On a weekday morning in a quiet Boston neighborhood, a kitchen bustled with activity. Volunteers sliced chicken breasts, stuffed bell peppers, filled trays, and carefully labeled each item. It was part of an experiment to offer nutritious and medically tailored meals to Medicaid patients who are unable to shop for groceries and cook for themselves.

“Once I started to eat these meals that were geared toward my illness, I built up my muscle mass again, built up my strength, built up my confidence in myself,” said Vanessa Georges, who is in remission from throat cancer and said she would struggle to consume enough calories without the deliveries. “These meals have given me a second chance.”

Georges said she noticed another benefit from the meals: She spends less time at the doctor’s office.

Researchers have found evidence backing her observation. About 1,900 Massachusetts residents who, like Georges, received medically tailored meals for at least three months needed less medical care, according to published in the journal Nature Medicine. They had 20% fewer emergency department visits and 31% fewer hospitalizations than similar patients who did not receive meals.

“It actually saves the healthcare system money,” said , a cardiologist and professor at Tufts University who led the study. “That’s a really big deal, because most things in healthcare don’t.”

The research from Massachusetts that medically tailored meals could save states money — in addition to improving health. Yet such programs could land on the chopping block as states look to tighten spending under Trump administration budget cuts, even as federal officials argue that food is a critical component of health.

Medicaid Budget Cuts Loom

The 2025 law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act slashed projected Medicaid funding by more than $900 billion. Many Republicans who backed the bill believe federal health spending is too high and riddled with fraud. Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, for example, has accused California of “outrageous fraud” for using Medicaid dollars to fund housing and nutrition programs.

, a policy analyst at KFF, said states will have to make tough choices in the next few years as they figure out how to fill funding gaps. “If states are not able to offset the loss of federal funds with new taxes or reductions in other state spending, they may have to make program cuts,” she said. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.)

Thirteen states have received federal waivers to use Medicaid dollars to pay for meals — part of an approach known as “food is medicine.” Three other programs are awaiting federal approval.

President Donald Trump’s support for social services has wavered. While the first Trump administration allowed states to pursue medically tailored meals and other social supports, the second Trump administration for Medicaid initiatives that address social needs. It hasn’t detailed a new policy. Administration officials have warned that they will be more focused on the budget impacts of such initiatives.

“They signaled they’re going to be a lot more skeptical,” said , an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School who studies nutrition programs and helped lead the Massachusetts study. “Instead of using a broad-based approach nationwide, they’re going to make decisions on a state-by-state basis.”

At the same time, health leaders in Trump’s administration have made nutrition a major focus, including by promoting . Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who leads the Department of Health and Human Services, and Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, have to serve healthier foods to boost patient outcomes.

The healthcare system is often willing to pay for surgeries, Oz said in a social media video in June, “but not always willing to pay for the nutrition that might help prevent those outcomes in the first place. That’s bothered me my whole career.” He added that the agency is , including medically tailored meals, to prevent illness and hospitalization. CMS officials did not respond to several emailed requests for comment for this article.

, who studies social determinants of health at Harvard Law School’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, said the lack of federal guidance is stirring uncertainty for states that want to pursue nutrition programs in Medicaid. “We’re still waiting to see that big step forward around ‘food is medicine’ interventions,” she said. “We need to see that step forward to resolve some of the uncertainty.”

Lawmakers have had a hard time engaging administration officials on medically tailored meals, said U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat who sponsored a bill that would pilot meal deliveries for some . The legislation has yet to come up for a vote.

“I had thought, based on some of his rhetoric before he entered the Trump administration, that RFK Jr. would be a natural ally on this,” McGovern said. “But we can’t seem to get his attention.”

The Costs of Poor Nutrition

Some companies have been accused of for meals that were neither healthy nor nutritious, raising concerns about lax regulation of these programs.

But at in Boston, the food is prepared with specific attention to sugar, salt, fat, vitamins, and minerals and is based on a person’s health needs, said , chief executive of the nonprofit. Many recipients require food that is mild or low in fiber, for example.

“What we’re able to do is to work with your healthcare provider to understand your health realities — what your diagnoses are, what your medications are, side effects, food allergies, cultural norms — and then prescribe a diet for you that is scratch-made,” Waters said.

The Massachusetts researchers found that the meals — at a cost of $125 per person per week — essentially paid for themselves. Patients with heart disease used about $10,000 less in healthcare services over six months, and patients with kidney disease used $12,000 less in healthcare. There were also savings for people with diabetes, depression, and anxiety.

“Those are pretty big numbers when you think of how expensive those diseases can be and the prevalence in the population,” Waters said.

Nationally, , 10 million Americans would benefit from medically tailored meals, though only a small fraction are enrolled.

“Poor nutrition is the top cause of poor health in this country. It’s the top cause of preventable healthcare spending,” said Mozaffarian, director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts. He has estimated that medically tailored meals could help patients avoid 1.6 million hospitalizations and in healthcare costs each year.

A Weekly Delivery That Makes a Difference

Steve Honyotski receives 10 meals at his Boston home each week, cooked fresh and delivered cold or flash-frozen. They’re ready to eat after just a couple of minutes in the microwave.

“The carrot ginger soup is my favorite,” Honyotski said.

Honyotski, 71, lives with several chronic conditions, including diabetes, obesity, and high blood pressure. He said he’s noticed improvements in his health since he started eating medically tailored meals. He needs less insulin to control his diabetes, and he’s lost enough weight to delay a knee replacement surgery.

For now, those meals will keep coming. And Massachusetts’ Medicaid director, Ryan Schwarz, said the state will seek federal approval to continue medically tailored meals in the coming years. “We feel very strongly committed to continuing these services,” he said.

In North Carolina, researchers found that food and housing supports lowered Medicaid spending over time. Yet even with federal approval for medically tailored meals, and evidence that the meals — along with housing and transportation support — were helping people, North Carolina state lawmakers suspended the services in 2025 over budget worries. After budget deliberations this summer, state legislators changed course and decided to the program.

“To me, that’s a signal of what might occur in other states as these Medicaid cuts hit,” said Hager, the UMass researcher. “Even though they have the authority to run these programs, it might be a lot harder for the states to actually implement them.”

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 .

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

When Josh Fleig, Louisiana’s chief innovation officer, learned his state had set aside $20 million a year, for five years, to invest in startup rural health companies, his reaction was not surprising: “Wow!”

In rural America, where people are often reported to be sicker with poor access to healthcare, the cash influx is a relief. In the economic development space where Fleig operates, it’s an opportunity.

“Look, that’s a lot of money for what we do,” said Fleig, whose state-funded economic development office invests in corporate launches, ranging from software startups to shipbuilders.

Louisiana and a handful of other states set aside money from their share of the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to quickly invest in new technologies, mirroring private industry moves. Lawmakers added the rural health program to offset more than $900 billion in reduced Medicaid spending expected over 10 years from Republicans’ sweeping 2025 tax and spending law.

But rather than filling the budget hole, the rural program’s assignment is to find new approaches for revitalizing rural communities where doctors are in short supply and hospitals have been downsizing and closing for decades. The federal government doled out the first-year rural health program awards to states this year, with pots ranging from $147 million in New Jersey to $281 million in Texas.

Modernizing technology infrastructure is a key pillar of the federal rural health program, and the catalyst money epitomizes the administration’s strategy to move fast and experiment with untested technology — much like the “move fast and break things” mantra during the heyday of Silicon Valley.

Instead of breaking things, though, the goal is to “move fast, fast-fail, innovate quickly, and move to sustainability,” said Aaron Bujnowski, a managing director with the healthcare industry group at the consultancy Alvarez & Marsal. “This is a transformation that is still meant to serve the people.”

Rigorous Rules and Tight Deadlines

Beyond Louisiana, Timothy Foster, a spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, confirmed that Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Nebraska, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia are also creating rural health tech catalyst funds.

Every year, states must compete for rural funding in the five-year federal program. Federal regulators will take money away from states that do not meet the goals promised in their applications, including whether they designated money to companies for tech innovations.

CMS, which is overseeing the program, released a seven-step for states to follow when creating the tech catalyst operations. No more than 10% of each state’s award can be spent on a rural tech catalyst fund.

States’ initial annual progress reports for the rural fund were due at the end of August. CMS has declined to publicly post those reports; it plans to publish an annual report on state progress. States must show that first-year funds will be obligated — but not necessarily spent — by Oct. 30, according to the CMS guidance document.

Daniel X. O’Neil, a technology consultant who advocates for open data and open government, created a and parsed the original state applications to find dozens that mention catalyst awards and technology funds.

O’Neil said he is “looking forward to the clawbacks and the craziness of October because, you know, that’s serious stuff.”

For the rural health catalyst funds, CMS requires states to submit the list of finalists “at least 15 business days” before announcing winners, along with “sufficient information” for the agency to “assess each proposed project,” according to the guidance document.

The document outlines intellectual property and federal rights but does not provide guidance or standards for patient rights or protections. CMS spokesperson Foster stated in an email that the technology investments must comply with federal “privacy, security, interoperability, and patient safety” requirements.

Protecting Patients

Maya Sandalow, director of the health program at the Bipartisan Policy Center and one of the leading analysts watching the rural fund, said the catalyst funds are “public dollars” and has called for more transparency in the overall rural health program. The center is a nonprofit think tank in Washington, D.C.

Accurate and timely reporting must be done to ensure “the necessary guardrails are in place” to protect patients, she said, adding that the innovation needs to be “tested in a way that’s safe for the patients that they are going to be used on.”

To apply, startups must be less than 10 years old and have raised less than $50 million in early funding. Companies that win a portion of state catalyst funds must meet predetermined milestones before being paid — and federal officials will make “targeted reviews as needed,” according to the guidance document.

Louisiana officials announced the state’s tech catalyst fund with an event in rural Natchitoches, known as the filming location of the 1989 film Steel Magnolias. The fund quickly drew more than 200 companies competing for between $250,000 and $3 million in seed money.

Tiny startup Greens Health was invited to the event. The 2-year-old company analyzes Medicare claims to identify patients with chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and works with local home health nurses and senior facilities to improve care.

“We’ve been looking for a way to launch in Louisiana,” said Kehlin Swain, co-founder and chief executive of Greens Health. The company serves about 100 patients across Texas, Alabama, and Florida and hopes to get a $250,000 investment from Louisiana.

Louisiana’s Fleig said his state is “at a really interesting turning point.” The state secured $208.4 million for the first year of the rural health program and quickly created its catalyst fund using the state’s already established innovation department.

At the same time, nearly 1.1 million people live in Louisiana’s rural parishes and the state ranks as the “least healthy” in the nation, according to its own application. State rates of diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease are among the highest in the nation.

Fleig believes Louisiana is an ideal place to test technology solutions. So, while Silicon Valley has “not needed much of what Louisiana has had to offer” for much of its existence, it does now, he said.

Caret Health is one of those companies. Co-founders Riya Pulicharam, who is a physician-researcher, and Kevin Zhao, an engineer, met in Silicon Valley. Together, they created a technology platform that identifies patients who need help getting to their appointments, having scans done, or picking up prescriptions. That technology flags a human, who then contacts the patient with a call or text.

Zhao said Caret had successful pilots at large health systems, but those places also had other vendors and “it was a pretty big uphill battle” to get in and scale. Then, in 2024, the company began paying attention to rural places.

“There wasn’t a lot of existing infrastructure. And that was really good for us because we were able to come in very quickly,” Zhao said. “A lot of the hospitals really needed this kind of service.”

Fast-forward to 2026: Caret Health is about 4 years old and has contracted with about 60 hospitals in 16 states. Pulicharam and Zhao hope to win $3 million to expand into Louisiana.

Louisiana’s Fleig said the state will take an equity stake in each company it invests in. “The dream” is that selected startup companies will also help the state make money to reinvest. If some companies fail — or fail fast — that’s to be expected, but the state should still make money because of “the law of averages,” he said.

“If we are good, we’ll make more money than we spent,” Fleig said. “Either way, it’s going to go back into improving healthcare outcomes.”

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

Court papers indicate a settlement in the case against the Department of Labor , although the parameters of any such deal are unknown.

It would come amid premium surges on Affordable Care Act marketplaces that have led millions to drop coverage this year. The Trump administration has also been sharply focused on expanding access to alternative coverage, such that avoid ACA rules on preexisting conditions and benefit requirements.

“Depending on what happens with the settlement, this could be an even bigger expansion,” said , director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. “People are worried that it is the opening salvo into promoting junk plans that don’t meet the ACA requirements.”

The plaintiff, Data Marketing Partnership, against the Department of Labor in 2019, during the first Trump administration. It wants official recognition as an employer so it can continue to allow its limited partners to buy into a type of job-based health insurance that doesn’t have to comply with state insurance rules or offer coverage as robust as required under the ACA.

But to grasp the claim, one also has to understand how the coverage works.

A consumer shopping for health insurance may come across information online or from a marketer about this concept, sometimes called “limited partnership” coverage. The pitch? Buy insurance offered through Data Marketing Partnership and handled by LP Management Services. To qualify, the consumer must download an app that tracks their internet searches. The company could then sell that data.

Some potential consumers may be turned off by the thought of their internet searches being tracked, but others may find it appealing because it allows them to become a limited partner eligible to buy into the company’s employee health insurance plans. But can these partners be considered employees?

The court’s answer has potential implications for regulators and consumers. Some health policy and market experts warn that a green light could lead to a proliferation of aggressively marketed and potentially questionable insurance with limited recourse for consumers because the plans would be exempt from state oversight.

“If this took off, you logically could see the rise of a whole bunch of what, functionally, would be unregulated insurance companies,” said , who was the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration during Joe Biden’s presidency and now runs his own consulting outfit.

No one knows if the department is going to change its long-running stance defending the case. But any settlement could add more uncertainty to insurance markets.

Already insurers are requesting double-digit increases in ACA premiums again next year, partly because declining enrollment often means that the healthiest policyholders are leaving. That trend could accelerate in coming years as more people are drawn into alternatives such as limited-partnership policies.

States Act as Federal Case Plays Out

The Department of Labor defended the case throughout the first Trump administration and the Biden era, issuing a sharply worded in early 2020 stating that people who simply download software to “capture data as they browse the Internet” are not “employees or bona fide partners.”

A district court judge in Texas, the ACA unconstitutional in a decision ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court, called the advisory opinion “” in a 2020 ruling in favor of the data marketer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the largely upheld the lower court’s decision but ordered it whether someone who downloads software is either a “working owner” or a “bona fide partner.”

The employer-employee relationship is at the heart of the case because of a designed to help large, self-insured employers offer retirement and health benefits to workers without having to meet varying rules from multiple states.

That law — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — allows such plans to avoid most rules set by the states, which generally regulate most other types of insurance and assist consumers who report problems with their policies. As self-insured employer plans, the policies also don’t have to comply with some ACA rules, such as the 10 broad categories of “essential health benefits.”

“If the case goes the wrong way, it could impact consumers or hamstring the states,” said Marie Grant, Maryland’s insurance commissioner.

Arguments over what constitutes an employer plan are not new, and other organizations have tried offering such coverage. Some states have taken action against purveyors of limited-partner policies.

Maryland in 2024 , The Vitamin Patch, for offering limited-partnership insurance after investigating complaints and determining it was not licensed to sell coverage in the state.

Washington in 2021 to stop offering its plans in the state and fined it $25,000.

and in 2024 warned consumers about this type of coverage.

“These plans do not provide comprehensive medical coverage and can leave consumers with large, unpaid medical bills,” according to Connecticut’s notice.

Maine’s announcement noted that entities offering these types of health insurance included The Vitamin Patch as well as Affiliated Workers Alliance, Consumer Data Partners, Employers Business Alliance, Socios Buenos, and Strategic Limited Partners.

State insurance commissioners in the Department of Labor case citing their concerns about losing the ability to enforce consumer protections.

“This is not a Republican-Democrat thing,” Khawar said. “It’s really a story about state authority, the way such authority would be significantly undermined in insurance markets.”

What’s the Risk?

Still, these limited-partnership plans are viewed by proponents as a needed additional choice for consumers, at potentially lower cost than ACA plans.

When the case was filed, attorneys general , for example, urged the Department of Labor to back Data Marketing’s request to designate its limited partners as employees. That would provide an option for people who “earn too much to qualify” for ACA subsidies and be an interim solution until the ACA could be repealed and replaced, they wrote. They argued that states would retain some regulatory authority and added that the Department of Labor, which oversees self-insured employer plans, could set requirements to “encourage” stable companies to enter the market.

Critics, the attorneys general wrote, might fear that ACA alternatives will draw away younger or healthier people, thus affecting those who remain, but they argued that had already happened.

Data Marketing’s attorneys emailed Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that they could not provide a comment for this article because the case is in active litigation. Neither the White House nor the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees the ACA marketplaces, responded to questions from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News about whether the Department of Labor has changed its stance and how the administration views limited-partnership health plans.

In court filings, however, Data Marketing said that without an employer designation, it would have to end the insurance coverage, affecting about 50,000 policyholders. That would also hurt its ability to generate revenue, it argued, because offering insurance is “a significant attractor” to get people to join its partnership and let it access their electronic data.

, who helped oversee ACA implementation in the Biden administration and is now a managing director at consultancy Manatt Health, had a different take. “The only reason why these sorts of products exist is because they aren’t beholden to consumer protection rules of the ACA and can essentially make money by attracting good risk, people who are healthy,” she said.

Maryland’s Grant echoed this warning, saying that proliferation of such plans could lead to even higher premiums in the ACA markets, if those who remain are older or sicker than those who leave.

Nineteen patient advocacy groups to the Department of Labor Aug. 11 urging it to continue its defense in the case, warning that a settlement that says such arrangements create an employer-employee relationship could “significantly” undermine “both state regulatory authority and decades of bipartisan efforts to promote stable, well-functioning health insurance markets.” Some of those groups in support of the department in 2021.

Days after the August letter, U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), the ranking member of the House education and workforce committee, warned the department against increasing the availability of “questionable employment relationships” and the insurance they offer.

He cited reports of call centers’ misleading consumers “who think they are enrolling in comprehensive health insurance but instead sign up for junk coverage under the guise of creating an employment relationship with what the consumer believed to be a traditional health insurer.”

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

She and her husband have not had health coverage for the past two years, Bates said, because their employment is unsteady and they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, the public health insurance for those with disabilities or low incomes.

When the GOP-led Congress allowed enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies — which helped lower the cost of plans sold on the marketplace — to expire at the end of last year, Bates’ mother-in-law dropped her plan, too.

Bates and her husband have a 2-year-old son. The mother-in-law also cares for a son who has autism. They all live together in a trailer home, spending about a third of their family income on prescription medications and opting for trips to the emergency room — often their main destination for medical care, since they aren’t billed up front.

It’s stressful, Bates said. Yet despite their situation, she said she remains “all in” for President Donald Trump. But she also said she’s recognizing flaws in his leadership.

“He’s trying,” Bates said. “It’s just a lot more other things have his attention.”

Georgia’s 14th District is the . It’s the district Marjorie Taylor Greene, who rose to prominence as one of Trump’s most vocal and loyal supporters, represented from 2021 to January 2026.

Greene made a notable pivot from the president last year when she publicly bashed Republicans’ handling of the enhanced ACA subsidies, which helped — along with her own adult children, she said — afford healthcare.

The following month, after Greene Trump of focusing too much on “foreign wars” and ignoring Americans’ economic struggles, the president attacked Greene and said he would no longer support her. Soon after, she announced that from Congress.

Still, many others in this semirural, exurban district, like Bates, remain loyal to Trump, even as more people go uninsured and face rising costs as a result.

Bates isn’t alone in feeling the pinch of healthcare costs this year. Nationally, 37% of Republican voters surveyed in June for said healthcare costs were “extremely important.” More than half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who support the Make America Great Again movement said that Congress did the wrong thing by letting the enhanced subsidies expire, according to released in March. And 62% of ACA marketplace enrollees put the most blame for the expiration on Republicans (30%) or Trump (32%).

But, as the November midterm elections approach, policy experts don’t anticipate the issue of healthcare costs will lead to a major shift in how people vote in deeply conservative areas like Georgia’s 14th District, even as policies that once benefited them are rolled back.

“They’re willing to stick with the party line,” said , a professor of political science at the University of Georgia. “As long as Donald Trump and other Republicans are saying Obamacare is bad, they’re going to continue to buy into that idea,” Bullock said, “even when it’s against their economic self-interest.”

Obamacare Still a ‘Dirty Word’

When the ACA was passed in 2010, voted for it. Now, 16 years later, Obamacare is still a “dirty word” for many conservatives, said , a professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

While previously the GOP’s goal was to “repeal and replace” the ACA, the current political strategy is “effectively rolling back some of the coverage gains,” he said.

According to a dashboard from NYU Langone Health’s Department of Population Health, of people younger than 65 living in Georgia’s 14th District were uninsured in 2024, which is higher than the . And in 2023, relied on Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, according to Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.

Last summer, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which restricted ACA enrollment periods, added monthly fees, and imposed new documentation requirements for enrollees. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the number of uninsured people in the U.S. would increase by about 15 million people over 10 years as a result of the new law, the expiration of the ACA subsidies, and other ACA changes. With the enhanced subsidies expiring at the end of 2025, ACA enrollment fell by this year. In Georgia, enrollment dropped by .

Greene’s not a fan of the ACA. She said her family’s health insurance premiums skyrocketed after it became law in 2010. But last year she surprised those on both sides of the aisle when she openly criticized her Republican colleagues over the subsidies.

“I’m going to go against everyone on this issue,” she wrote in an , “because when the tax credits expire this year my own adult children’s insurance premiums for 2026 are going to DOUBLE, along with all the wonderful families and hard-working people in my district.”

In a June interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News in Cumming, Georgia, Greene described the end of the subsidies as “catastrophic.”

“All over the country, people are constantly outraged over the cost of health insurance,” she said.

Like Greene, Bates has also wavered in her support for Trump. In addition to her frustration about the ACA subsidies expiring, she said the Iran war and inflation have also hit her wallet.

“I just don’t feel like he’s doing the best he could,” she said. “He did great his first term. But this term, it’s just not OK.”

While Republicans’ policies have made it more difficult for people to qualify for Medicaid and led to the end of the subsidies that made ACA marketplace plans more affordable, a clear plan to improve the U.S. healthcare system hasn’t emerged, Greene and policy experts say.

In December, House Speaker the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act. Touted as an alternative to extending ACA subsidies, was intended to lower premiums and increase healthcare access.

But the Congressional Budget Office found the bill would people by 100,000 a year from 2027 to 2035. While the House passed the measure in December, nearly nine months later the Senate hasn’t voted on it.

“It’s a Republican-controlled House, Republican-controlled Senate, Republican-controlled White House,” Greene said. “If Republicans had a plan, this was the perfect scenario to get it passed. You should have all the votes — get it done. And they’re not doing anything.”

Sticking to the Party Line

Despite such criticisms of Republicans for lacking a healthcare plan, voters in deeply conservative areas such as Georgia’s 14th District are sticking with Trump and his allies.

In April, the district elected Trump-backed Clay Fuller to replace Greene, though he won with than she had. He’s up for election again in November for a full congressional term. The University of Georgia’s Bullock said flipping the district from red to blue is unlikely.

Fuller’s office did not respond to interview requests for this report. But in a Q&A with the ahead of his April runoff with Democrat Shawn Harris, Fuller said that the expanded ACA subsidies, introduced under the Biden administration during the covid pandemic, were not a “a long-term solution.” Lowering healthcare costs would come from increasing competition and reducing federal overreach, he said.

Harris, who’s facing off with Fuller again in November, told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that the GOP strategy for the midterms is to continue to play off Republicans’ long-standing negative perceptions about Obamacare.

When people in the community are asked whether they support Obamacare, “they’re probably going to say no,” Harris said. But when asked about the Affordable Care Act, people tend to say, “‘Oh, yes, I need to have that,’” he said.

“They don’t realize it’s one in the same,” Harris said, adding that Republicans “sold everybody a bill of goods.”

As candidates campaign, they need to be in tune with their constituents, Greene said.

“That’s where I think they’re completely missing the mark,” she said. “They’re totally tone deaf to what Americans’ needs really are. And we need a serious solution.”

Bates considers healthcare among her top concerns. She said she doesn’t think anybody, including Trump, can make healthcare more affordable. But she hopes politicians will talk with people like her to better understand the burdens that consumers face.

“I honestly wish Congress would actually spend time in the life that we live,” she said. “They just sit behind their desks, and they don’t know what’s really going on in life, because they make so much money.”

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

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

But U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, in a , also agreed with the administration that it was unconstitutional for the government to use race or ethnicity as the basis to award money under a program created to expand internet skills and access.

“It was definitely disappointing,” said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that filed suit last year after not receiving a award meant to bolster digital and internet skills nationwide. “With this administration it’s really worrisome.”

Congress passed the $2.75 billion Digital Equity Act in 2021 as the skill development component of a multilayered “” initiative under President Joe Biden’s signature infrastructure law, which included a bigger pot of money for expanding internet infrastructure.

A few months into his second term, Trump directly attacked the Digital Equity Act on social media, pledging “” and calling the program “illegal.” The language echoed two Trump executive orders characterizing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs .

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which oversees implementation of the law, responded by Digital Equity Act grant programs, leaving states and organizations like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance in limbo.

In response to Bates’ decision, federal attorneys said the government would reinstate the NDIA-related competitive grant program without racial classification. The government aims to release a new grant application in December, according to a filed in the case.

The NDIA now must reapply for the grant award, which was slated to be disbursed among more than a dozen organizations and tribes, including the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, El Centro Hispano in Arkansas, Portland Community College in Oregon, and Community Service Programs of West Alabama. The grants are meant to go toward digital navigator programs, in which community workers teach technology and internet skills, according to the NDIA.

In western Ohio, Jamie Huber said her organization was a subrecipient of the NDIA grant funds. Huber, director of community services at the Northwestern Ohio Community Action Commission, said that without the funding, she is left searching for money to continue navigator programs such as one she runs for people who are unemployed, homeless, or both.

“How do you find a home? Well, you got to look online. And how do you find a job? You have to look online,” Huber said.

Huber’s digital navigators also teach internet skills at 10 senior centers in rural counties stretching along the corner of Ohio bordering Michigan and Indiana. They help active older adults learn how to go online to pay bills and get healthcare, so they “continue having agency over their own life,” Huber said.

Rural residents live sicker and die younger on average than people in the rest of the country when they live in counties lacking high-speed internet access and healthcare, an analysis by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News found.

At Computer Reach in western Pennsylvania, Executive Director Dave Sevick said his organization has cut staff and programs. He said the nonprofit, which started in 2001, has refurbished more than 24,000 computers, giving them away to families it finds through schools and churches.

“We’re aware that affordability is the biggest issue around, and this doesn’t make it any better for folks,” Sevick said. “We’re helping a little bit by getting a free computer out to people.”

The Digital Equity Act the money should benefit, including low-income households, older people, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups.

According to by the Pew Research Center, people in rural communities were less likely to have internet subscriptions compared with their urban and suburban counterparts.

The Pew Research polling that home broadband use among Black and Hispanic adults lagged that of white and Asian adults. While 81% of white adults surveyed said they subscribed to broadband at home, only 71% of Black adults and 68% of Hispanic adults said the same.

In court, lead federal attorney Patrick Butler argued that Congress failed to prove a compelling government interest when including the racial or ethnic criteria. Congress did not “identify anything close to” a specific instance of discrimination in the broadband industry, Butler said, .

Butler then surprised the court, if the racial or ethnic status could be severed from the law, “we would obviously apply the grant program without considering race.”

In his opinion severing the race factor, Bates that “the President lacks the power to cancel laws passed by Congress based on his bald disagreement with Congress’s policy determinations.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a primary , said she will be “watching very carefully to ensure this administration does what Congress intended.”

“It is indisputable that these challenges are particularly pronounced in low income, rural, and Tribal communities — and there’s a reason Democrats and Republicans across the country support this program so strongly,” Murray said in a statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Biden’s infrastructure bill in 2021 and to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in late 2024 asking the agency to pause the $1.25 billion competitive grants program, arguing the use of racial classifications “does not serve a compelling governmental interest.” Cruz did not respond to requests for comment.

Arielle Roth, administrator of the agency, previously worked as the telecommunications policy director for the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s majority staff under Cruz. She was to lead the agency.

In June, during a House committee hearing, Roth had tense exchanges with Democrats who took issue with changes to the Biden-era infrastructure law’s internet deployment program, which now allows more satellite services rather than prioritizing fiber-optic cable lines.

Lawmakers also asked about the Digital Equity Act’s grant programs.

“Communities across the country deserve a clear answer and a path forward,” Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) said during the hearing. While the National Digital Inclusion Alliance’s lawsuit does not include the state grants, Barragán asked how those grants would be rolled out, considering the federal judge’s decision on race.

California was awarded a $70 million state capacity grant. Early this year, the Justice Department to Congress asserting that the state grant and the competitive grant program both are illegally based on race, citing the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating affirmative action in higher education admissions. Roth declined to answer Barragán’s question, noting there is active litigation.

Barragán said she was “extremely” frustrated by “some of the responses or nonresponses.”

Stephen Yusko, a spokesperson with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, declined to comment or respond to questions for this article.

The government and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance agreed to pause court proceedings to give the agency time to reinstate the competitive grant program. The NDIA has also proposed that the agency provide status reports every 30 days during the court pause “to ensure prompt attention to reinstatement,” according to the most recent .

“We need to make sure it’s all moving forward,” Siefer said.

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

“Maybe this is my sign to try the full-time music thing,” Morgan recalled thinking. “Step one in that was: Get health insurance again.”

Austin bills itself as “the Live Music Capital of the World,” but it for the artists who provide the city with its cultural cachet — and help drive its tourism revenue.

Morgan has supported himself by patching together gigs with a number of bands. To help pay for health insurance, he turned to a local nonprofit, the , or HAAM.

“That’s part of being able to make this whole thing work,” Morgan said.

HAAM subsidizes the monthly insurance premiums of local musicians who purchase plans through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. To fund the roughly $4 million program, it works with Central Health, a public agency that provides healthcare resources for low-income residents of Austin and surrounding Travis County. Many of the performing artists pay $0 toward monthly premiums.

After more than a decade, including through the coronavirus pandemic, the assistance program has become an established and reliable financial support for Austin’s musician community.

This year, after Congress failed to extend pandemic-era subsidies, premiums skyrocketed for many ACA plans. A recent report found that 5 million people nationwide had . HAAM helped blunt the impact for its members. It has emerged as a potential model for other cities hoping to make healthcare more affordable for key populations and industries.

A Growing Idea

Texas had the among states, with 19% of people age 64 and under uninsured, as of 2024.

Even before the launch of the ACA marketplace in 2014, HAAM had spent a decade connecting musicians with free and low-cost care at clinics and hospitals in and around Austin. But roughly 85% of HAAM members remained uninsured, leaving them exposed when traveling to gigs in other cities and states.

“When the Affordable Care Act came out, and we knew it was here to stay, it really made sense for us to start getting our musicians fully insured,” said , HAAM’s chief strategy officer.

Similar nonprofits in other U.S. cities with strong live music cultures, such as , , and , help musicians get medical care. With the advent of the ACA, some of these organizations began helping musicians navigate the sometimes complex enrollment process for the online marketplaces, though they stopped short of pitching in on premiums.

But the team at HAAM recognized that without direct support to help pay premiums, many of their members would still struggle to retain coverage.

“When you think about the average HAAM member making about $30,000 a year, there’s no way that they would be able to spend a third of their income on healthcare,” Blair said.

The organization’s membership has grown by 77% to more than 3,300 people since HAAM began offering premium assistance, and more than 90% of members are now insured.

To help subsidize costs for members, HAAM partnered with Central Health, which is Travis County’s public hospital district — a type of health agency in Texas charged with using tax dollars to fund safety net healthcare for low-income residents. Central Health also operates the nonprofit , which offers marketplace insurance to Travis County residents.

To qualify, HAAM members must enroll in one of Sendero’s silver-level, or benchmark, plans. If their income is between one and two times the federal poverty level, Central Health pays the balance of their monthly premium after federal tax credits are applied. For members who fall above that income range, HAAM offers a more limited subsidy, covering 50% of their premium balances.

In 2017, HAAM helped set up a similar program in Denton, a college town north of Dallas that has served as a , from Meat Loaf to Norah Jones.

The Denton Music and Arts Collaborative works differently: It connects members with an independent insurance agent who helps them find the best health plan for their needs. The nonprofit then offers members a monthly subsidy of $100.

The subsidies are a way of keeping Denton’s culture of jazz and “weird art rock” alive, said the collaborative’s president, Jennifer Kapinos.

“More and more people were maybe graduating college and leaving and going to find better opportunities in other places,” Kapinos said. “People who had lived here a long time suddenly were finding it harder and harder to afford to be here.”

In Austin, other sectors have been watching HAAM’s work. In 2025, , a nonprofit that advocates for restaurant workers, launched a small pilot program with Central Health to help local food workers enroll in Sendero plans and cover their premiums.

Kit Abney Spelce, vice president of operations for Central Health, said partnering with an advocacy group focused on a particular workforce is key because simply announcing “free insurance for you” doesn’t mean people will sign up.

“We are very much dependent on our partner entity to go out and connect with the community, to have that relationship and that trust,” she said.

Navigating Federal Headwinds

Though premium payments often increase year over year, the 2026 plan year was particularly expensive, .

Citing medical and pharmacy costs, Sendero by an average of 16% for its enrollees. At the same time, Congress allowed the pandemic-era enhanced premium tax credits to expire, reducing the federal subsidies that many marketplace customers relied on.

“Our premiums for our members went up 60% from one year to the next,” Blair said.

HAAM stepped up its fundraising into 2026, but it wasn’t enough to cover everyone who requested assistance. They had to turn away hundreds of qualified people. Still, they were able to buffer existing members, said Spelce with Central Health.

“We’re going to make sure their monthly premium is paid every month,” she said.

A Viable, if Limited, Model

Beyond the eligible musicians they turned away in 2026, another population remains out of HAAM’s coverage reach for premium assistance: Austin’s poorest residents.

Under the ACA, the marketplace plans that HAAM helps subsidize are for low- and middle-income earners, but the people with the very lowest incomes — below 100% of the federal poverty level, set at — are supposed to be covered by expanded Medicaid.

But Texas is one of 10 states that chose not to expand Medicaid after the ACA became law, so many of the poorest Texans remain uncovered.

With no federal subsidies available for that group, HAAM and Central Health have tried to develop separate solutions for this subpopulation. Central Health has its , an alternative to health insurance that gives low-income, uninsured people access to a network of local care providers. HAAM has also with primary care providers to serve its uninsured members — but Blair acknowledges it’s not an equivalent benefit to what Medicaid expansion would offer.

“It’s not a very sustainable solution, especially when there’s a really good alternative,” Blair said.

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 .

Their family and friends thought the adventure-loving couple was on another jet-setting vacation, but they were keeping something else under wraps: They had turned off their phone locations to hide visits to a Greek clinic where they were trying to get pregnant.

The Solomons are among the growing numbers of Americans looking abroad, particularly to Greece and Spain, to escape the high cost of fertility treatments in the U.S., where such procedures are often not covered by insurance. The treatments include , which involves ovulation stimulation, retrieving the eggs, fertilizing them in a lab, and transferring the embryos into the uterus. Other less intensive medical therapies also address infertility.

President Donald Trump has made fertility, and IVF in particular, a focus of his administration’s agenda after he for women during his 2024 campaign. His administration intended to make it easier for employers to offer fertility coverage, although it has yet to be finalized. So far, the most concrete result has been lower costs for some IVF medications through TrumpRx, a site where cash-paying patients can find some discounted medicines through participating pharmacies. The White House projected that patients could save .

While significant, those savings are up against a since 2014, according to GoodRx, a prescription discount service. A released in July by Axene Health Partners and the Women’s Reproductive Health Foundation found that the overall cost for a cycle of IVF was over $29,000 — or 35% of the median annual household income in the U.S. Genetic testing, embryo storage, pregnancy care, and delivery costs can push the total over $54,000 per IVF-conceived birth, according to the study. An average patient needs two to three cycles to successfully have a child, so the costs for many patients would be even higher.

Infertility affects people in the U.S., but only an estimated 24% of treatment needs are met, because of those high costs and limited insurance coverage, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The condition is believed to be of people having children later, as well as such as pollution.

Still, were born via IVF in the U.S. in 2024 — a record, according to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. An increasing share of people hoping to be parents are seeking help in Europe: The number of Americans choosing European clinics grew by more than 37% last year, according to , the chair of the European Fertility Society, a group that tracks data on fertility treatment in Europe.

The Solomons knew IVF was their only chance to have children together biologically, because Justin had testicular cancer in his late teens. What the college sweethearts had not expected was the cost — and they learned early in their IVF journey that their insurance would not cover their treatment. While some states have passed laws to require insurers to pay for some fertility care, the coverage .

When the couple first explored IVF in Florida, where they live, they were quoted $40,000 for one round of treatment. The price shocked them, and Emilie said the clinic’s offer of a spring discount for an embryo transfer felt “off-putting.”

“They just kind of prey upon your hopes and dreams to be parents,” Emilie said.

Treatment Plus Island-Hopping Tours

The price of IVF and uncertainty around in Florida, which the Solomons feared their control over their embryos, sent them to the Pelargos IVF Medical Group in Athens. There, in the first of two trips, Emilie underwent ovulation stimulation and egg retrieval.

Including medication, fertilization, storage, and the ultimate embryo insertion, the total treatment cost about $12,000, not including travel, according to the Solomons, a fraction of what they might have spent in America. That affordability drew the couple abroad, but so did the allure of sightseeing and experiencing a new country.

On that first trip, they spent a weekend between doctor appointments exploring the Greek island of Milos. Between Emilie’s hormonal injections, they rented a boat to explore the island. Their video from the trip shows them climbing the island’s striking white volcanic cliffs, and Emilie floating in the turquoise water of the Aegean Sea. Despite the emotional and physical toll of the IVF process, the couple remembers being in a little bubble, away from everyone, exploring a beautiful place.

“It was one of the best summers that we’ve had,” Emilie said.

When they traveled back to Greece for their embryo transfer in October 2025, they spent two days in Croatia.

IVF in Greece using a patient’s own eggs typically costs around $3,000 to $4,000, not including medication, so even with travel, it is often a fraction of what patients pay in the U.S.

“Americans choose Greece because they can access treatment that is more affordable, faster to begin, and well supported for international patients,” Dejewski said.

Patients in Greece do face some legal restrictions: Embryo storage is time-limited, donor anonymity is standard, sex selection and embryo-transfer numbers are restricted, surrogacy access is limited for nonresidents, and patients must carefully consider documentation requirements if they plan to move embryos between Greece and the U.S.

Penny Ampatzi said she is clear about these legal differences when Americans consult with her clinic in Athens. Serum IVF offers to schedule airport pickup for patients, as well as island-hopping tours. Ampatzi, the co-founder and clinic director at Serum IVF, said the main draw for the dozen or so American patients her clinic sees each month is the personalized fertility treatment plans. Affordability is close behind. A cycle at her clinic costs just under $6,000, not including embryo freezing. Almost all of Serum’s patients are foreigners, according to Ampatzi.

“You consider that you have a good possibility of success, plus you don’t pay that high amount of money, and you also have combined the treatment with holidays — so it’s a ‘Why not?’” she said.

Not Without Risks

IVF costs in the U.S. have been driven up by a mix of inflation, a shortage of embryologists, a surge in demand after pandemic backlogs, and private equity ownership, Dejewski said.

William Kiltz, vice president of marketing and business development at U.S.-based , said that the costs are becoming too far out of reach. “IVF is almost a treatment that only the top 1% can afford reasonably,” he said.

Kiltz said CNY’s model — offering IVF for around $8,000, not including embryo storage, at its 18 locations across the country — brings just enough profit to “keep the lights on” and open new locations while keeping its costs lower. “We’re trying to deliver this care at the absolute bare-minimum cost,” he said.

More than half of CNY’s patients travel from out of state in search of those lower-cost options, Kiltz said.

He said he hopes the IVF market will eventually settle out, as happens with many new technologies. But nearly five decades in, that normalization hasn’t come. Kiltz believes that’s because the market is so emotionally driven.

“People will do just about anything,” Kiltz said. “There’s certainly some risk in something like that, where the demand and the desire from a single individual is so strong that they could be taken advantage of.”

, the head fertility doctor at the CNY location in Norfolk, Virginia, pointed to the difficulties of trying to vet a clinic overseas when one doesn’t speak the language or understand the local IVF regulations. It also can be challenging to transport temperature-sensitive medication back home.

“It’s almost like a full-time job trying to play regulatory expert and inspector all at the same time, while you’re a patient,” Pakrashi said.

She said she also has had patients who sought treatment abroad return to her clinic struggling to transfer records or understand a diagnosis they received overseas. They often have to repeat tests.

And going abroad for IVF is still out of reach financially for many Americans.

The Solomons said seeking treatment overseas takes a certain type of adventurous spirit, too. But for them, all the logistics and travel were worth it. Their one cycle of IVF and two trips to Greece allowed them to welcome a healthy baby boy this summer.

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

Transparency “is really important to help protect the integrity of the program, ensure funds are reaching the communities they’re meant to serve,” said Maya Sandalow, director of health policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center, a nonprofit think tank.

The federal government and states are compelled by public records laws to share documents when requested. But those requests can take months to fulfill, making their release too late for meaningful oversight as states rush to spend their allotments under tight federal deadlines.

In the meantime, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — which oversees the Rural Health Transformation Program — and some states aren’t proactively sharing information about where the funding is going and how it will be used.

CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said the agency “will publish an annual report on state progress.”

States’ individual reports to CMS are “intended to be” shared upon request, but the agency won’t be proactively publishing the individual state reports, according to a CMS document.

Foster didn’t respond to questions about whether the agency will share examples of projects that are and aren’t working or create a tracker of funding recipients, award amounts, and what organizations plan to do with their funding — ideas that health and government transparency advocates have requested.

Instead, much of the program’s transparency thus far has been up to state governments, and “the level of details that states have publicized really varies,” said Sandalow, who co-wrote a on how the federal government can strengthen the rural health program, including through transparency.

Some states are sharing information with lawmakers, holding public meetings, and explaining where organizations plan to invest their money.

Others are more secretive, with multiple states declining to release public records in response to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ requests. Mississippi’s governor , West Virginia holds closed-door advisory meetings, and a South Dakota official wrote that he hoped CMS would keep its application from public view.

“I just don’t believe in all this secrecy,” said Mississippi state Sen. Hob Bryan, who chairs his chamber’s public health committee. “If they’re not up to something nefarious, why do they have to do it all in secret?”

Bryan, a Democrat, said there’s about the lack of transparency in his state.

Reaching Rural Patients

Congressional Republicans created the five-year Rural Health Transformation Program last summer as an eleventh-hour sweetener to President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The money was intended to offset concerns about the anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to by more than $900 billion over a decade.

Sandalow said some states may be struggling to share information since they’re busy rushing to hire staff and meet the program’s tight deadlines, including an annual report due Aug. 31.

In the meantime, a slew of media outlets, nonprofits, and businesses are stepping in to make it easier for the public to track the rural health program.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is collecting states’ applications and approved plans and budgets, not all of which have been posted on state websites.

Rural Health Payout

Tracking Applications for Rural Health Transformation Funds

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is working to collect and post complete application materials, by state, here and will update this repository as new materials, released in response to public records requests, arrive.

Dec. 4, 2025

Rural Health Payout

Tracking State Rural Health Transformation Plans

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is working to collect and post approved plans as more states respond to emails and public records requests for their documents.

July 27, 2026

And several and have created trackers that , post funding opportunities, or list award recipients. But some resources are available only through paid services, aimed at helping businesses interested in applying for money.

Sandalow said previous federal programs “tend to draw attention for gaps in transparency and oversight rather than for doing it well.”

As an example, she pointed to the lack of oversight and transparency with the CARES Act and other covid relief programs, which saw .

In March, CMS published proposed quarterly and annual state reporting requirements for the rural health program, and a . At least three groups replied with letters expressing concerns about transparency.

CMS should share states’ progress reports, funding recipients, and what organizations plan to do with their awards, , the Bipartisan Policy Center’s vice president for health policy.

Sharing this information would make it easier to track progress, identify successful programs that other states may want to replicate, and “ensure funds reach the rural communities they are intended to serve,” he wrote.

Molly Smith, group vice president for public policy at the American Hospital Association, “to be as detailed as possible” about the “final destinations of these funds, given the complexity of the grant funding process.”

In , Charlene MacDonald, who leads the Federation of American Hospitals, noted that some funding recipients, such as large health systems and academic medical centers, will be distributing their awards to other entities.

CMS should collect those “downstream subrecipients,” wrote MacDonald, whose group represents for-profit hospitals and healthcare systems.

Without this information, she said, it will be difficult to know if “funding is reaching the rural hospitals, providers, and communities primarily intended to benefit from the program.”

It can also be difficult to know which for-profit companies are being paid with rural health money.

For example, and have listed hospitals and other health facilities that received funding to purchase telehealth, scanning devices, and other health technology. But the states list only some of the companies from which recipients will buy those products.

States won’t have to report “downstream” funding in their August reports to CMS but will have to do so for all future reports, according to the agency’s recently finalized .

The CMS documents say states must list subrecipients that receive subawards as well as vendors or contractors paid by an organization using rural health funding. Although states must report how much money these downstream recipients receive, they don’t have to describe which specific services or products the recipient is providing.

DIY Dashboards

As groups ask CMS to share more information, some states have created their own rural health spending dashboards or recipient lists, with varying levels of detail.

Alaska, , and other states list which organizations receive funding, their award amounts, and detailed descriptions of how recipients will spend the money.

and , however, are among the states that don’t share what awardees plan to do with their funding.

New Hampshire is that detail projects and their budgets on its Rural Health Transformation Program website. Some other states have uploaded contracts and grants on general procurement or award databases, which can be difficult to navigate.

, , and have used press releases to announce awards. But the announcements aren’t posted on their Rural Health Transformation Program websites, which could make it difficult to find this information.

Many states created advisory groups to provide transparency and accountability for their programs. Most committees host public meetings and upload minutes, recordings, or other materials from the discussions.

But the West Virginia Department of Health won’t share what’s discussed in its rural health advisory panel’s closed-door meetings, according to spokesperson Gailyn Markham.

“The panel is intended to serve as an informal forum for discussion and feedback among invited participants and program staff,” Markham said.

South Dakota, North Dakota, and Mississippi are among the states without advisory committees.

In response to public records requests, South Dakota released a nearly completely redacted version of its budget for the rural health program while Mississippi declined to release its budget.

Mississippi’s he vetoed a because it would “create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy” that would have slowed the award process, which could cause the state to lose out on future funds. Mississippi is “ in all this secrecy,” Bryan, the state lawmaker, told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Sandalow said it’s important for states to publish the impact of their rural health projects, adding that CMS should share which rural health projects are and aren’t working.

She said national and state health organizations are creating networks and holding conferences to help spread this information. States should “be able to learn from each other, get a sense of lessons learned and best practices, and then be able to pivot their initiatives accordingly,” Sandalow said.

Michael Cannon, who oversees health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said people should know how their $50 billion in taxes is being spent on the rural health program, and whether state projects are making rural patients healthier.

If investors put that much money into a project, there is “no way” they “would let the recipients of those funds get away with the shoddy approach to transparency and accountability that the states are taking,” he said.

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

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News worked with three Louisiana news outlets — , , and — to ask all 64 sheriffs in the state how they’ve spent their opioid settlement funds. The responses were shared and presented in a data table for all four newsrooms to use. Reporters then conducted individual reporting for separate articles.

Every state is from companies accused of flooding the nation with prescription painkillers and fueling overdose deaths. But only one state is directing 20% of those payouts to sheriffs — the largest carve-out for law enforcement nationwide.

In Louisiana, sheriffs are elected, do not serve at the pleasure of another local official, and have independent budgets. They’re also not required to proactively report to the public or another authority how they spend billions in opioid settlement cash.

Short of filing public records requests or waiting for official audits, that has made it difficult for the average person to track the windfall. Many consider the dollars to be “blood money” and believe the spirit of the settlements is to spend it all on abating the addiction crisis.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News worked with three Louisiana news outlets — , , and — to track those dollars. The newsrooms contacted all 64 Louisiana sheriffs over five months, often filing public records requests, to produce the first detailed accounting of millions spent.

The findings include:

• Thirty-eight sheriffs reported spending more than $8.1 million total. Much of it went to crime-fighting equipment, such as surveillance cameras and drug detection products, though smaller amounts funded mobile apps, addiction treatment in jails, and educational programs for youth.
• $5.4 million, about 66% of reported spending, was deemed inappropriate by a three-person review panel. The panel, assembled by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and its partners, included a Louisiana resident in recovery who lost his son to a fentanyl overdose, an addiction medicine doctor, and a public health policy analyst who has been tracking settlement dollars since 2022. They judged the expenditures using their professional and personal expertise. Expenditures the panel disapproved of included salaries and overtime pay for homicide detectives and officers conducting jail shakedowns to find contraband.
• $4.7 million, nearly 60% of reported spending, went to items or services that other states say should not be purchased with opioid cash. Six states have , such as technology to extract data from cellphones and automated external defibrillators, which are . Although Louisiana does not have its own “unallowable” list, the state’s — a five-member body that advises sheriffs and parishes but does not control the money — said it has shared the guidance from other states.
• Nine sheriffs stood out for promising uses: All of their expenditures, totaling nearly $1.8 million, were deemed appropriate by the review panel and allowable in other states. These included providing addiction treatment in jail, training officers to respond to overdoses, and increasing public awareness of addiction resources.
• Twenty sheriffs did not provide their expenditures, leaving roughly $10.7 million that hidden from public view. The Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, which covers an area just outside New Orleans and was allotted the highest amount — nearly $4 million through 2025 — did not respond to more than a dozen calls and emails.

Nationwide, debates over law enforcement’s role with opioid settlement money have been underway since the funds began flowing significantly in 2022 and have continued as the pool of money has grown. Purdue Pharma, , finalized its this year, and various settlements are set to pay out for an additional decade-plus.

Since the earliest days, these dollars have been viewed across government agencies and the private sector as a pot of gold for which many are vying.

Law enforcement agencies are part of this scrum. They say seizing drugs and arresting dealers save lives, but that costs money and the addiction crisis has burdened their budgets. However, many recovery advocates staunchly oppose any opioid cash flowing to what they see as the .

Since there are few guardrails on how the money is spent, decisions often come down to how local politicians and residents see addiction and what type of approach they believe will be effective in combating it.

Louisiana provides a natural experiment to see which priorities prevail when money is handed directly to sheriffs.

First Public Look at How Louisiana Sheriffs Have Spent Over $8M in Opioid Settlement Cash

In Louisiana, sheriffs receive 20% of the state's opioid settlement cash — the largest carve-out for law enforcement nationwide. But since sheriffs are not required to proactively report how they spend the money, it's hard to track. Reporters from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News contacted all 64 sheriffs to uncover spending details. <br><br> Click column headings to sort the table.

Note: In some cases, the amount of money spent exceeds the amount allocated because sheriffs may have reported spending that included their 2026 allocations or because sheriffs combined their opioid settlement dollars with the share received by parish governments or other funding sources. Descriptions of spending are based on emails or phone calls with the sheriffs' offices and have been lightly edited. <br> Source: The money allocated to sheriffs was obtained by summing values for years 1-5, representing 2021-2025, from the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Task Force’s <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">public spreadsheet</a>. Data on money spent was collected by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News. • <a href="/download-the-data-louisiana-sheriffs-opioid-settlement-expenditures/&quot; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Download the data.</a> <br> Credit: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News' Lydia Zuraw and Aneri Pattani, The Current’s Alena Maschke, Gulf States Newsroom’s Drew Hawkins, and Verite News’ Katie Jane Fernelius

The state’s agreement with parishes and sheriffs receiving settlement cash contains broad categories for , including “law enforcement expenditures relating to the opioid epidemic.”

But even if the sheriffs’ spending is legal, that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate or effective, addiction and public health experts say.

“What’s happening here is they have a lot of money and they want to distribute it to all the wrong places,” said Danny Bolner Jr., a Jefferson Parish resident who has been in recovery from addiction for more than two decades and lost his 28-year-old son to a fentanyl overdose in 2016. On the panel that reviewed expenditures, Bolner represented the view of families who have lost loved ones to the crisis.

The purchase of drones and vehicles struck a nerve for him. He’d prefer for opioid cash to support programs that educate youth about healthy ways to process emotions, provide job training to people in recovery, and distribute overdose reversal medications.

“This money is what we have to save lives,” he said. If sheriffs use it in other ways, the finite pot “is going to be gone and then they won’t have nothing to help.”

A Safe, a Scanner, and Surveillance Cameras

For , a public health policy analyst and national opioid settlement expert who was a member of the review panel, determining if expenditures fit the spirit of the settlements often centered on whether they facilitated arrests or prevented overdoses.

“The impetus of this opioid settlement money is to spend on innovative ways to not let this happen again,” she said, referring to the overdose crisis that has claimed since 2000. She said sheriffs should be asking, “How could we use this to reinvest in the community, not just build up our office?”

Many of the sheriffs’ equipment purchases didn’t meet her bar.

For example, the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office bought a safe to store evidence from opioid investigations and a scanner for their traffic division to identify narcotics in hidden compartments. The Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office spent $465,000 on , which are automated license plate readers that capture data about passing vehicles and share them with law enforcement agencies nationwide. The Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office purchased 130 body cameras and 50 dash cameras.

Sheriffs already receive taxpayer dollars and federal grants to buy law enforcement tools, Christensen said. Opioid cash, which is finite and has a specific purpose, should not be used for that, she and the other reviewers said. In fact, some states don’t allow it.

13 Louisiana Sheriffs Spent 100% of Opioid Settlement Money Inappropriately, per an Expert Panel

The expenditures were reviewed by Tricia Christensen, a public health policy analyst who has been tracking opioid settlement spending since 2022; Stephen Loyd, an addiction medicine doctor and a person in recovery who serves as West Virginia's drug czar; and Danny Bolner Jr., a person in recovery who lost his son to a fentanyl overdose and is raising his son’s daughter in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. A majority vote determined which expenditures were appropriate. <br><br> The map depicts the percentage of money each sheriff spent on expenditures disapproved by the reviewers.

Note: The reviewers voted on the propriety of each expenditure based on their own views of the purpose of opioid settlement money. The rates of opioid-involved deaths are age-adjusted. Rates based on counts <5 were suppressed by the Louisiana Department of Health to protect privacy. "Opioid-involved deaths" include deaths in which opioids were present in the body and/or contributed to death, even if they were not the sole cause of death. <br> Sources: Settlement spending and reviewer opinions collected by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News; opioid-involved death rates from the Louisiana Department of Health <br> Credit: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News' Lydia Zuraw and Aneri Pattani, The Current’s Alena Maschke, Gulf States Newsroom’s Drew Hawkins, and Verite News’ Katie Jane Fernelius

But taxpayer money may not cover everything sheriffs need, said , executive director of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association. “Our budgets are overloaded,” he said.

Complex investigations to dismantle drug trafficking syndicates can require advanced equipment, , a spokesperson for the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, wrote in a statement.

“While treatment and recovery services are indispensable components of addressing opioid addiction, they address the consequences of addiction after these drugs have already reached our community,” she wrote. “Law enforcement has a different, but equally essential, responsibility: preventing those deadly drugs from reaching potential victims in the first place.”

First Lt. Blake Tabor, a spokesperson for the Terrebonne sheriff’s office, similarly wrote, “Our role as a law enforcement agency is primarily focused on disrupting the criminal activity that fuels addiction in our community.” That effort complements other entities’ work in prevention, treatment, and recovery, he added.

The Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office declined to comment.

Where Public Health Meets Public Safety

Not all sheriffs spent the money on enforcement.

Acadia Parish Sheriff directed all his settlement cash to provide treatment in jail. He said he hopes to break cycles of addiction and crime.

“I want people back into society, being productive,” he said.

Research shows for opioid use disorder behind bars and .

In St. Martin Parish, settlement funds helped launch a of officers that connects people with substance use disorders or related mental illness to treatment, said Chester Cedars, chief legal counsel for its sheriff’s office. Officers also try to coordinate support services for family members and assist with questions around paying for care.

“We’re not clinicians,” Cedars said, but we “serve as a broker” between people who need services and those who provide them.

, an addiction medicine doctor and the West Virginia drug czar, who was the third member of the review panel, said he loved the comprehensive nature of the program. Addiction “is a family issue,” he said. “Every time that phone rings, it’s a potential family crisis.”

It’s not a coincidence that these parishes earned top marks from the reviewers. Cedars is the former chair of the , and Gibson is the current chair. That’s the body meant to guide others on priority uses of settlement cash.

Cedars was clear that the St. Martin sheriff’s office was not using “one penny for any enforcement activity,” because that’s not what the settlement “intended to accomplish.”

Gibson was more hesitant, saying the legal guidelines are broad and “I’m not here to criticize anybody.”

He has advised about a dozen sheriffs who have reached out with questions, but he knows they’re not required to heed his guidance.

A from the Louisiana Legislative Auditor found that the task force has no teeth to enforce its recommendations.

If people want stronger guardrails on the opioid cash, state lawmakers need to enact new rules, Gibson said.

Stepping Up Oversight

The Louisiana state legislature in May calling for the legislative auditor to review how all parishes and sheriffs are handling their opioid settlement money and report to lawmakers prior to the 2027 legislative session.

State Sen. , a Republican who co-authored the resolution, said the goal is to shed light on where dollars are flowing, if jurisdictions are spending them at all, and which funded programs are effective.

With that information, Myers said, he and others could “absolutely” introduce bills “to tighten up how funding is spent.”

Louisiana Sheriffs Spent $4.7M in Opioid Settlement Cash on Items, Activities Deemed Unallowable in Other States

Six states — <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">California</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Indiana</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Kansas</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Michigan</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">South Carolina</a>, and <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Virginia</a> — have created lists of items and services that they say opioid settlement funds should not be spent on, including surveillance cameras and vehicles. Although Louisiana does not have its own "unallowable" list, the state's Opioid Abatement Task Force said it has shared other states' guidance with some sheriffs. Yet nearly 60% of the sheriffs' spending involves items found on such lists.

Note: Unallowable lists may not be legally binding in each state but are considered strong guidance. <br> Source: Data collection by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News <br> Credit: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News' Lydia Zuraw and Aneri Pattani

Meanwhile, the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Task Force is trying to strengthen its oversight.

Curtis Nelson is executive counsel for the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Administration Corporation, a nonprofit that supports the task force. He said the body is seeking quotes from accountants to conduct ongoing forensic audits of parishes and sheriffs. The goal is to audit 10 to 15 entities annually, starting with those receiving the most money. If the audits turn up misuse, the task force could withhold future payments from those parishes or sheriffs, Nelson said.

The task force is also exploring creating its own unallowable list, like those in other states, Nelson said.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill did not respond to questions about whether they’d support an unallowable list or take other actions to address opioid settlement spending.

But many advocates are hopeful that an unallowable list could curb spending they found concerning.

“You’re keeping them on the track when you tell them what they can’t use it for,” said Bolner, the Jefferson Parish resident who lost his son to overdose and is raising his son’s daughter.

While he awaits greater oversight for sheriffs, Bolner plans to continue the work he’s been doing for years: distributing overdose reversal medications at schools, hospitals, and bars; participating in grief support groups with other families; and showing up at community events to raise awareness about addiction. He said he’ll keep speaking with sheriffs and parishes about what he considers the best use of settlement money.

“If I save one life, it’s accomplished,” he said.

Methodology

The Current’s Alena Maschke, Gulf States Newsroom’s Drew Hawkins, and Verite News’ Katie Jane Fernelius contributed to the database featured in this article.

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

Ethan has autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. He was diagnosed with autism in kindergarten after displaying behavior that concerned his relatives: He paced, flapped his arms, and became consumed with highly specific interests, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and dachshunds.

In a meeting with school administrators and the district to develop his individualized education program, a legal agreement that outlines the support Ethan requires, the team agreed he required a trained paraprofessional to help him regulate his emotions and remain in class, according to complaints Smith filed against the school. However, the complaints alleged, administrators were unwilling to provide the dedicated aide. Instead of implementing the supports her son needed, his school repeatedly removed him from instruction, suspended him, and even called police on him when he was in third grade, Smith wrote.

Smith, a seventh grade science teacher, said she first filed complaints with the school district and the state with these allegations. But when problems persisted, she turned to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, the federal agency tasked with resolving complaints like hers. Smith’s federal complaint included the same account and alleged that the school discriminated against her son because of his disability and race, including deploying pressure tactics to push her Black son out of the public school. In May, the office said it would investigate several of her allegations.

For families who believe their child’s rights were violated based on race, disability, or gender in school, the federal agency often has been one of the main places to turn. But the White House cut its offices and weakened its ability to follow up with cases, as well as slashed funding to that people of color face in for disabilities.

About 1 in 31 U.S. kids by age 8 had been as of 2022. Although previous research on disparities in childhood autism diagnoses has had mixed results, a recent study from the State University of New York at Albany’s Institute for Social and Health Equity found that race, gender, and socioeconomic . Among fourth graders from 2003 to 2022, students of color, girls, low-income students, and multilingual learners were less likely than peers to be identified with autism in school, even as diagnoses rose among children from historically marginalized groups, the study found. A large forthcoming study by the same researchers found the biggest gaps among overlapping identities. Black and Hispanic girls were especially unlikely to be identified.

All this has happened as President Donald Trump’s second administration has put autism in the spotlight. In early August, Trump to whittle down routine immunizations for kids while falsely tying vaccines to autism. He has presented it as a and one of “the most alarming public health developments in history.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in April 2025 called autism a and he’s lent credence to , including unfounded links to childhood vaccines and .

“This administration is taking us backwards,” said , founder and executive director of The Color of Autism Foundation.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email that Kennedy’s statements last spring “emphasized the need for increased research into environmental factors contributing to the rise in autism diagnoses, not to stigmatize individuals with autism or their families.” She added that the agency changes are “about making federal support systems work better for children and families.” White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did the press office for the Department of Education.

The cuts to agencies and research have affected parts of the federal government focused on students with disabilities. In March 2025, Trump signed an to dismantle the Department of Education and of its Office for Civil Rights’ 12 regional offices. This June, his administration special-education oversight to HHS and the Office for Civil Rights to the Department of Justice.

“On paper, it’s a reorganization,” said , a former supervising attorney at the Office for Civil Rights who now runs her own education law firm. In practice, she said, it could leave families whose complaints involve overlapping harms — such as race and disability discrimination — caught between agencies built for different jobs. “The hardest thing to prove in these cases is now the thing with no obvious home.”

In April, a year after the order, a Senate committee report from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) concluded that the Office for Civil Rights had in resolutions to discrimination complaints and had a backlog of nearly 12,000 civil rights cases. A recent Washington Post investigation found that the Trump administration “indefinitely froze” many of these cases.

On top of those cuts, the White House vowed to in areas such as school discipline despite research showing that nonwhite and low-income kids disproportionately face barriers to being identified with autism and and other neurodevelopmental diagnoses.

It the Institute of Education Sciences, the Department of Education’s research arm, canceling roughly $900 million in funding for research, including . The administration further data collection on racial disparities in school discipline. The National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation have referencing terms including “race” and “gender,” focused on diversity, equity, or inclusion.

“If we’re cutting any data collection that helps us understand the problem, we’re not going to fix it,” said , director of the Institute for Social and Health Equity at SUNY-Albany, who led the studies on disparities in autism diagnoses. “All we’re doing right now is making the situation worse.”

The nation’s also appears to lack prominent scientists and Black members and has fewer autistic self-advocates than before, said Proctor of The Color of Autism Foundation, who served on the panel before the Trump administration took over. The panel has also been criticized for including .

HHS’ Hilliard said the members “bring decades of experience in autism research and clinical care” and are committed to aligning “federal policy with gold-standard science.”

Disability advocates say federal officials are focused on the wrong priorities.

“All of it creates chaos where chaos is not necessary,” said Cameron Lynch, a former policy analyst for the .

Disability rights advocates fear the changes to special education oversight weaken the federal safety net for autistic students and others with disabilities, making these systems more confusing when families need help enforcing students’ rights.

David Sitcovsky, Autism Speaks’ vice president of advocacy, said families, especially those from marginalized communities, already often lack support for their children to receive a timely diagnosis or services in their school systems.

“The common thread across these issues is access,” Sitcovsky said. “If their child’s rights are not being upheld, do they have a clear path to get help?”

Smith awaits a decision about her federal civil rights case, which she was told could take more than a year amid the backlog, as Ethan has started fourth grade. She wants Ethan transferred to a school better equipped to support him. She has also requested an expedited hearing for a due process complaint she filed with the state.

The family is also navigating battery charges against Ethan, the first of which was filed in March after the school called police on him for allegedly hitting staff. A police report and an email provided by Smith showed that police arrived at her door hours after Smith informed the school district in writing that she had filed a federal discrimination complaint. Smith also pointed out the timing in several of her complaints.

A Polk County Public Schools spokesperson declined to comment, citing student confidentiality. The Florida Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment.

“As a Black mom, you dare not complain about anything,” Smith said. “Once you start advocating for your kids, it’s a problem. But it’s not these kids’ fault that they have a disability.”

Without timely assessments and interventions, , children of color with disabilities such as Ethan are disproportionately at risk of being and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in the Obama and Biden administrations and is now executive director of the Edley Center on Law & Democracy at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law. She said it’s a scary time for families who want to protect their children’s rights.

“People speed if they don’t see a police car,” Lhamon said. “If they think that there’s no one at the federal government watching them in school, we will see an increase in discrimination.”

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