vaccine risks. It would “be promoting, quote-unquote, ‘informed choice,’” Griffis said.

Nixon called the claim “categorically false.” Still, the department continues to push anti-vaccine messaging. In November, the CDC to assert the false claim that vaccines may cause autism.

Messaging related to tobacco control has been pulled back, according to Brian King, an executive at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, as well as multiple current and former CDC employees. Layoffs, administrative leaves, and funding turmoil have drained offices at the CDC and the FDA focused on educating people about the risks of smoking and vaping, King said.

Four current and former CDC employees told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that “Tips From Former Smokers,” a campaign credited with helping approximately a million people quit smoking, is in danger. Ordinarily, a contract for the next year’s campaign would have been signed by now. But, as of Nov. 21, there was no contractor, the current and former employees said.

Nixon did not respond to a question from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News regarding plans for the program.

“We’re currently in an apocalypse for national tobacco education campaigns in this country,” King said.

Kennedy’s HHS has a different focus for its education campaigns, including the “Take Back Your Health” campaign, for which the department this year to produce “viral” and “edgy” content to urge Americans to exercise.

An earlier version of the campaign’s solicitation asked for partners to boost wearables, such as gadgets that track steps or glucose levels — reflecting a for every American to be wearing such a device within four years.

The source of funds for the exercise campaign? In the spring, leadership of multiple agencies discussed using funding for the CDC’s Tips From Former Smokers campaign, employees from those agencies said. By the fall, the smoking program hadn’t spent all its funds, the current and former CDC employees said.

Nixon did not respond to questions about the source of funding for the exercise campaign.

Food Fight

At the FDA, former employees said they noticed new types of political interference as Trump officials took the reins, sometimes making subtle tweaks to public communications, sometimes changing wholesale what messages went out. The interventions into messaging — what was said, but also what went unsaid — proved problematic, they said.

Early this year, multiple employees told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Nixon gave agency employees a quick deadline to gather a list of all policy initiatives underway on infant formula. That was then branded “,” as if it were a new push by a new administration.

Marianna Naum, a former acting director of external communications and consumer education at the FDA, said she supports parts of the Trump administration’s agenda. But she said she disagreed with how it handled Operation Stork Speed. “It felt like they were trying to put out information so they can say: ‘Look at the great work. Look how fast we did it,’” she said.

Nixon called the account “false” without elaborating. Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News spoke with three other employees with the same recollections of the origins of Operation Stork Speed.

“Things that didn’t fit within their agenda, they were downplayed,” Naum said.

For example, she said, Trump political appointees resisted a proposed press release noting agency approval of cell-cultured pork — that is, pork grown in a lab. Similar products have raised the ire of ranchers and farmers working in typically GOP-friendly industries. States such as Florida have .

The agency ultimately issued . But a review of the agency’s archives showed it hasn’t put out press releases about two later approvals of cell-cultured meat.

Wide-ranging layoffs have also hit the FDA’s food office hard, leaving fewer people to make sure news gets distributed properly and promptly. Former employees say notices about recalled foods aren’t circulated as widely as they used to be, meaning fewer eyeballs on alerts about contaminated , , and the like.

Nixon did not respond to questions about changes in food recalls. Overall, Nixon answered nine of 53 questions posed by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Pushing Politics

Televised HHS public service campaigns earned nearly 7.3 billion fewer impressions in the first half of 2025 versus the same period in 2022, according to iSpot data, with the drop being concentrated in pro-vaccine messaging. Other types of ads, such as those covering substance use and mental health, also fell. Data from the marketing intelligence firm Sensor Tower shows similar drops in HHS ad spending online.

With many of the longtime professionals laid off and new political appointees in place atop the hierarchy, a new communications strategy — bearing the hallmarks of Kennedy’s personality — is being built, said the current and former HHS employees, plus public health officials interviewed by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Whereas in 2024, the agency would mostly post public health resources such as the 988 suicide hotline on its Instagram page, its feed in 2025 features more of the health secretary himself. Through the end of August, according to a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News review, 77 of its 101 posts featured Kennedy — often fishing, biking, or doing pullups, as well as pitching his policies.

By contrast, only 146 of the agency’s 754 posts last year, or about 20%, featured Xavier Becerra, Kennedy’s predecessor.

In 2024, on Instagram, the agency promoted Medicare and individual insurance open enrollment; in 2025, the agency has not.

In 2024, the agency’s Instagram feed included some politicking as Biden ran for reelection, but the posts were less frequent and often indirect — for instance, touting a policy enacted under Biden’s signature legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, but without mentioning the name of the bill or its connection to the president.

In 2025, sloganeering is a frequent feature of the agency’s Kennedy-era Instagram. Through the end of August, “Make America Healthy Again” or variants of the catchphrase featured in at least 48% of posts.

Amid the layoffs, the agency made a notable addition to its team. It hired a state legislative spokesperson as a “rapid response” coordinator, a role that employees from previous administrations couldn’t recall previously existing at HHS.

“Like other Trump administration agencies, HHS is continuously rebutting fake news for the benefit of the public,” Nixon said when asked about the role.

On the day Houry and Susan Monarez, the CDC leader ousted in late August, testified before senators about Kennedy’s leadership, the agency’s X feed posted clips belittling the former officials. The department also derisively rebuts unfavorable news coverage.

“It’s very interesting to watch the memeification of the United States and critical global health infrastructure,” said McKenzie Wilson, an HHS spokesperson under Biden. “The entire purpose of this agency is to inform the public about safety, emergencies as they happen.”

‘Clear, Powerful Messages From Bobby’

Kennedy’s , released in September, proposes public awareness campaigns on subjects such as illegal vaping and fluoride levels in water, while reassuring Americans that the regulatory system for pesticides is “robust.”

Those priorities reflect — and are amplified by — cadres of activists outside government. Since the summer, HHS officials have appeared on Zoom calls with aligned advocacy groups, trying to drum up support for Kennedy’s agenda.

— on which, according to host Tony Lyons, activists “representing over 250 million followers on social media” were registered — famous names such as motivational speaker Tony Robbins gave pep talks about how to influence elected officials and the public.

“Each week, you’re gonna get clear, powerful messages from Bobby, from HHS, from their team,” Robbins said. “And your mission is to amplify it, to make it your own, to speak from your soul, to be bold, to be relentless, to be loving, to be loud, you know, because this is how we make the change.”

The communications strategy captivates the public, but it also confuses it.

Anne Zink, formerly the chief medical officer for Alaska, said she thought Kennedy’s messaging was some of the catchiest of any HHS director.

But, she said, in her work as an emergency physician, she’s seen the consequences of his health department’s policies on her puzzled patients. Patients question vaccines. Children show up with gastrointestinal symptoms Zink says she suspects are related to raw milk consumption.

“I increasingly see people say, ‘I just don’t know what to trust, because I just hear all sorts of things out there,’” she said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/robert-kennedy-rfk-maha-hhs-cdc-social-media-vaccines-tobacco/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Working out of a in Anchorage, Alaska, liver specialist Brian McMahon has spent decades treating the long shadow of hepatitis B. Before a vaccine became available in the 1980s, he saw the virus claim young lives in western Alaskan communities with stunning speed.

One of his patients was 17 years old when he first examined her for stomach pain. McMahon discovered she had developed liver cancer caused by hepatitis B, just weeks before she was set to graduate from high school as valedictorian. She died before the ceremony.

McMahon thinks often of an 8-year-old boy who showed no signs of illness until he complained of pain from what turned out to be a rapidly growing tumor on his liver.

McMahon can still hear his voice.

“He was moaning in pain, saying, ‘I know I am going to die soon,’” he recalled. “We were all crying.” The boy died at home a week later.

The hepatitis B virus is transmitted through blood and bodily fluids, even in microscopic amounts, and the virus can survive on surfaces for a week. Like many of his patients, McMahon said, both children contracted hepatitis B at birth or in early childhood.

That outcome is now preventable. A birth dose of the vaccine, recommended for newborns since 1991, is up to in preventing infection from the mother if given in the first 24 hours of life. If babies receive all three doses, have immunity from the incurable virus, with the protection lasting at least .

In the communities of western Alaska, years of targeted testing and widespread vaccination efforts led to .

“Liver cancer has disappeared in children,” McMahon said. “We haven’t seen a case since 1995. Nor do we have any children under 30 that have gotten infected that we know of.”

He worries those hard-won gains could soon be rolled back.

Pushing Back the Dose?

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine advisory panel appointed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is scheduled the hepatitis B birth dose recommendation during its two-day meeting starting Dec. 4, potentially limiting children’s access.

On Tucker Carlson’s podcast in June, Kennedy falsely claimed that the hepatitis B birth dose is a “likely culprit” of autism.

He also said the hepatitis B virus is not “casually contagious.” But shows the virus can be transmitted through indirect contact, when traces of infected fluids like blood enter the body when people share personal items like razors or toothbrushes.

The committee’s recommendations carry weight. Most private insurers must cover the vaccines the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices endorses, and many state vaccination policies are directly linked to its guidelines.

Neither ACIP nor the CDC is regulatory. They cannot mandate immunizations. It’s to do that. But keeping the recommendation for a hepatitis B vaccine at birth preserves the widest range of options for families. They can choose to vaccinate at birth, wait until later in childhood, or not vaccinate at all, and insurance will continue to cover the cost of the shot as long as it remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Two senior FDA officials — Commissioner Marty Makary and top vaccine regulator Vinay Prasad — suggested at the end of November that the vaccine approval process may be coming. Vaccines must be approved by the FDA to be administered in the United States.

In obtained by and , Prasad questioned the routine practice of “giving multiple vaccines at the same time.” It’s not clear whether he was referring to combination vaccines that offer immunity against multiple diseases with a single shot. Three of the nine hepatitis B vaccines currently approved by the FDA are combination vaccines. The of the hepatitis B vaccine is given only as a stand-alone vaccine.

Contacted for comment, Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement that “ACIP will review the evidence at its meeting this week and issue recommendations based on gold standard, evidence-based science and common sense.”

‘Sowing Distrust’

If private insurers opt to still cover the shot, misinformation from the meeting still could lead families to falsely believe the vaccine could harm their babies, said , chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“Whatever comes out of this disaster of a meeting in December is going to be mainly designed around sowing distrust and spreading fear,” he said.

President Donald Trump, Kennedy, and some newly appointed ACIP members have mischaracterized how the liver disease spreads, ignoring or downplaying the risk of transmission through indirect contact. The hepatitis B virus is than HIV. Unvaccinated people, including children, can get infected from microscopic amounts of blood on a tabletop or toy, even when the infected person is asymptomatic.

McMahon has cared for children who tested negative at birth and later became infected through indirect contact. In a , nearly a third of such children went on to develop chronic hepatitis B without ever showing symptoms, he said.

“It’s a very infectious virus,” McMahon said. “That’s why giving everybody the birth dose is the best way to prevent it.”

The CDC recommends that all pregnant people be screened for hepatitis B, but it estimates that up to 16% are not tested and fall through the cracks. O’Leary and other experts say testing mothers for the virus shortly before or after delivery is unfeasible, because most hospitals lack the staff and resources.

The three-dose vaccine has a of safety. Numerous studies show it is not associated with an increased risk of , , , or , and severe reactions are rare.

“We have an incredible safety profile,” O’Leary said. “No one expects to get in a car wreck, right? And yet we all put our seat belts on. This is similar.”

The CDC estimates that 2.4 million people in the U.S. have hepatitis B and that half they are infected. The disease can range from an acute infection to a chronic one, often with . If the disease is left untreated, it can lead to serious conditions such as cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer. There is no cure.

Expert’s Advice to Parents: Talk to a Doctor

, a professor of preventative medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and a former voting member of ACIP, said some parents struggle to understand why a healthy newborn needs a vaccine so soon after birth, especially for a virus they feel certain they don’t have and often wrongly associate only with risky behaviors. Those perceptions, he said, mix with declining trust in public health and rising skepticism about vaccines.

His advice to expectant parents who are on the fence is to talk to their doctor about the shots. Even if the pregnant woman has tested negative, he said, it’s still important to give the baby the birth dose, because false negatives are possible and because the virus can spread so easily from surface contact. Babies who receive the full vaccine series starting from birth have their chance of .

“If you wait a month and if the mom happens to be positive, or the baby picks it up from a caregiver, by that time the infection is established in that baby’s liver,” Schaffner said. “It’s too late to prevent that infection.”

He said that if fewer people get vaccinated, hepatitis B will circulate at higher rates in American communities and the risk of contracting the virus will rise for everyone who doesn’t get the shots.

And more hepatitis B cases could mean higher costs for patients and the broader health care system. The CDC estimates treating someone with a less severe form of the disease costs $25,000 to $94,000 per year. For patients who require a liver transplant, annual medical expenses can climb above $320,000, depending on their treatment.

Over the past 30 years, the parents have reported from their babies receiving the birth dose have been fussiness and crying, both of which pass quickly. Schaffner said that’s a very strong safety profile — for a newborn vaccine with a track record of protecting babies from an incurable disease.

“The data are so clear about this,” Schaffner said. “A whole array now of other countries have initiated this program. They’ve modeled it on us.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/hepatitis-b-kennedy-rfk-vaccine-panel-children-cdc-acip/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

The Trump administration, which has promised “radical transparency,” that it plans to publish the “project summary” for states that win awards. Following the lead of federal regulators, many states are withholding their complete applications, and some have refused to release any details.

“Let’s be clear,” said Alan Morgan, chief executive of the National Rural Health Association. “The hospital CEOs, the clinic administrators, the community leaders: They’re going to want to know what their states are doing.” The NRHA’s members include struggling rural hospitals and clinics, which would benefit from the Trump administration’s Rural Health Transformation Program.

Morgan said his members are interested in what states propose, which of their ideas are approved or rejected, and their budget narratives, which detail how the money could be spent.

Improving rural health care is an “insanely complicated and difficult task,” Morgan said.

The five-year Rural Health Transformation Program was approved by Congress in a law — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — that also drastically cuts Medicaid spending, on which rural providers heavily depend. It’s being watched closely because it’s a much-needed influx of funds — with a caveat from the Trump administration that the money be spent on transformational ideas, not just to prop up ailing rural hospitals.

The law says half of the $50 billion will be divided equally among all states with an approved application. The rest will be distributed through a points-based system. Of , $12.5 billion will be allotted based on each state’s rurality. The remaining $12.5 billion will go to states that on initiatives and policies that, in part, mirror the Trump administration’s “” objectives.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly promised to open the government to the American people. His agency has devoted to “radical transparency.”

“We’re working to make this the most transparent HHS in its 70-year history,” in written testimony to lawmakers in September.

Lawrence Gostin, a professor of public health law at Georgetown University, said HHS is “acting in a way that utterly lacks transparency” and that the public has the right to demand “greater openness and clarity.” Without transparency, the public cannot hold HHS accountable, he said.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spokesperson Catherine Howden said the agency will follow the federal regulations when releasing information about the rural health program.

Grant applications are “not released to the public during the merit review process,” Howden said, adding, “The purpose of this policy is to protect the integrity of evaluations, applicant confidentiality, and the competitive nature of the process.”

Democrats and many health care advocates are concerned politics will affect how much money states get.

“I am very concerned about retaliation,” said Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.). Because Democrats control her state’s politics, “our application might not be as seriously considered as other states that have Republican leadership,” she added.

Illinois’ Democratic members of the U.S. House to CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz in November asking for “full and fair consideration” of their state application. Illinois officials have not yet released their state’s proposal to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, which has a pending public records request.

Heather Howard, a professor of the practice at Princeton University, said she is “pleasantly surprised at how transparent the states have been.”

Howard directs the university’s State Health and Value Strategies program, which the rural health fund, and praised most states for publicly posting their project summaries.

“To me, it speaks to the intense interest in this program,” Howard said. Her team, reviewing about two dozen state summaries, found themes including expansion of home-based and mobile services, increased use of technology, and workforce development initiatives like scholarships, signing bonuses, and child care assistance for high-demand positions.

“I think it’s exciting,” Howard said. “What’s great here is the experimentation we’re going to learn from.”

Telerobotics appeared in Georgia’s and Alabama’s applications, she said, including a proposal to use robotic equipment for remote ultrasounds.

Another theme that “warms my heart,” Howard said, was the effort among states to create advisory groups or committees, including in Idaho, where work groups are expected to focus on technology, workforce development, tribal collaboration, and behavioral health.

All 50 states submitted applications to federal regulators by the Nov. 5 deadline and awards will be announced by the end of the year, according to CMS.

As of late November, nearly 40 states had released their project narrative, the main part of the application, which describes proposed initiatives, according to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News tracking. More than a dozen states have also released their budget narratives.

Also as of late November, only a handful of states — Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Wyoming — had released all parts of the application.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News filed public records requests for states’ complete applications. Some states have refused to release any of their application materials.

Nebraska, for example, rejected a public records request, saying its application materials are “proprietary or commercial information” that “would give advantage to business competitors.”

Kentucky shared its application summary but said the remainder of the application is a “preliminary draft” not subject to release under state laws.

Erika Engle, a spokesperson for Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, said the governor “is committed to transparency” but declined to share any of the state’s proposal.

Hawaii and other states are still processing formal public records requests.

The rural health program is part of the July law projected to reduce federal Medicaid spending in rural areas by 10 years.

Those cuts are expected to affect rural health facilities’ bottom lines, threatening their ability to stay open. A recent Commonwealth Fund report found that rural areas continue to to primary care. But the guidelines for the rural health program say states can use only 15% of their new funding to pay providers for patient care.

Between the Medicaid cuts and funding boost from the new program, “there’s real opportunity for national policy to impact rural, both in the negative and the positive potentially,” said Celli Horstman, a senior research associate at the New York-based policy think tank who co-authored the report.

Among the publicly available rural health transformation proposals, Democratic-leaning states show support, or are willing to adopt, some of the administration’s goals but will lose out on points from eschewing others.

For example, New Mexico said it would introduce legislation requiring students to take the Presidential Fitness Test and physicians to complete continuing education courses on nutrition. But it won’t prevent people from using their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to buy “non-nutritious” foods such as soda and candy.

Many states want to invest in technology, including telehealth, cybersecurity, and remote patient monitoring equipment. Other themes include increasing access to healthy food, improving emergency services, preventing and managing chronic illnesses, and enlisting community health workers and paramedics for home visits.

Specific proposals include:

• Arkansas wants to spend $5 million through its “FAITH” program — Faith-based Access, Interventions, Transportation, & Health — to enlist rural religious institutions to host education and preventive screening events. Congregations could also install walking circuits and fitness equipment.
• Alaska, which historically relied on dogsled teams to bring medication to remote areas, is looking to test the use of “unmanned aerial systems” to speed up pharmacy deliveries to such communities.
• Tennessee wants to increase access to healthy activities by spending money on parks, trails, and farmers markets.
• Maryland wants to start mobile markets and install refrigerators and freezers to improve access to fresh, healthy food that often spoils in rural areas with few grocery stores.

State Sen. Stephen Meredith, a Republican who represents part of western Kentucky, said he still expects rural hospitals to close despite his state’s rural health transformation program.

“I think we’re treating symptoms without curing the disease,” he said after listening to a presentation on Kentucky’s proposal at .

Morgan, whose organization represents rural hospitals likely to close, said the state’s ideas may sound good.

“You can craft a narrative that sounds wonderful,” he said. “But then translating the aspirational goals to a functioning program? That’s difficult.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News staffers Phil Galewitz, Katheryn Houghton, Tony Leys, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, Maia Rosenfeld, Bram Sable-Smith, and Lauren Sausser contributed to this report.

This <a target="_blank" href="/rural-health/rural-health-transformation-program-cms-state-applications-transparency/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">