Last year, Baltimore had three in the span of three months in its Penn North neighborhood.

In one incident, more than two dozen people were hospitalized after many were , lying in the streets or on sidewalks. No one died, but some came close.

Follow-up that the street drugs of N-methylclonazepam, a benzodiazepine that operates similarly to Xanax or Valium. Like opioids, benzodiazepines suppress breathing. When they’re combined, the goes up. And benzodiazepines don’t respond to opioid overdose reversal drugs.

Afterward, the created test strips specifically for benzodiazepines. The group distributed them — along with test strips that identify other harmful adulterants, such as fentanyl, , and medetomidine — at clinics and neighborhood events. The strips, available at no cost, can also be found in bars and spread out on street corners. People testing drugs mix a small amount with water and then dip a test strip into the liquid. The strip will change color if it identifies an adulterant.

“Nobody really knows what they’re getting whenever they’re getting stuff off of the street,” said Candy Kerr, a spokesperson for the coalition. “Having the test strips available for the general public gives them the option to move slower if they’re going to use whatever they’re going to use.”

But a new federal policy could make it harder for organizations such as Kerr’s to give out the test strips, and they’re worried that overdoses could increase. In late April, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration banned the use of federal grants for distributing strips to the public and for some other harm reduction practices that have been credited with saving lives. Test strips have been used for to identify adulterants.

sent to local health departments and nonprofits that provide addiction services explained that the Trump administration believes those harm reduction practices “facilitate illicit drug use and are incompatible with Federal laws.”

According to the letter, grants from the Department of Health and Human Services also cannot be used for programs that support the use of clean needles or drug paraphernalia such as pipes, or to fund a type of that people can , so someone is aware and can call for help if they overdose. 

The Trump administration wants to focus more on other techniques, such as giving out naloxone, an overdose reversal drug available as a nasal spray, according to Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson.

“It is critical that federal funding provided by the American taxpayer goes to effective, common-sense solutions that have been proven to save lives and keep people out of an endless cycle of addiction and moves them into a life of recovery,” she said.

The new policy does not prohibit federal funds from being used to purchase test strips for use by law enforcement officers, public health officials, EMTs, or other medical professionals.

That creates an important exception for government agencies that test drugs and send out on what adulterants are saturating the drug supply in certain locations.

Still, , who oversaw SAMHSA’s in the Biden and Trump administrations, says there is a substantial body of evidence giving test strips to people who use drugs can change behavior.

“There’s some people deciding not to use the substances, some people deciding to reduce, to use less, or take other types of precautions, including naloxone, and making sure that there are people around that can actually then help in the case of an overdose,” Olsen said.

Kerr said the best approach would be to continue to promote the use of test strips while also continuing to give out lifesaving medications like naloxone. She believes that working on all fronts has helped lead to Baltimore’s decline in overdose deaths, which more than 40% since 2023.

Under the new policy, nonprofits will still be able to hand out test strips, but they will have to find other funding for that work, which Kerr finds worrisome.

“We’ve been making these strides forward because we’ve had these things, because we’ve been funded,” she said. “We’re going to have to pull money from other places.”

To pay for the test strips, Kerr said, the Baltimore Harm Reduction Coalition will have to cut back on services such as giving out hygiene and wound care kits. But she said that option is better than risking another mass overdose in Baltimore — or allowing even just one preventable fatality.

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 .

Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that AI nurses can provide “concierge care” to rural patients. Mehmet Oz, who leads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “the best way to help some of these communities is going to be AI-based avatars” that connect rural patients to mental health services.

And many state health leaders agree. They are using some of their funding from the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to expand AI among rural health organizations.

AI is computer technology that performs tasks that typically rely on human intelligence by finding patterns or generating words. It has the potential to improve the healthcare system by automating back-office work or identifying patients at risk, but several reports contend there’s little evidence AI can improve access to care and patient health in rural areas. It’s unclear how well states will track and share outcomes of the tech they invest in.

Meanwhile, some rural Americans are skeptical, according to interviews with people in Hot Springs, South Dakota, a city of about 3,400 residents at the southern end of the Black Hills.

“I get artificial intelligence for certain things, but for personal healthcare — no,” Tara Haffner said while standing outside the American Legion.

Haffner said she’s worried about AI making mistakes and wants healthcare to stay between her and her doctor.

But Phillip Mues, who oversees technology at Cherry County Hospital and Clinic in rural Valentine, Nebraska, said AI is already helping clinicians save time, reduce burnout, and focus more on patient care.

“I think it will help reduce burden on actual staffing,” he said. “It won’t replace people, but I think it will help in rural communities.”

Still, Mues said, AI can’t fix every challenge. Rural hospitals at risk of closing or ending certain services probably can’t use AI to save enough money to prevent those consequences, he said.

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

The Word on the Street

Hot Springs, which has a 25-bed independent hospital and a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, is known for its sandstone buildings, veterans’ services, and, yes, hot springs. Residents must drive at least an hour for more advanced care.

Six people interviewed there by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News said the biggest problem in rural healthcare is the cost or long wait times caused by staffing shortages.

Doug Nikkila, a heavy equipment operator, said AI and other technology come with benefits and risks.

“If it’s not utilized correctly, it becomes a burden,” he said.

Nikkila, who’s concerned about nursing home residents being neglected amid staffing shortages, said he thinks AI should send reminders to staff when their residents are due for diaper changes or other care. He also wondered whether AI-powered video monitors could send alerts when they detect falls or illness symptoms.

The healthcare industry is rapidly adopting AI despite the tools being “poorly evaluated,” according to a , a Stanford- and Harvard-led group that evaluates health-related AI. The report says that while some AI has been successful in controlled settings, there’s less evidence it can perform in the real world. It also said few studies track patient outcomes.

Evidence is especially lacking in rural areas. A found that only 26 peer-reviewed studies about AI in rural healthcare were published from 2010 through April 29, 2025. Few analyzed implementation or outcomes.

Despite the dearth of results, some states appear interested in bold experiments — such as using AI to suggest diagnoses or recommend treatments. Utah officials said in their application to the rural health program that they are interested in funding a in AI-powered prescription refill requests.

Even tools proven to work in urban settings may not work in rural ones, said Qian Huang, an assistant professor at the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University.

She said the technology is usually tested at large, academic hospitals and trained on data from urban patients, who may not have the same health issues and obstacles — such as a lack of transportation — as rural patients.

A Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News review of states’ plans for the Rural Health Transformation Program shows they’re interested in using AI to automate time-consuming, behind-the-scenes tasks, such as medical charting, coding, referrals, and prior authorization requests. Some states also mentioned ways AI can save money, such as Washington, which discussed tools that “identify and recover” money it’s owed.

Mues said the Valentine clinic has been using AI scribes that record appointments and generate notes describing the visit. He said surveys of clinicians before and after they started using the technology show the scribes have helped reduce burnout by letting providers focus on patient care with “eye contact on the patient, not the computer.”

States also mentioned funding AI that directly affects patient care, such as tools that recommend possible diagnoses and treatment options to clinicians. Mississippi wants to use predictive AI algorithms to “guide” emergency medics with “triage, routing, and treatment decisions.”

Several states want to use AI to analyze patients’ medical charts and remote monitoring devices to identify immediate or future health risks. North Dakota’s plans mention AI to “detect early signs of chronic disease and behavioral health conditions,” while New Hampshire’s discusses AI that identifies patients “at high risk of adverse drug events.”

Some states plan to give patients access to chatbots or wearable devices that transmit data to their clinicians. Utah is interested in funding AI-powered fetal-monitoring devices, while Kentucky will explore using AI chatbots to “deliver personalized nudges and education” through “health coaching, gamified incentives, and rewards.”

Whether the technology appeals to consumers is another matter. Hot Springs resident Stephanie Keller wears a smartwatch to track her fitness but has no interest in an AI chatbot using her data to encourage her to reach her health goals.

“I don’t have the time to chat with AI every day. I mean, are you kidding me? I don’t want to spend my time on a cellphone,” she said.

Rural health facilities also face challenges in implementing AI.

Huang, who has AI in rural healthcare, said rural hospitals and clinics may not have the hardware or IT staff needed to support the technology. She said clinicians and staff may already be doing three jobs at once and not have time to go through AI training.

Rural health facilities may not have fast-enough internet to use AI, while patients may have slow connections at home — if they have internet at all — or may not feel comfortable using AI, Huang said.

“In rural communities, trust and a personal relationship is essential,” she said.

Roy Ehlers, a Hot Springs resident, said he doesn’t trust AI in healthcare, or anywhere else.

“I’m old-fashioned. I don’t believe in it. Technology is not my forte,” Ehlers said.

Mues said that while some rural patients are “scared of AI,” most have let their clinicians at the Valentine facility use the scribing technology to record patients’ visits.

Will States Share AI Results?

Despite questions about implementation, the boom is on. Jordan Everson, an assistant professor at the Georgetown University Department of Family Medicine, said both urban and rural health facilities are rushing to use AI.

“The risk of signing contracts that rural healthcare organizations come to regret is pretty high,” said Everson, who previously worked in the information technology office at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Several states are addressing that risk by using their rural health funding to create groups that will help rural health facilities vet, select, or monitor AI tools while offering training, ongoing assistance, or funding for upfront costs.

CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said the agency doesn’t have any AI-specific reporting requirements but is working on a form for states to report their overall progress and outcomes.

Abraham Pritzker, who works at Julota, a company that helps health organizations track data, said states should measure more than how often AI programs are used.

For example, states can measure whether the tech reduces falls, 911 calls, or hospital admissions, said Pritzker, a former paramedic. Huang said it’s also important to ask clinicians and patients about their experiences using AI.

Yet many states’ applications to the rural health program mention tracking only AI adoption metrics, not what happens after facilities deploy the tech. Some of these states may add further reporting requirements down the road.

Vermont spokespeople did not respond when asked why their state’s requires organizations to report only how many clinicians and patients are served by the tech, not how much time they save.

States requiring recipients to report outcomes include , which will track how often AI-powered patient monitoring devices trigger accurate alerts. organizations to track cost savings, while Wisconsin lists “patient outcomes” and “productivity and efficiencies” as possible metrics.

Huang said that after collecting results, states need to share them so other states and healthcare organizations can learn from their experiences.

“We do not have a lot of resources to waste on tools that don’t work in rural areas,” she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early Embrace of New Rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It took everyone by surprise,” Tolbert said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Possible Exemption for Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If he wanted to learn more about an outbreak of measles or hantavirus, he would pore over the weekly CDC report that came by email. If a patient’s family was traveling to Africa or Asia, he would check the latest CDC vaccine recommendations for overseas travel. And if a family was worried about potential side effects from a shot, he could always send them to the CDC’s website to bolster his argument to get the immunization.

Public trust in the CDC has in the road , but for medical professionals, Snyder said, “the CDC used to be, worldwide, the most trusted source of information pertaining to public health and infectious disease.”

Yet even doctors began losing trust, Snyder said, after Donald Trump was elected president again. Trump quickly tapped longtime anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC.

Within months of his confirmation as secretary, Kennedy had of the CDC’s vaccine advisory board and replaced them with , some of them prominent vaccine skeptics.

“It turned into a completely unreputable source of information,” Snyder said.

This rupture of scientific trust in the CDC has put many pediatricians like Snyder in a bind, as they no longer turn to the country’s preeminent public health agency and instead search for ways to fill the information gap. Some doctors are launching their own vaccine education efforts, sometimes in collaboration with local public health departments.

On Jan. 5, the CDC from the recommended for all children — against the advice of major medical groups like the . The as the agency dropped rotavirus, covid-19, influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and meningococcal disease from the list. The agency did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

In March, after , a federal judge to revert to the previous guidelines. The administration the judge’s decision.

The back-and-forth “creates a whole bunch of confusion in the public,” Snyder said. “And it’s very confusing even for healthcare providers.”

So he’s trying to be clear to patients about what the evidence shows, even if that means going against the federal government. His practice, Amherst Pediatrics, to say: “The CDC is no longer considered to be a reliable or legitimate source of information.”

“It’s shocking that we have to say that,” Snyder said. Instead, the site directs families to get information from their own doctor, the state of Massachusetts, or nongovernmental medical organizations including the AAP.

In the exam room, Snyder is having more tense conversations with families. He said some parents are explicit that they want to hew to what the CDC recommends. “Even if they don’t say that, we have definitely seen increasing hesitancy and questions,” he said. “All of that interferes with us protecting children.”

On a spring afternoon, several of Snyder’s young patients came into Amherst Pediatrics for routine visits.

“Let’s talk about vaccines,” Snyder said to one mother, Tenzin Dekey, who was there with her 1-year-old. Snyder explained that her son was due for the , which protects against measles, mumps, and rubella, in addition to the chickenpox, hepatitis A, and flu vaccines.

“So that’s four shots, two in each leg,” he said, as he handed Dekey CDC information sheets about the vaccines. She glanced at them and agreed to the shots.

Ironically, the information sheets are stamped with the CDC’s logo — — even though Amherst Pediatrics has explicitly directed patients away from the CDC. Snyder said he hates that disconnect.

“This has been a source of heated discussion,” he said. “How can we be saying, ‘Do not trust the CDC when it comes to vaccines,’ yet here is the information we’re giving our own patients when they’re in the office about vaccines?”

Another mother brought her 14-year-old son for his annual physical. She asked to be identified by only her first name, Melissa, so she could freely discuss her family’s private health issues.

Snyder recommended the , which helps . Although Melissa had refused the HPV vaccine in a previous visit, this time she left the decision up to her son. He agreed to it. But for other vaccines, she wouldn’t budge.

“I’m a hard ‘no’ on the covid,” she told Snyder.

“We could talk about that if you want,” he suggested.

“I don’t need to talk about it,” she replied.

After the appointment, Melissa said she just doesn’t know whom to trust anymore when it comes to vaccine safety. She used to get information from the CDC but no longer does.

“I worry that it’s been politicized a lot, and I don’t like politics,” she said. “Now I prefer to hear things from people, healthcare professionals.”

Such distrust and confusion inspired Snyder to join an independent vaccine information campaign, along with other pediatric practices and health departments in the Connecticut River Valley of Western Massachusetts.

The campaign’s website, which is promoted in Snyder’s waiting room, is called . It sidesteps the CDC and highlights advice from local doctors and national medical groups, . Valley Vax bought ads on the sides of buses in Western Massachusetts to promote the site, with the faces and testimonials of local doctors including Snyder.

“We wanted something that felt familiar and appealing and that they might be more likely to trust,” said , director of Amherst’s public health department, who coordinates the Valley Vax effort.

She said the organizers decided not to criticize the CDC outright.

“Some information from the CDC is reasonable. Like they are doing a good job of tracking influenza-like illness rates in the country,” Malin said. “It’s important not to discount an organization completely.”

Still, she said it’s the first time she’s had to contradict health information from the CDC. “That’s not a comfortable place to be in at all,” she said.

Other health leaders are also banding together to get out evidence-based information. At the state level, California, Hawai‘i, Oregon, and Washington — frustrated with the CDC — operate the to “ensure the public has access to credible information.” And governors of 14 states and Guam set up the in response to declining trust in federal health agencies.

Locally, some public health departments are partnering with community leaders to reach people who have stopped listening to government institutions but “do have strong connections within their faith community or do have strong connections within their neighborhood,” said , a spokesperson for the .

Like Amherst, many local health departments now direct people to professional medical organizations instead of the CDC, Casalotti said, because advice from those groups may change slightly as the science evolves, but it’s unlikely to change with each lawsuit against the government.

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 .

Rovner talks about the fallout from Trump administration cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies. She also shares why she thinks healthcare will play a big role in the 2028 presidential election, and how she hopes her new podcast project — “How Would You Fix it?” — will contribute to the discussion.

You can hear “How Would You Fix It?” on Rovner’s weekly What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News podcast, in which she speaks with newsmakers and journalists from top media outlets about the latest health policy headlines. 

Credits

An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and Public Road Productions.

For more from the team at An Arm and a Leg, subscribe to its weekly newsletter, . You can also follow the show on , , , and . And if you’ve got stories to tell about the healthcare system, the producers would love to .

To hear all Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to An Arm and a Leg on , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

That could change. In June, the Department of Justice issued saying federal disability rights laws don’t require states to provide services that allow people with disabilities to remain in their homes rather than institutions.

It’s a sharp reversal from 1999, when a held that unjustified institutionalization constituted discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Previous administrations have relied on that ruling to enforce civil rights for disabled people, but the Trump administration says that long-held interpretation is wrong.

Advocacy groups say legal protections for about and 5 million children who have disabilities could be undermined, and they worry that the new interpretation may herald a return to forced institutionalization.

The stage is also now set for a legal fight between advocates, states, and the federal government. Some states with ongoing lawsuits challenging disability rights requirements are already citing the DOJ opinion in hopes it will help them prevail.

In a case in Texas, for example, that a rule instituting a 1973 civil rights law that led to community and home integration of people with disabilities is costly and infringes on states’ rights.

People like DeSimone-Shabrack are especially worried because, they say, the opinion follows a spate of White House and Republican-led initiatives that have already begun eroding hard-won protections for people with disabilities.

“I’m worried. Am I going to have to put him in an institution, and what’s that going to be like for him?” said DeSimone-Shabrack, whose personal home care help was recently reduced from 30 to 18 hours a week by the state. “As he gets older, am I going to be able to care for him without this support?”

The Department of Health and Human Services remains steadfast in enforcing federal civil rights laws, agency spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email.

“Our commitment to ensuring that individuals with disabilities are treated with dignity, afforded equal opportunity, and are able to meaningfully access community services remains unchanged,” she said.

But advocacy groups say the DOJ opinion could have sweeping repercussions. The opinion doesn’t change existing law, but advocates worry that HHS and the DOJ could begin that mandate integration for people with disabilities.

They’re concerned that agencies will stop enforcing disability laws that ensure people aren’t. HHS, for example, has historically investigated disability discrimination claims at hospitals and in states that get federal funding, enforcing compliance with home and community integration through . Disability rights experts say those agreements could now be imperiled.

And some states facing financial pressures may roll back Medicaid services that enable people with disabilities to stay in their homes and communities — a trend that’s already happening following last year’s passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cuts a projected from the safety net program over a decade.

Democrats are seizing on the opinion, which was released in a DOJ memo, to portray President Donald Trump and Republicans as a threat to people with disabilities. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and other Senate Democrats led the calling on the DOJ to rescind the opinion.

“The Trump Administration’s memo is an outrageous attack on the rights and independence of the disability community,” Duckworth said in a statement.

The DOJ didn’t return emails seeking comment.

According to the DOJ’s interpretation, regulations that give disabled people the right to demand certain services for daily living — bathing, mental health counseling, and financial budgeting help, for instance — and that require states to extend to mentally disabled individuals are unlawful, a view the agency acknowledged “is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts.”

States may have legitimate reason to treat mentally disabled people in institutions, “including resource constraints, capacity limitations in community-based facilities, and safety concerns for both the patient and the community,” the memo reads.

The Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., has long shaped federal policy. And while it remains to be seen how courts will respond to the DOJ, some states seeking to curtail disability protections see the opinion as significant.

Consider the in federal court in the Northern District of Texas by Republican-led states arguing that an HHS rule about the integration mandate is unlawful. The lawsuit began with broader claims and 17 state plaintiffs. Following significant advocacy from the disability community, only Texas, Alaska, and Florida remain.

Following the new DOJ interpretation, the states filed documentation to inform the court about the memo as a new and relevant development. Similar documentation citing the memo has been filed in disability rights cases in Florida and New Hampshire, according to The Arc of the United States, a disability advocacy group.

Advocates for people with disabilities say the speed at which plaintiffs are citing the opinion underscores how it may be used to justify the erosion of protections.

“The administration’s attempt to dismantle decades of progress in community integration is alarming and inconsistent with federal disability rights laws and Supreme Court precedent as well as the critical enforcement work of prior administrations,” said , senior executive officer of legal advocacy and general counsel at The Arc.

Forced institutionalization led to human rights violations, segregation, and a eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that included involuntary sterilization.

Exposure of the abuses, legal battles, and an caused a major shift toward integration. Fewer than 1% of people with intellectual or developmental disabilities lived in state-run facilities in 2021, down from almost 30% in 1967, from the University of Minnesota’s , which maintains metrics on such long-term services and supports.

The Trump administration has already taken steps to reverse that trend, advocates say.

Trump signed that addresses homelessness by expanding involuntary treatment and institutionalization, reversing a championed by the Biden administration.

Much of the special education program office is moving from the Department of Education to HHS, raising concerns among advocates that the administration is reverting to a view that disabilities are a medical issue to be fixed rather than differences that can be accommodated.

And cuts in federal funding for Medicaid, a federal-state insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, also portend fewer resources and services. States have responded by reducing some optional benefits such as home health aides and support. In addition, qualifying for an exemption from the program’s work requirements, which take effect Jan. 1 in most states, will pose significant hurdles for people with disabilities.

The June DOJ opinion, advocates say, could accelerate the shift and result in court rulings that chip away at disability rights.

“While it doesn’t overnight change the law, it’s very troubling and very dangerous,” said , director of the Disability Rights Program at the American Civil Liberties Union. “It reflects a really deeply held disrespect for disabled people from this administration and a total lack of awareness of the lived experiences of people with disabilities who are living in their homes.”

Data shows there can be benefits to involuntary institutionalization. Relative to those voluntarily admitted, people with psychiatric illness who were involuntarily admitted “experienced greater improvements in symptoms and function,” according to a in Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Deinstitutionalization has created new challenges. More hospitals have been forced to board people with psychiatric illness in emergency rooms because of a dearth of available beds. And moving people into home- and community-based living was supposed to be accompanied by an increase in outpatient care and treatment that never materialized, creating gaps in support.

But advocates for the disabled community say involuntary institutionalization and poses a higher risk of neglect and abuse.

, 57, of Cleveland, spent two years in a nursing home. She has spinal muscular atrophy, a genetic disease that kills motor neurons, leaving her able to move only part of her left arm and her head.

At the institution, she said, she felt bored and trapped and developed intense itching from scabies, which is caused by microscopic mites.

For more than a decade, however, she has lived in an apartment with the help of caregivers who come in the morning to get her dressed and ready and return to put her to bed. She works at a disability rights group, and her care is covered by Medicaid.

“The two years I lived in the nursing home, it was the most horrible time in my life,” said Kucera, who worries about the DOJ opinion on Olmstead. “My future is a shaking floor beneath me. With the stroke of a pen, they could get rid of everything I’ve built for myself.”

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

Enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans fell by nearly 3 million this year to about 19.2 million, following steep premium increases by insurers and the Republican-led Congress’ unwillingness to extend more generous premium subsidies. On average, ACA customers in premium payments this year, a 58% increase from 2025, according to KFF, while their deductibles — the amount consumers must pay annually before insurers pick up their share — have climbed 37% to nearly $3,800 a year.

“These are real people who are now forced to make impossible choices,” said Annalyse Keller, a spokesperson for a large coalition of lobby organizations for the healthcare industry, including insurers and patient advocacy groups.

But a released in June, written mostly by President Donald Trump’s political appointees and allies, asserts that 5.6 million people were fraudulently enrolled in ACA plans in 2025, and that the Trump administration removed 2.9 million of them — the same number as the 2026 drop in enrollment.

There’s little dispute that the ACA suffers from some fraud, as do most government programs. The administration said it has taken actions to tighten the enrollment process to thwart brokers who fraudulently enroll people without their knowledge.

For example, the administration in August 2025 halted a Biden-era initiative that allowed low-income people to sign up for coverage year-round. Regulators 1.5 million people since 2025 for reasons such as not meeting a requirement to file their taxes over two years or being concurrently enrolled in another health program, such as Medicaid, which is not allowed.

But health policy experts say that the administration is overstating the extent of ACA fraud and that the HHS report relies on debatable assumptions, such as that all sign-ups under the year-round enrollment program for low-income people were potentially fraudulent. ACA enrollment fell off a cliff because of escalating prices for insurance plans, policy analysts say, which the administration’s done nothing to stem.

“The top-level claim” that all the decline in enrollment since 2025 is because of improper or fraudulent enrollees leaving the market “is not remotely credible,” said , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “We know that lots of people have seen higher premiums, and there’s really good evidence that when premiums go up, people drop coverage.”

Healthcare costs are a big concern for voters ahead of November’s midterm elections, and both Democrats and Republicans are trying to spin the issue to their advantage. Democrats argue more needs to be done to make insurance less expensive for consumers, while Republicans are trying to focus on the need to save taxpayer dollars from fraud.

found that voters trust Democrats over Republicans to address healthcare costs (37% vs. 26%). The poll also found, though, that 55% of Republican voters consider it extremely important for candidates to address healthcare fraud, more than any other issue, showing that the White House’s effort to shift focus from costs has had some success with its own supporters.

But Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina, questioned whether the fraud narrative will hold up as voters continue to struggle with rising costs.

“It will be cold comfort to the very real persons who could no longer afford coverage and dropped their plans,” he said in an email to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

How We Got Here

Under President Joe Biden, Congress that included more generous tax subsidies for people enrolled in Obamacare, starting in 2021. Those enhanced subsidies lowered premium payments, for a large enough tax credit to reduce their monthly payment to zero. The Biden-era law also allowed wealthier households to get assistance.

ACA coverage essentially doubled, from just over 11 million Americans in 2021 to more than 22 million in 2025, according to the HHS report.

Republicans and conservative groups argue that the growth wasn’t driven only by people newly enrolling because of lower premiums. Instead, they say, the enhanced subsidies, along with other Biden-era policies — including easing income verification requirements for some enrollees — invited fraud. Unscrupulous, commission-seeking insurance brokers found it easier to sign people up for coverage, often without their knowledge, while ordinary consumers could more easily fudge their income and qualify for the largest subsidy possible.

The conservative Paragon Health Institute’s president, Brian Blase, wrote that the HHS report’s conclusion on the scope of improper enrollment is likely an undercount. He remains unconvinced by the arguments that rising premiums are to blame for the sharp drop in ACA enrollment, saying subsidies remain generous for many people.

The Administration’s Current Targets

The debate will continue as more enrollment data emerges from the federal marketplace and the exchanges run by states. Some policy experts — including the consulting group Wakely — expect the year to end with the number of ACA policyholders down by .

Trump’s regulators will likely connect further drops with anti-fraud efforts. The HHS report alleges there are potentially millions more who remain improperly enrolled. The report’s authors noted that some of the administration’s anti-fraud proposals have been blocked by court rulings.

HHS released June 27, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pats Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, on the back for the number of canceled ACA plans so far. Oz threatens potential ACA hucksters: “Don’t walk away from us, run! Because we are going to find you.”

In an email responding to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ questions, CMS spokesperson Christopher Krepich said his agency this summer will block ACA applications made by brokers that lack a Social Security number. By open enrollment this fall, CMS plans to require more identify-proofing when brokers enroll people and will limit a broker’s access to accounts until that person “has been authorized by the consumer to work on their behalf.”

How some suspicious enrollments will be removed is spelled out in emails sent in June to insurance carriers and obtained by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

CMS told insurers that the agency will send them files for ACA accounts it believes are potentially unauthorized. Each flagged consumer account will have used a sales broker to enroll, be in a zero-premium plan, and lack a Social Security or an immigration documentation number — which Kennedy said in the video is a glaring sign of fraud.

Insurers must try to contact the enrollees to verify that they signed up for coverage. After 60 days, insurers must report policies they were unable to verify to CMS, which will cancel them.

Krepich wrote that carriers are cooperating with efforts to investigate accounts with missing or unverified information.

Policy experts, including Fiedler, note that the absence of a Social Security number doesn’t automatically prove fraud. While it could indicate a fake enrollee, a missing Social Security number might also be a simple oversight by the consumer or their broker, for example, or a newborn added to a parent’s account at birth, before they’ve received a number.

“That the administration put it in a report and did not summarily terminate these enrollments suggests they believe there is some mix of different circumstances,” Fiedler said.

The administration report singles out another segment of enrollments as suspicious: very low-income, subsidy-eligible people who shifted to plans that carry no monthly premium, suggesting “fraudulent agents and brokers are moving them to keep gaining commissions and avoid detection.” The report also cites ACA enrollees who file no medical claims as suspicious.

Policy experts question the assumptions behind those concerns.

Younger or lower-income people use healthcare less often, for example, which can explain why they may make no claims — particularly when they must first spend thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to meet high deductibles.

And very low-income people may switch to plans with higher deductibles in exchange for making no premium payment because they struggle to come up with the $50 or $80 monthly share that other plans might require.

“People are hurting for money,” said Florida insurance agent Jason Fine. “I literally have people who can’t afford to pay $15. I would not immediately assume that a person who went from a silver plan to a bronze plan, that it’s fraud,” referring to two types of ACA plans.

Fine said the administration needs to focus on better enforcement of existing rules, saying he has reported to regulators dozens of unscrupulous agents who have switched clients without authorization, yet none were barred from selling ACA policies.

He and other agents continue to push for adding multifactor identification, as banks and other financial institutions use, to the federal ACA marketplace. Some states that run their own exchanges have two-factor authentication or other types of ID verification and have not reported problems with unauthorized switching.

CMS — under both Biden and Trump — has not added two-factor authentication to the federal marketplace, healthcare.gov.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) to require it in June, but its prospects are murky.

“It will help reduce fraud,” said Ronnell Nolan, who leads Health Agents for America, a lobbying group that has long urged CMS to add the feature. Grothman’s legislation, she said, might “encourage CMS to do it themselves.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xavier Becerra, Running for Governor in California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amy Acton, Running for Governor in Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a , the small Department of Health and Human Services agency known as AHRQ told researchers it was halting , many aimed at improving patient safety. Although Congress appropriated $345 million for AHRQ for this fiscal year, the agency has spent less than $15 million on grants and hasn’t issued a new one in over a year, according to a review of federal records. About 75% of agency staffers have been fired or quit since President Donald Trump took office last year, according to HHS.

Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have sought to slash the federal government’s investment in biomedical research, terminating grants and forcing scientists out of agencies across the health department. The gutting of AHRQ strikes some of the administration’s critics as particularly shortsighted, though, because of the agency’s noncontroversial focus on patient safety and its overall alignment with Trump and Kennedy’s “Make American Healthy Again” campaign against chronic illness.

“When you think about everything Americans hate about our healthcare system — that it costs too much, that you can’t get in to see a physician, that the treatment isn’t right, that the records contain wrong information — all that is what AHRQ studies,” said Aaron Carroll, chief executive of AcademyHealth, a health services research group that supports AHRQ’s work.

The Trump and Kennedy changes to AHRQ appear intended to be permanent. All of AHRQ’s grant managers have been fired, so there would be no way for AHRQ to directly oversee future grants, said Brent Sandmeyer, a former AHRQ program officer. “You wonder about this administration’s commitment to fighting fraud,” he said.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said AHRQ intended to establish a new “framework” for grants. She did not reply to requests for further details.

Researchers who received the letter from AHRQ Director Roger Klein expressed bewilderment because much of their work has the same objectives that Klein highlighted as the agency’s current priorities.

“AHRQ is the only federal agency that’s focused on safety and quality,” said Hardeep Singh, director of the Houston Methodist Safety, Quality and Well-Being Institute. His research, funded until recently by AHRQ, has aimed to reduce medical errors introduced by inadequate software design.

Klein stated that AHRQ’s research interests include patient safety, preventing antibiotic resistance, countering overmedication of children, promotion of digital health tools, and research “focused on scientifically valid, measurable health outcomes and solution-oriented approaches in health disparities research.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News examined about 20 of the canceled grants and found that nearly all had objectives that overlapped with the priorities Klein outlined.

“If there’s an ideology, lay it out clearly. But there’s no clarity whatsoever,” said Goutham Rao, chairman of the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. AHRQ has funded Rao’s work for 16 years and ended three of his department’s current grants.

As an AHRQ-funded researcher since 2010, Rao has produced work that led to new approaches for common problems seen in doctors’ offices, such as how to respond to weight loss in aged and frail patients. His work has helped reduce diagnostic tests in the elderly and improve hypertension screening of children.

“The priorities they lay out in that letter make me think they didn’t even look at what we were doing,” said Andrea Shields, a University of Connecticut OB-GYN whose AHRQ grant was also eliminated.

Shields developed and implemented training of nonspecialist doctors, nurses, and emergency medical technicians to deal with high-risk pregnancies. Women in rural areas are two to three times as likely to die during pregnancy as those elsewhere in the U.S.

A Long Legacy

AHRQ-funded research has been key to improving patient safety, structuring medical information technology, and introducing the concept of patient-centered care into the health system.

The agency is perhaps best known for its work on curbing hospital infections. Practices introduced because of AHRQ-funded studies prevented an estimated 20,500 deaths and saved $7.7 billion in healthcare costs from 2014 to 2017 alone, according to an analysis the agency conducted.

Teams at Harvard, Yale, and Rand in Santa Monica, California, developed a national standardized patient survey that HHS and healthcare systems use to refine healthcare practices with patient perspectives in mind, said Susan Edgman-Levitan, who has worked on that project since 1995 but recently lost her funding. She and her colleagues developed a definition of patient- and family-centered care that became a pillar of healthcare evaluation. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services bases some of its payments on hospital surveys her group designed.

AHRQ researchers working on five-year grants typically get letters confirming their award in the summer or fall each year. Last year, Edgman-Levitan said, they got no word and no money. They wrote a letter to Klein but heard “not a peep” in response. Then, around 5 p.m. on July 15, an emailed termination notice arrived. The $1 million annual grant was for developing hospital surveys regarding childbirth and behavioral health services.

“My salary is gone. The salaries of all my research assistants, survey scientists, all lost. It’s terrible,” she said. “But I’m near the end of my career. The salary piece is not as devastating as the loss of what I view as really critical work and support for improving childbirth care and patient care in general.”

Klein, a molecular pathologist and Federalist Society-affiliated lawyer who took over the agency last July, has told staff that artificial intelligence can replace much of the evidence review and analytics done by AHRQ scientists, according to one current and one recently departed AHRQ official, whom Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News agreed not to name to protect their jobs.

Such comments align with a report issued July 22 by White House science adviser Michael Kratsios, which said the government should “refocus support on individual scientists rather than legacy institutions, diversify funding mechanisms beyond slow consensus peer review,” and build the future with AI.

Klein did not respond to requests for comment. HHS spokesperson Hilliard also did not respond to specific questions about AHRQ’s plans or objectives.

Of the July 15 letter, Hilliard said: “Under statute, the AHRQ director must determine whether continuation funding is in the best interest of the federal government. AHRQ determined that certain non-competing continuation grants and jointly funded grants would not receive continuation awards.”

Hilliard said the grants were not terminated but rather were “not awarded continued funding.” This subtlety may have legal relevance for grantees planning to sue the administration, said Lauren Adams, a spokesperson for AcademyHealth.

‘None of It Makes Any Sense’

The Society for General Internal Medicine sued Klein and health secretary Kennedy last August over AHRQ’s failure to issue new grants. The lawsuit, , argues that failure to use most of AHRQ’s $369 million fiscal 2025 appropriation is illegal under a 1974 law intended to protect Congress’ power of the purse.

“None of it makes any sense,” said Nora Becker, an internist at Michigan Medicine who lost the last two years of a five-year training and research grant on the relationship between financial difficulty and health outcomes. “The MAHA agenda could fit nicely with AHRQ priorities — we focus on chronic conditions, the quality of care, deprescribing, identifying harms of overmedication.”

She added: “To be honest, it doesn’t feel like any of this is being done in good faith. Part of me just wonders whether the goal was to destroy AHRQ. But I don’t know why AHRQ was such a target.”

Hilliard said that “the Trump Administration remains committed to the responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”

In March 2025, Kennedy announced plans to fold AHRQ and parts of other HHS agencies into a new Office of Strategy. But Congress has shown no interest in the reorganization plan.

Klein hasn’t publicly commented about AHRQ’s overall objectives or plans since attacking previous AHRQ activities in a Newsweek opinion piece he co-wrote with an assistant that was published in January.

The article argued that under previous administrations, “scientific neutrality” had given way to “moral signaling” on diversity and equity. But now, Klein wrote, the Trump administration had righted AHRQ’s focus to “generate evidence that improves how health care is delivered.”

Klein has held no agency-wide meetings, has declined to meet with AHRQ supporters and grantees, and never announced a blueprint for the agency, according to current and former AHRQ employees. They said he is infrequently seen at the agency’s Rockville, Maryland, offices.

Staff members currently number 74, Hilliard said, down from about 300 in early 2025. The agency has halted about $100 million in this year’s commitments to grantees, a substantial chunk of its congressionally approved budget, according to a tabulation by AcademyHealth.

“These claims about Dr. Klein are pointedly false,” Hilliard said. “AHRQ is strengthening its grants process, reviewing agency work for quality, aligning with its statutory mission, and focusing on research to improve patient outcomes.”

She did not respond to a request for specific information on grant funding.

AHRQ continues to conduct some data collection and has kept up its , which measures how Americans use and pay for medical care, insurance, and out-of-pocket costs. However, publication has slowed to a trickle because Klein reviews every piece of data or report issued by the agency, said Elisabeth Kato, who worked at AHRQ for 16 years before resigning from a senior position in April.

AHRQ also runs the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a panel whose assessments on the value of drugs and procedures determine whether insurers are required to cover them.

The task force hasn’t met since March 2025. Trump fired two of the group’s senior leaders and currently has only six of the 16 members it had when he took office. “The longer they don’t meet, the longer we’re losing connection between evidence and coverage,” said Sandmeyer, one of the former AHRQ officials.

A meeting of the task force is set for the end of August, Hilliard said.

Pediatrician Courtney Mangus lost her grant in the middle of a five-year project aimed at reducing cancers by using a software tool to help reduce the number of CT scans done on children who come to emergency rooms with abdominal pain. In rural and community emergency rooms, children are much more likely to be scanned for appendicitis than they are in better-equipped children’s pediatric hospitals. Each scan contributes to cancer risk.

Mangus wonders how AHRQ’s disappearance as a funding source will affect her career. “I need some funding to finish what I’ve started,” she said, “so then I could apply for bigger awards that can move the needle on this issue.”

She has applied to smaller foundations and may seek support from the National Institutes of Health, but her work was “really best suited for AHRQ.”

As the NIH, AHRQ, and other federal funders have cut grants over the past two years, new applications have flooded private biomedical foundations.

“It’s baffling to me why AHRQ refuses to fund research that has legally been appropriated by Congress and signed by the president,” Carroll said. “I don’t understand why everyone else in government isn’t going out of their mind about this.”

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

Time is precious for him. Last year, doctors told the 76-year-old former truck driver that a combination of heart failure, lung disease, and liver damage had left him with only six months to live. “That was about 11 months ago,” Vantrease said in a May interview, smiling at having, for the moment, cheated death.

In June 2025, Vantrease began hospice, which focuses on quality of life for terminally ill patients, receiving regular visits from a nurse in his home in Novato, California. Medicare is covering those services for him. His hospice caregivers reminded him of the attention his unit received from medical staff in Vietnam.

“We used to call them guardian angels,” he said, “because they took such great care of you.”

But the Trump administration’s allegations of unchecked hospice fraud in California have tainted the industry’s reputation, prompting concerns that fewer patients will seek the care they need. Health policy researchers and hospice administrators worry that the negative attention on the industry and potential for overly punitive regulations could put California patients and taxpayers on the losing end.

“The fraud situation has done a lot of damage to the reputation of hospices overall and undone a lot of the progress that had been made in destigmatizing hospice,” said Lauren Hunt, an associate professor at the University of California-San Francisco’s Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies who focuses on hospice care. “Policymakers should pursue targeted strategies that root out fraud and abuse without overburdening the many providers who are doing the right thing.”

Hospice care is facing sweeping restrictions. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in May announced a six-month national moratorium on hospice provider enrollment in Medicare and increased oversight in California and several other states with “elevated fraud risk”: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas.

In a statement, CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said state inaction on hospice programs rife with fraud drove the need for federal intervention. Foster said CMS believes the crackdown won’t affect patients’ ability to obtain services, with roughly 7,000 hospices still approved nationwide, and that it will help ensure the hospices that remain provide the care “individuals near end of life deserve.”

“Ensuring patient safety and access to quality hospices and other certified healthcare services is paramount to CMS’ work,” Foster said.

Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, has said also protects taxpayer money. that even as for-profit hospices have expanded, the industry has saved Medicare money by offsetting other expensive care. A 2023 University of Chicago report commissioned by industry associations estimated that Medicare patients who used hospice over hospitals in 2019 .

California has already been cracking down on the problems, with Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta deeming hospice fraud an “” last year and asserting that The state has had its own since 2021, with crimes over the years, and implemented to curb fraud this June.

Hunt said she’s heard from California healthcare providers who are reluctant to refer patients to hospice because they’re unsure the patients will receive high-quality care and from patients who don’t know which hospice providers they can trust. California hospice organizations of any state — as of 2022, according to the California state auditor’s office. That same year, CMS nationwide.

Hospice administrators in good standing have already found themselves in the crosshairs: A found that the federal government’s new anti-fraud task force has already suspended licenses for 43 legitimate hospices.

Still, Hunt and other policy researchers welcome the efforts to target unscrupulous operators.

“While most hospices are committed to providing high-quality care, there are serious concerns about a subset that exploit patients and the system for financial gain,” she said.

The hospice industry is uniquely vulnerable to fraud because of insufficient licensing regulations and inadequate oversight, according to industry researchers. And the percentage of the population aging into Medicare is rapidly rising, with spending expected to accelerate in the next 10 years.

Most of the rapid growth in operators has been among for-profit hospices, a state auditor’s report in 2022 noted. In California, about 94% of hospice providers are now for-profit, a shift from 20 years ago, when nonprofits in California and nationally. On average, for-profit operators per patient in pretax profit and $49 more per patient-day than nonprofit hospice operators, according to one study.

Skelly Wingard, CEO of By the Bay Health, a Northern California nonprofit that provides services to Vantrease, acknowledges that fraud is a big problem in the industry. “These organizations that have exploited patients were extremely savvy,” she said.

But Wingard warns against losing sight of the bigger picture.

“Hospice, when done well, is one of the most compassionate and meaningful benefits in healthcare,” she said. “We should be working to protect that, not inadvertently erode confidence in it.”

By the Bay Health has been in business for 50 years and serves around 750 hospice patients in the Bay Area. About 89% of them are covered by Medicare, 3% by California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, and the rest by commercial health plans, Wingard said.

At home in Novato, Vantrease lifts his shirt to show where a catheter was surgically implanted to drain uncomfortable fluid buildup in his abdomen. The hospital trained his wife, Paula Vantrease, a retired career counselor, to connect a suctioning device to the catheter to siphon the excess fluid. A hospice nurse from By the Bay, Blake Knier, helped her master the technique the first few times she tried it at home.

“Paula is the rock in my foundation,” Mark Vantrease said.

Knier orders all of Vantrease’s medications and rejiggers them when necessary to manage his bouts of intense nausea and pain. Every week, Knier checks the surgical incision around the catheter for infection, listens to Vantrease’s lungs, checks his blood pressure, and cleans and dresses the open wounds that sometimes form from burst blisters on his legs, a complication of the fluid buildup and weakened skin.

Knier helps usher hospice patients and their families through critical turning points. He recalled guiding one patient’s daughter through her mother’s loss of appetite.

“It’s OK if your mother isn’t eating vegetables,” he told the patient’s daughter. “Let her eat ice cream, if that’s what she wants.”

California’s emergency regulations against fraud took effect in late June. In addition to tighter prescreening of license applicants, they call for minimum professional qualifications for management, higher nurse-to-patient ratios, stricter rules around physical office space, and other restrictions.

Hunt said the new regulations are a step in the right direction but urged caution.

“The broader impact on the industry should be closely monitored, particularly to ensure that well-intentioned, high-quality providers are not placed under undue strain or forced to close,” she said.

Late one night last year, when Knier wasn’t available, another hospice nurse from By the Bay Health came promptly to the Vantreases’ home in response to an urgent call from Paula.

“I felt like I was about to die,” Mark Vantrease said, explaining he’d just had a premonition that he wouldn’t wake up in the morning. His sons were called to his bedside. The family needed reassurance. So a nurse arrived, examined him, and checked their father’s vitals.

By midnight, he was sleeping.

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