Insurance Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /topics/insurance/ Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Fri, 12 Jun 2026 20:15:06 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Insurance Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /topics/insurance/ 32 32 161476233 1 in 4 Covered California Enrollees Could Get State Aid Under Newsom Proposal /insurance/covered-california-aca-obamacare-insurance-premium-subsidies-affordability/ Fri, 12 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2246828
0:00 0:00
Produced in partnership with: Download
Speed
Embed this player

When Congress allowed covid-era subsidies for health insurance to expire, California used its own funds to offset the hike in Obamacare premium costs for residents with low incomes.

But the reach has been limited.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom negotiates his last budget with the legislature, the Democrat wants to offer financial help to more than 1 in 4 enrollees in Covered California, the nation’s largest state-run health insurance marketplace. Democratic lawmakers, who hold a supermajority, are still debating the plan.

“My budget proposal would KEEP $0 monthly plans for low-income Californians to help clean up the financial disaster Trump created,” Newsom , where he often chides the president and GOP Congress.

have put up their own funds to keep Affordable Care Act plans affordable and residents insured as the rising cost of healthcare has emerged as a among voters. Newsom’s $300 million proposal would make California’s program among the most generous, but even the nation’s richest state can’t patch a left by the expiration of enhanced subsides at the end of last year.

“The gap between what people can pay in their monthly budget and what health insurance costs is so big that it’s a lot for states to take on,” said , a senior research fellow at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “They’re going to have to figure out how they can finance that.”

New Mexico lawmakers have of the lost federal subsidies with state money. It seems to have worked; New Mexico saw in marketplace enrollment this year, but state analysts that the subsidy program isn’t sustainable.

and , which, like California, tax residents , are also spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to keep premium payments low. Their hope, healthcare experts say, is to avoid the exodus seen in states such as Georgia that didn’t offer enrollees help.

Since the enhanced subsidies expired, have seen their premium payments increase by $65 a month on average.

Conservatives including have long argued that the subsidy expansion was too generous to high-income enrollees and .

“There are never enough subsidies to make health insurance affordable because subsidies are the problem,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “They are causing people to turn a blind eye to fraud and waste and excessive prices because it’s someone else’s money that they’re spending, not their own.”

Helping the Poorest?

People who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid got relief starting in January after Newsom and legislators softened the blow for about 300,000 of the lowest-income enrollees. They offset lost federal premium tax credits for individuals who last year and partially filled the gap for those who earned up to $25,823.

The governor now wants to expand subsidies to those who earn up to $31,920 this year for an individual and $66,000 for a family of four — an estimated 218,000 additional people.

Veronica and William Walter, who live in the San Francisco Bay Area, earn less than $40,000 a year in one of the nation’s most expensive regions. They’re counting on a more generous state healthcare tax credit if they have to pay for health insurance next year.

A woman sits at a dining room table.
Veronica Walter says she wouldn’t be able to afford the nearly $200 monthly premium for health insurance that she and her husband would likely pay on Covered California, even after a proposed expansion of state subsidies. (Christine Mai-Duc/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

A car accident two years ago left William temporarily disabled, qualifying the couple for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.

Now he’s back at work as a security guard, and Veronica said she’s worried they’ll be kicked off Medi-Cal. She’s even more worried about how they’ll get by with federal premium tax credits not nearly as generous as before.

“Without it, we’re going to be facing worse problems than we have now,” she said. Under Newsom’s proposal, Veronica and others in the highest eligible income bracket could receive an average monthly subsidy of $36 a person.

“For them, $36 a month is the sort of thing that can make a difference between keeping coverage and losing coverage,” said Peter Lee, former executive director of Covered California. “We can’t fix everything with that gap, but we can focus the dollars on those who need it most.”

The Walter family, though, may still face a nearly $200 monthly premium payment to cover both of them, $130 more than they previously paid for healthcare and prescriptions through Covered California.

“I can’t afford that, not really,” said Veronica, a pet sitter who works part-time at a school. “A giant state like this with this many people, and this many resources? You can’t just leave the people with nothing for healthcare or healthcare they can’t afford.”

California policy researchers and health advocates acknowledge the limits of a partial subsidy but say that concentrating funds on those who earn less is the most efficient way to maximize impact. People who drop coverage are , healthier, and less likely to have high healthcare costs — all factors that help stabilize the insurance risk pool. Without coverage, Lee said, they’re also more likely to experience debt from medical emergencies or leave unpaid hospital bills that strain the .

Cary Sanders, senior policy director at the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, a health advocacy group, said the state’s move last year kept low-income enrollment in Covered California steady and reduced racial disparities in coverage.

“It’s working; it’s just that it’s not enough,” Sanders said. “We need the federal subsidies back.”

Still No Help for Many

When Congress passed enhanced subsidies in 2021, it capped monthly premium payments for even the highest earners at 8.5% of income. Those temporary enhancements allowed about 8 million Americans to choose robust plans with no monthly premium payment last year and helped double Obamacare enrollment to of 24 million.

At the end of last year, 22 million of them lost that help when the GOP-led Congress blocked the extension.

The pressures on Obamacare enrollees don’t stop at premiums. Federal legislation Republicans passed last summer known as the also shortens enrollment windows, tightens income verification requirements for subsidies, and requires enrollees who earn more than they projected to pay back the full amount.

Even if Newsom’s proposal passes, most Covered California customers won’t get state help. Nearly 1 million enrollees — 52% — earn above the $31,300-a-year individual earning cutoff.

Victoria Garzouzi was one of many middle-income retirees hit with one of the most extreme premium increases: The monthly payment for her low-level bronze plan jumped eightfold to $1,600.

To make ends meet, she came out of retirement and dipped into her savings. “I’m working to pay for my insurance,” she said. “I am an army of one.”

Despite a $6,000 deductible, her health insurance premium payment is more than the mortgage on her two-bedroom house. She’s putting off a needed cataract surgery until October, when she turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare.

While GOP leaders have not publicly weighed in on the state subsidies, some Democratic lawmakers have questioned why more help hasn’t been proposed.

Assembly member Dawn Addis, who chairs the chamber’s budget subcommittee on health, suggested Newsom could tap an additional $230 million from a fund for healthcare cost relief — money raised from a state penalty levied on those who can afford to enroll in health insurance but choose not to.

Lawmakers have previously criticized state officials for socking away much of the penalty revenue, which was supposed to go toward healthcare affordability. After California discontinued its premium subsidies thanks to increased federal assistance, the Newsom administration said the state was saving to help consumers once those temporary subsidies expired. Instead, California borrowed from the subsidy fund to cover state budget shortfalls, to the tune of $771 million. Starting this year, the subsidy fund should see an influx of cash as the state pays back the loan.

At a May legislative hearing, Joseph Donaldson, then a Department of Finance analyst, said maintaining the reserve was a prudent and financially sustainable approach.

Dylan Roby, a public health professor at the University of California-Irvine who consults for Covered California, said the focus on lower-income enrollees is deliberate. They qualify for federal subsidies that higher earners don’t, maximizing federal investment and strengthening the broader system.

“You end up with more advanced premium tax credits flowing into the state that you would have been leaving on the table,” he said.

State lawmakers have until June 15 to pass a state budget. Then, Covered California’s board would decide eligibility and benefit amounts, a decision that could come this summer, with new subsidies starting Jan. 1.

Even with the extra help, Walter and her husband worry they won’t be able to afford a potential $200 monthly premium payment. Walter said she’d likely have to rely on free clinics or ration medications.

“I take so many pills, I rattle,” she said. “That, on top of the $200? For us, it really adds up.”

Veronica Walter sits on her living room couch.
A pet sitter and part-time school employee, Veronica Walter is worried she and her husband wouldn’t be able to afford monthly health insurance premiums next year even with more generous state subsidies. (Christine Mai-Duc/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/covered-california-aca-obamacare-insurance-premium-subsidies-affordability/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2246828&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]> 2246828 The Drip, Drip, Drip of Declining Coverage /podcast/what-the-health-450-aca-enrollment-drops-june-11-2026/ Thu, 11 Jun 2026 18:56:29 +0000 /?p=2249320&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2249320 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

When Congress failed to extend the covid-era enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, many experts predicted millions of people would lose coverage because they would be unable to make payments toward the higher premiums. It has taken a few months, but that prediction seems to be coming true.

Meanwhile, controversy in the medical community about how — or whether  â€” to work with the Trump administration burst into the open at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association, as members who were handing out an editorial criticizing the administration’s cuts to biomedical research were evicted from the event, prompting a backlash.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Lizzy Lawrence of Stat, Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Lizzy Lawrence photo
Lizzy Lawrence Stat
Sandhya Raman photo
Sandhya Raman Bloomberg Law
Lauren Weber photo
Lauren Weber The Washington Post

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • A from The Commonwealth Fund highlights enrollment declines in Affordable Care Act marketplaces, a trend experts predicted when Congress did not renew the enhanced ACA tax credits at the end of 2025. As consumers continue to struggle with rising costs for groceries, gas, and other expenses, individuals who lost that additional financial assistance to purchase health insurance may be facing higher premium costs and more out-of-pocket expenses.
  • Concerns over the difficulty of implementing the administration’s Medicaid work requirements, along with potential legal challenges, may mean the regulations could be delayed or even reversed. For example, doctor and patient groups contend that the requirement that physicians determine whether each individual can work the required 80 hours per month will create unintended consequences, such as paperwork and bureaucratic hassles, for patients and their doctors, rather than decrease fraud in the program.
  • On Capitol Hill, fewer days in session and more days on the midterm campaign trail, plus a lack of bipartisanship, likely mean that lawmakers may be less willing to find a path forward to strengthen the financial solvency of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. The programs’ annual trustees’ report found that the two entitlement programs, which provide benefits to millions of people, will technically become insolvent in 2033. In recent years, lawmakers have been inclined to act only when facing an imminent deadline rather than taking action to avoid a future problem.
  • Leaders of the American Diabetes Association apologized for having security escort several doctors and researchers, including the editor-in-chief of the association’s flagship medical journal and a past president of the ADA, from the group’s annual research meeting for distributing a journal editorial criticizing the administration’s cuts to biomedical research. The incident highlighted how fearful some nonprofit leaders are of taking on the Trump administration.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF’s Tricia Neuman, who is retiring this month as a senior vice president and the executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy. 

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Anguished Parents. Doctors in Tears. Utah’s Long Measles Outbreak Takes a Toll,” by Amy Maxmen.

Sandhya Raman: CIDRAP’s “,” by Liz Szabo.

Lizzy Lawrence: The Chicago Tribune’s “,” by Christy Gutowski and Gregory Royal Pratt.

Lauren Weber: ProPublica’s “,” by Annie Waldman.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Robert King.
  • The New York Times’ “,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.
  • MedPage Today’s “,” by Kristina Fiore and Kristen Monaco.
  • Stat’s “,” by Anil Oza.
  • Fierce Healthcare’s “,” by Paige Minemyer.
  • Stat’s “, Federal Investigators Find,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.
Click to open the transcript Transcript: The Drip, Drip, Drip of Declining Coverage

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 11, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. Today, we are joined via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: Lizzy Lawrence of Stat News. 

Lizzy Lawrence: Hi there. 

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law. 

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my colleague Tricia Neuman, who’s stepping down from her post here as KFF senior vice president and executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy, after a long and distinguished career shaping and analyzing the nation’s most prominent health insurance program. But first, this week’s news. I want to start this week with kind of a slow-motion news story that I want to make sure doesn’t get overlooked. It’s the continuing signals of declining health insurance coverage in the U.S. The Commonwealth Fund reports this week that state Affordable Care Act marketplaces are seeing the predicted shedding of policies by consumers who can’t make their premium payments. In Maryland, for example, 13% of enrollees fell off their plans between open enrollment and April of this year. That’s compared to just 3% last year. At the same time, more people are becoming underinsured because they, quote, “bought down” coverage from gold- or silver-level policies to bronze, leaving them with lower premiums but often multi-thousand-dollar deductibles. Meanwhile, three Democrat-led cities and a Democrat-led county have sued the Department of Health and Human Services over the regulation governing sign-ups for next year’s Affordable Care Act plans, charging that changes like allowing non-network plans and still higher out-of-pocket caps violate the terms of the ACA itself. So what is the outlook for the ACA, now that it’s June and it seems pretty clear that Congress is not going to extend those additional subsidies that expired at the end of last year? 

Weber: I’d say it’s not looking good, Julie, the way you just laid it out. I mean, I think the bottom line is this is a train wreck we’ve been watching in slow motion for many, many months, in the sense that you’re going to see a lot of people lose coverage. This is not exactly happening during a booming economic time, so you’ve got people cutting back because of high grocery bills, high etc., and then they see their health care go up tremendously, and they can’t cut it. And then they end up in plans that could leave them with massive bills at the end of the day. I do think this will lead to more of a groundswell of outcry, because it’s hitting folks â€” most affected, as The Commonwealth Fund pointed out, are not those in the lowest category; it’s the folks â€¦ where the subsidies ran out kind of in the mid-tier. And so you’re getting some more middle-class or lower-middle-class folks that are seeing some very, very steep health care bills. 

Rovner: Yeah, and as you point out, at the same time they’re seeing their gas bills go up, and their grocery bill’s up and basically prices for everything else. But I mean, I think there was a lot of like real sticker shock with the insurance, because you know, well, you know, gas is up $1 a gallon, and it hurts to go from paying, you know, $25 or $30 to fill your tank to $45 or $50, it’s not like saying, Hey, you’re going to go from paying $300 a month to paying $1,300 a month, which is what we saw from a lot of people.  

Meanwhile, both doctor and patient groups are up in arms over the new Medicaid work rules issued by the Trump administration last week. Rather than allowing states to automatically exempt from the work requirement people with certain conditions that would qualify them as, quote, “medically frail,” the rules stipulate that beginning in 2028 Medicaid recipients will have to prove at least twice a year not just that they have a condition, but that that condition prevents them from working. Patient groups say that will result in people who most need health insurance losing it and possibly getting sicker. Doctors, including the American Medical Association, which was conveniently having one of its meetings this week, worry that the burden of making that determination is going to fall on them, and that doctors aren’t trained for these things. They also point out that many chronic conditions fluctuate, leaving people sometimes able to maintain daily activities, like working, and sometimes not. Might this get changed due to the outcry? I think the administration, so far, seems to be saying that not doing it this way lets too many people off the hook. 

Lawrence: Yeah, I mean, I think that this is one of those things â€” again, it’s starting in January 2028. There’s sort of a year tail. I’m curious&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;there’s enough time that this could keep getting pushed down the road and possibly reversed, and you know, there’s also legal challenges. I know that my colleagues wrote about the Legal Action Center saying that CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] is exceeding its authority here, so definitely we should be watching to see what happens with that. 

Rovner: Like many people, I was surprised at the rules as they came out. But I’m also a little bit taken aback at how broad the backlash is, particularly to this part â€” to the really, you’re going to require people with cancer to prove that they can’t meet work requirements? And how are they going to do that? And are people on Medicaid really going to be able to get doctors to, like, write them notes to say this person should be exempted? I mean, it just, it seems like a huge bureaucratic morass. 

Lawrence: Absolutely. 

Raman: Oh, I was just gonna say, from all sides, you know, if you are on Medicaid, and maybe there’s the burden of just transportation to get to that appointment, and, you know, having the time and the energy if you have a chronic illness, but then also we’ve heard time and time again how workforce issues, doctors are already overworked and don’t have the time to do so many of the things they already have to do. This is another burden for them to be able to have to eventually do this with the limited time they do have. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: It also seems incredibly subjective. I mean, I know they said that they’re trying to get to it through the codes, but, as  [Miranda Ollstein], I mean, how does one even really evaluate that? And people can work in different stretches. Also, with the flexibility many people have now to work from home, there is an opportunity for some folks maybe to be able to work, depending on what their job is. It’s just a minefield of unintended consequences, probably. So we’ll see how that goes. 

Rovner: I’ll say, this has a long way to play out. Well, along similar lines, there are also concerns that the new crackdown on fraud that’s being spearheaded by the Trump administration is threatening people’s coverage as well. In Ohio, lawmakers rushing to address home healthcare fraud tried to speed through a bill that included a provision to ban family members from qualifying as care providers for people with disabilities. That was ultimately removed from the bill when it was pointed out that such a change could result in more people having to be institutionalized, costing the state far, far more than paying family members to help people. I’m sure we’re going to see similar efforts to crack down on fraud in more states, because the federal government is threatening to take away money. Although, as administration officials continue to claim widespread fraud throughout the home health and hospice care systems, I imagine that we’re going to see more give-and-take on this one too. 

Weber: It seems like another example of shoot first, look later. I mean, in general, that clearly would have been a very bad provision to keep in the bill. If you know anything about home healthcare, you know that most of the time it is a family member giving up much of their time and effort to keep a loved one in the home. And so wild that that was even in there to start with. I think in general this goes to this long-running conversation around fraud. Again, there is a lot of healthcare fraud. I think we should all be very clear. There’s a lot of fraud that needs to be addressed. But you can say a lot of things about fraud obliquely, but then when you get to the brass tacks, you got to be careful about what you’re doing. So this is just another example of that, and how we’ve seen the Trump administration move on this that may or may not end up in problematic outcomes. 

Rovner: Yeah, Dr. [Mehmet] Oz [the CMS administrator] keeps talking about, you know, family members who are helping carry in groceries or driving people to doctors’ appointments. That’s not what these paid caregivers are doing. These are people who are basically unable to work because they need to be with this person that they are caring for 24/7, 365. I mean, there’s a lot of work involved here that’s way more than I think a lot of people who are in Washington or, I guess in this case, in Baltimore writing these rules sometimes realize. And I think that was brought home rather vividly in Ohio when they tried to do this and then were suddenly given the facts on the ground and said, Oops, maybe we should try this another way. But Lauren, you’re right, it’s not to say that there isn’t plenty of fraud to be fought. 

Well, moving on, this week we also got the annual report from the trustees of Social Security and Medicare. Not much has changed from last year as far as when the trust funds that support the programs will technically become insolvent. For Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, it’s still 2033, but a quarter earlier â€” so three months’ difference. Still, that’s only seven years away. In earlier times, I’ve been doing this a long time, seven years to insolvency would set off alarm bells in Congress and the administration, and would prompt action, or at least attempted action. Are we yawning our way into a very large financial crisis impacting one of the most popular health programs in the country? 

Raman: I think it’s a combination of things. A) I feel like every year we are more loose with deadlines. We address them in Congress closer and closer to them. So something that several years ago would be a big conversation ahead of time, we push it closer. And I think also the appetite in Congress to get things done right now is low, to find bipartisan agreement. And so getting something done on this would be quite difficult right now with all the other competing priorities there. 

Rovner: I think they were floating the idea of another budget reconciliation bill â€” “Reconciliation 3.0,” I guess they were calling it. And my reading of the consensus is that it is not happening. Whether there’s not enough appetite or not enough votes, or combination of those two, it doesn’t look like Congress is ready to take on something as big as Let’s make sure that Social Security and Medicare are there for the retiring baby boomers and Gen Xers, who are going to shortly follow. 

Raman: Especially in a midterms year where they’re not in as much as they might be at other times. 

Rovner: Yes, that’s right. They are definitely in and out. All right. Well, we’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back. 

Meanwhile, over at the Department of Health and Human Services, our podcast colleague  of Secretary RFK Jr. over last weekend, saying he has, quote, “shown little interest in managing the details of work in his department,” and that he, quote, “is single-mindedly focused on his top priorities, including food recommendations and pesticide exposures, and hunting for evidence to support his long-held beliefs that vaccines are harmful.” And, indeed, the big press event Kennedy had this week was to tout his effort to get medical schools to teach their students more about nutrition, something most medical schools had already been doing, I hasten to add. And, of course, there are still no confirmed, and in some cases even nominated, heads for some major HHS agencies, including the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, which oversees things like the Ebola outbreaks. I would note that Kennedy responded to Sheryl’s story just Wednesday â€” so, like, five days after it appeared, basically saying he’s doing much more than she realizes. What are we to make of this whole thing? 

Weber: I would encourage everyone to read Kennedy’s response, and then I would also be curious if Kennedy would like to show me where his public calendars are that he talks about in his tweet, because I would love to look at them, and I’m sure Sheryl would too. But I thought Sheryl’s framing of the story was very clear-headed and accurate. I mean, look, the bottom line is the secretary has not been publicly engaged on the Ebola response at all, which is somewhat surprising. He does not have any of these people in place. I mean, take your pick. I mean, it’s all these agencies are rudderless currently, and he has very clearly expressed serious interest in his pet projects, but has not been as engaged, according to Sheryl and all of our reporting, in some of these other issues. And I think it’s a fair look at what that means for his legacy going forward, and what that will mean in the months to come. 

Rovner: Right. And you know what’s going on actually in health right now. Over at FDA, they’ve apparently begun the safety study of mifepristone, the abortion pill, that the administration has been promising anti-abortion groups for more than a year now. But it appears that study won’t be ready before the midterms, which is actually what Republican strategists had advised, so it wouldn’t further inflame the campaign season. This is up your alley. Is this FDA acting Commissioner Kyle Diamantas’ effort to win the permanent job, or is this the White House still trying to kind of placate both sides to the debate for as long as it can possibly get away with? 

Lawrence: Yeah, so Kyle Diamantas has said to many different people that he doesn’t want the job, including to me via an HHS media spokesperson, so I tend to believe him. Although it seems likely that he will be in this role for a while, because of how many leadership positions the HHS needs to fill, and how few days there are of Congress. With the mifepristone study, it seems like, yeah, I mean, I think the timing is not lost on anyone. This seems to have worked out politically pretty well for the Trump administration, where it’s a six-month study, they can kind of see what happens in the midterms, and see, because you know, [Sen. Bill] Cassidy, this is a huge issue for him. Any FDA commissioner they’re going to put in front of him, he’s going to be hammering on mifepristone, pro-life issues. So, as long as they can pursue the strategy that they have been pursuing, of sort of just waiting and seeing and saying that they’re working and pushing it out. I think that’s what they’re going to keep doing. 

Rovner: I guess there’s this continuing promise that the administration will try to sort of rein back in on the mail-order abortion drugs, which is, I guess, what’s really&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;I don’t think anybody thinks that they’re going to try to revoke the approval of mifepristone. I think what the anti-abortion folks are hoping now is that they’re going to revoke the mail-order ability of people to get mifepristone, which, of course, we’ve seen people using in abortion-ban states to basically evade those abortion bans. It’s obviously a big deal for both sides that the administration would like to keep under wraps as long as it possibly can. Is that a fair assessment? 

Lawrence: Absolutely. Yeah, and I mean, there’s no safety reason to do that, so&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;there will be huge blowback from pro-choice advocates, but also within the agency, I would imagine, this would be a huge turning point. 

Rovner: Well, that’s the FDA. Then there is the National Institutes of Health, which actually does have a Senate-confirmed leader, Jay Bhattacharya, although he’s currently doing double duty, also overseeing CDC. But apparently things aren’t so great over at NIH. Last June, 300 NIH staffers published something they called the “Bethesda Declaration,” named for the location of NIH’s main campus, in which they said that the new administration’s policies were undermining the agency’s mission, wasting public resources, and harming the health of Americans and people across the globe. Now, one year later, about 70 NIH’ers have , including one we talked about last week that would give political appointees far more say about who gets research grants and how those grantees can behave. And another policy that would strip civil service protections from many senior employees, so they could more easily be fired for not going along with the administration’s political priorities. I guess this is this week’s trend. What seemed kind of shocking last year is now kind of status quo, right? I saw very little attention to any of these stories that are enormous changes from how the nation’s science agencies have operated over Republican and Democratic administrations in the 40 years I’ve been doing this. 

Raman: I think that one thing we’ve really seen is just how much some of these science-oriented groups have mobilized over some of these issues, just, you know, kind of stating that researchers that have been doing this kind of work for 20, 30, 40 years, that this is so out of the realm of anything they’ve seen before. This would, you know, jeopardize their research and their stability and just the way that they have been doing work for so many years. And I think even with both of the rules that we, that you mentioned, that has been something that has been really amplified by them. But I think it has been, given the number of other things happening, this space not really trickled down to the broader set of folks to really, you know, tap into. We have Ebola, we have so many other things that people, I think, are a little bit more top of mind, even though this is a huge change that under normal circumstances would have more attention paid to it. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s fair. This is sort of the continuing shock and awe that we see of the administration trying to make all of the changes that it wants at once, so nobody gets a chance to focus on any of them. In sort of what we would consider normal times, any one of these would be the overwhelming story of the day. 

Well, all of this brings us to what I consider the wildest story of the week. There was plenty of drama at, of all places, the annual research meeting of the American Diabetes Association in New Orleans. And props, by the way, to the website MedPage Today for breaking this within hours of its happening last Friday. I will just read the original headline: “.” So the keynote address to open the conference was supposed to be given by NIH Director Bhattacharya, but he dropped out at the last minute. While the audience was inside listening to a talk instead from NIH senior adviser Richard Wojcik, five doctors and researchers, including the editor-in-chief of the association’s flagship medical journal, as well as a past president of the ADA, were outside handing out a thousand copies of an editorial from the journal criticizing the administration’s cuts to biomedical research. At the direction of the organization, those protesters â€” can you even really call them protesters? â€” were escorted out by security and told they could not return to the conference. And from there the backlash began. Sixty-five hundred people signed a letter of complaint to the association. Two top officials resigned, and, finally, five days later, the CEO apologized to the “editorial hander-outers” via a video. But I want to pose a larger question. This was a real-world playing out of the tensions that we were just talking about are boiling within science. Should they try to work with this administration, or should they try to fight it? It would appear that the answer to that is kind of still up for grabs. Isn’t that what this demonstrates? 

Lawrence: Yeah, I mean, I think that it’s a clear tension between what the members of these major medical organizations want, which, like you said, 6,500 people signed that letter. There is a real appetite to try to fight back and push back, but there’s a real fear among leadership to do anything.&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;This was just mind-boggling, and my colleague Liz wrote about the backlash, and their decision to escalate the situation in this way brought so much more attention than, you know, five people handing out a journal editorial would initially. So fear can lead people to do things that ultimately don’t serve their purposes. 

Rovner: Yeah, I left out the part about the ADA leaders sort of over the weekend trying to justify the expulsion of the “editorial hander-outers,” as I will call them, by saying, Oh, it could affect our 501(c)(3) status, or they were violating the code of conduct, for, you know, for the meeting. But not only did those things not fly, they did seem to make things worse. Lauren, you wanted to add something. 

Weber: I just want to say that’s probably the most press an ADA meeting has ever gotten in its entire life. So, I mean, if they&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: Absolutely. 

Weber: At the end of the day, I mean, these, as you point out, Lizzy, I mean, this editorial guy read a lot more and got a lot more attention because of it, so we’ll see what happens from here. 

Rovner: Yeah, but I think it’s sort of a cautionary tale for leaders of these organizations who â€” do we want to fight or do we want to try to get along, and maybe you ought to ask your members first? We’ll see if this sort of comes out at other meetings. Now it’s the beginning of the summer, it’s when a lot of these scientific meetings happen. I’ll be watching more of them a little more closely. 

Well, finally, this week, it’s June, and that means it’s the season for working on the spending bills on Capitol Hill. This week we actually got a lengthy public markup of the bill that funds the majority of the Department of Health and Human Services. A reminder: FDA is funded in the Agriculture bill because food. Sandhya, how is the Labor-HHS bill shaping up? It looks like Congress isn’t going to go along with the big cuts proposed by the Trump administration, but that’s not saying there won’t be fights about funding, right? 

Raman: Yeah, so I would say you’re right. The big takeaway from this House markup is that it kind of bucked some of the White House’s suggestions on, you know, what to do with funding for this. They funded $111 billion for HHS, if this is made into law â€” so a much smaller cut&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;of what the White House was proposing. That included things like $100 million more for NIH, which has been something in the past worried about cuts; and funded some things that I think we’re interesting, you know, CDC’s office for smoking [Office on Smoking and Health], something that had been subject to the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts last year; , something else that&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è; 

Rovner: Yeah, I want to address that separate, I want to get to the amendments in a second. But I mean, just sort of in terms of funding, I mean, and we should point out that $100 million for NIH â€” NIH has a budget of like $40-some billion, so yeah, it’s not a big increase. It’s a rounding error increase, but it’s not a cut. 

Raman: Yes, not a cut. So the next step for this would be the House floor, but we might get kind of stalled there just because the issue on the Senate side is they’ve not agreed to top-line numbers for funding yet, and they need those in order to shape out the individual bills. So, without that, we’re kind of in a standstill, and it might be a little bit more like we’ve seen in some of the years past, where the House goes through, they make a bill, they vote on the bill, and then the Senate doesn’t publicly do theirs, but then we get to an agreement a little further down the line. But what Sen. Susan Collins, who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee, has been saying is that, you know, she wants more for NIH than what’s been presented here. But without those top lines, we don’t know. So, we’ll see, you know, in years past, we’ve really just, the funding year deadline has been pushed and pushed and pushed, so&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: Into the next funding year. Often. 

Raman: Yes, and I think, especially like I said, when it’s a midterms year, they’re going to be in far less than normal. It’s not clear when there’s going to be the appetite to get all of that done. 

Rovner: So, often these spending bills, when they move â€” and of course they haven’t moved when they were supposed to for the last however many years â€” but it does sometimes give a chance for lawmakers to express frustration or doubt or simply disapproval with things that the administration is doing. And one of the things that they seem to be expressing disapproval is the administration’s plan to use prior authorization, which is very controversial, in Medicare, and AI â€” in fact, an AI prior authorization in Medicare, and on a bipartisan basis. They voted to tell the administration, No, please don’t do this. I’m wondering, you know, it may not become law on this bill, but this does suggest that there is bipartisan concern in Congress about these efforts on behalf of Medicare, right? 

Weber: Well, I think this goes back to our Medicare insolvency conversation earlier. Who votes? It’s the people that are on Medicare. So, and how unpopular would it be if they were to be limited in what they can access for their health care services? So, I think at the end of the day, the reason that’s bipartisan is these lawmakers know who’s keeping them in office, and prior authorization has a very bad name. I mean, it’s very interesting, because CMS has said that this will help cut down costs, but also has, out of the other side of its mouth, in hearings and so on, Oz has decried insurers using prior authorization. So there’s a lot of “for thee but not for me” vibes going on here. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t seem like this will advance because of the bipartisan opposition. 

Rovner: And of course, Lizzy, your colleagues at Stat have talked about, you know, private companies using enhanced prior authorization, which nobody seems to think is a great idea, and now we have Medicare proposing it. 

Lawrence: Yeah, I was going to say prior authorization, already unpopular, add AI to the mix. I mean, there’s not&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;yeah, Bob and Casey, my colleagues, , but just, in general, there is not a lot of goodwill for the AI industry with data centers and all kinds of unpopular initiatives. So, yeah, it makes sense we’re seeing strong bipartisan disapproval of this.  

Rovner: If it doesn’t show up in this bill, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it show up in some other bill that’s more likely to make it to the finish line. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with KFF’s Tricia Neuman, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague and friend Tricia Neuman, who is retiring as KFF senior vice president and executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy, after a long and distinguished career here and on Capitol Hill, shaping, analyzing, and explaining Medicare policy to people like me, as well as to the nation’s decision-makers. Tricia, thanks for taking some time as you wrap things up. 

Tricia Neuman: Julie, thank you for having me. 

Rovner: So, let’s go back to the beginning, if you can remember that. What got you interested in pursuing Medicare as your health policy specialty? 

Neuman: You know, I didn’t think about it as Medicare, but I thought about it in the context of my family. I was&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;I remember watching my grandfather and seeing him struggle. He had Alzheimer’s, and he was trying to tie his shoe, and he couldn’t remember, and I somehow got interested in aging. And I was interested in government, and so I came to Washington ready to do policy, and I ended up at the Senate Aging Committee, which was perfect. And I got into Medicare because I had an older colleague who said, Look, you got to choose a specialty; you can do Social Security, pensions, retirement income, or you can do health and long-term care. Figure it out and go there. And so I did. 

Rovner: Yeah, and like me, you can stay forever if you want to. 

Neuman: And I seem to have stayed forever. 

Rovner: So, what’s the biggest misperception about Medicare as it exists today? People look at Medicare, and it’s like a chameleon. They see all these different things. 

Neuman: Boy, I could give you a few answers to that. I mean, one answer is people think Medicare is going broke. Medicare cannot go broke, but Medicare faces financing challenges. Interesting, you know, we talk about that today. Today’s the day that the “Medicare Trustees Report” came out, and actually, there wasn’t much of a change, a notable change. It was a slight tweak, but it’s still 2033 for the year that Medicare will be insolvent. What that means is that there won’t be enough money to pay all benefits, but it doesn’t mean the program is going broke. To me what it means is it’s time to think about how to finance care for an aging population, and what are the policy options that can do that. It’s generally reducing spending or finding new revenues, but it’s easier to do it in advance than&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;to wait until we’re at the precipice of a crisis. So that’s really what it signals to me. But it cannot go broke. 

Rovner: Over the years, Congress has dealt with these periodic, you know, predictions about Medicare insolvency in various ways that they have, you know, sometimes they’ve actually acted when insolvency has seemed relatively near, and sometimes they have acted to make insolvency closer. This Congress doesn’t seem to be as plugged into Medicare as many previous ones. Is that a fair way to put it? 

Neuman: I think it’s fair. Julie, when you and I were working on the Hill, as your beat at the time at the Ways and Means Committee, Medicare was front and center. Medicare was part of budget conversations. Medicare was part of legislation that we dealt with every year. And that meant every year members of Congress worked hard to tweak the program, achieve some savings, also make some improvements. But Medicare was the big story. Really, of late, really, since the ACA, the ACA has been the story, Medicaid has been the story, but Medicare, oddly, has been sort of a stepchild off to the side. 

Rovner: I like to describe Medicare as one of the biggest paradoxes in health policy. Simultaneously, it’s incredibly popular â€” I mean, one of the most popular programs ever created by the federal government â€” and yet it’s actually pretty lacking as a really comprehensive health coverage. I think if people actually had, quote-unquote, “Medicare for All” the way we have Medicare today, they wouldn’t be very happy with it. 

Neuman: I think that’s right. I mean, people I know on Medicare, and soon that will be me, are very happy with the program. They like the fact that&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;it’s reliable, they can count on it. There are some issues between people in traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. But it’s, you know, people are pretty happy. At the same time, there’s relatively high cost sharing, premiums are going up, and Medicare doesn’t cover some of the most expensive things for people as they grow older, such as dental, which is a big one, hearing aids, vision, which is to a lesser extent not quite as expensive. And the big one that nobody really wants to address is long-term services and support, home care for people who need help at home, assisted living, nursing home coverage, all of that is super expensive, and Medicare really doesn’t cover it. And that is a big surprise to families when all of a sudden they have a family member who needs this help and Medicare won’t pay for it. 

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like about every five years, another generation of health reporters discovers, Hey, Medicare doesn’t cover long-term care. I never knew that. 

Neuman: And a lot of time they’re discovering it because a family member of theirs needs long-term care. 

Rovner: So, I know you’re retiring, but I also know that you’re going to continue to stay engaged, because I know you. What do you think is the biggest challenge that you hope that lawmakers will address in Medicare in the next five, 10 years? 

Neuman: Oh, I have a wish list. I do hope that they’ll continue to put affordability at the top of the list. That means looking at these expenses that are not covered by Medicare, keeping an eye on premiums. Right now, 7 million people on Medicare pay more than 10% of their income on Part B premiums. That’s a big deal. So, keeping an eye on affordability is really important. I also think there should be some attention to simplification. Medicare used to be this easy program, you turned 65, you got on Medicare. It’s not so easy anymore. The average Medicare beneficiary has a choice of dozens of plans, the Medicare Advantage, prescription drugs. It’s too complicated. And it’s not like it’s a one-and-done decision when you turn 65. You really need to think about this each year, and I think that’s a tall order. And simplifying the program would make it a lot easier for our aging population. 

Rovner: Well, you may be retiring, but I’m still going to call on you as my Medicare expert. 

Neuman: Always. 

Rovner: Tricia Neuman, thank you so much. 

Neuman: Thank you, Julie. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Lauren, you snagged this week’s most popular story. Start us off. 

Weber: Hats off to Annie Waldman’s “,” which published in ProPublica. I was green with envy upon reading this story. It’s not only beautifully crafted, but it’s just an incredibly incisive takedown, really, of this raw milk farm and all of the people it’s harmed, and how the government has really not stepped in. It hits at so many themes in this MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] moment â€” of free speech and, you know, free medical access, but also the questions of: Do consumers know the amount of risks that they’re taking on? And what is regulators’ role when you have this farm led by this evangelist for raw milk that has been at least linked to over 220 people’s illnesses, some of which are very severe, and continues to produce not only raw milk but milk that it puts into raw cheese that makes people sick. And very sick. This is not just, like, slightly sick, I mean it’s likely that this has potentially sickened way more than the numbers that are captured. It’s a very well-done piece. I could not recommend reading it more. 

Rovner: Lizzy. 

Lawrence: My piece that I chose for this week was from the Chicago Tribune: “,” by Christy Gutowski and Gregory Royal Pratt. Kind of similar to what Lauren was talking about, this is a story about regulatory failure, but in this case with a plastic surgeon operating in Chicago who has killed at least eight women during procedures like tummy tucks and liposuction&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;all women of color. He’s operating in a predominantly Latino neighborhood. And Chicago authorities started looking into him to try to revoke his license in 2020, but more than five years later nothing has happened. This was a truly horrifying story, and just major kudos to the reporters, for really, you know, they tracked down all of these women’s families. And in one case there was a complaint that the surgeon, you know, not only allegations that he killed people, but that he had carved his initials into someone. So it’s a really insane piece that I think, yeah, everyone should read. 

Rovner: Yeah. Sandhya. 

Raman: So I picked the story “, and it’s in CIDRAP from Liz Szabo. And this piece is part of a larger series for the 20th anniversary of the HPV [human papillomavirus] vaccine. But Liz just does a beautiful job juxtaposing, you know, one sister who battles and eventually, you know, lost a heartbreaking battle with cervical cancer, and how her sister was in the first batch of folks to get the HPV vaccine 20 years ago. And then, you know, the sister is talking about the importance of wanting her sons to get it that are pretty young. And it just really does a good job of showing the trajectory of how effective the vaccine has been in reducing cervical cancer since its rollout. 

Rovner: Yeah, this is one of the great medical miracles that’s suddenly become controversial again. It’s really good. You should read the whole series. I will post links to it. My extra credit this week is from my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Amy Maxman. It’s called “Anguished Parents. Doctors in Tears. Utah’s Long Measles Outbreak Takes a Toll.” Amy went to Utah and found that measles is taking a stronghold there for a whole variety of reasons, including the strength of the supplement industry that teaches residents to suspect mainstream medicine. It’s a really good read that shows the challenges public health still faces in things that we thought we had overcome years, if not decades, ago, like how to prevent childhood diseases like measles. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor this week, Mary Agnes Carey, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X , and on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Sandhya? 

Raman: I’m at  and on  @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m on  and on  as @LaurenWeberHP. The HP is for health policy. 

Rovner: Lizzy. 

Lawrence: I’m on  as @LizzyLaw_ and on  and  (Lizzy Lawrence). 

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Mary Agnes Carey Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-450-aca-enrollment-drops-june-11-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2249320&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]> 2249320 Millions of Kids Could Lose Insurance as GOP Healthcare Cuts Start To Bite /insurance/health-hub-kids-lose-insurance-coverage-gop-healthcare-cuts/ Fri, 05 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2244771&preview=true&preview_id=2244771
0:00 0:00
Produced in partnership with: Download
Speed
Embed this player

have lost insurance since President Donald Trump took office in 2025. Another million could lose it amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and new Medicaid eligibility rules. On WAMU’s Health Hub on June 3, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner explained how fear and confusion complicate access to health coverage.

A image of the healthcare.gov website on a laptop screen.
(Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Last year’s big cuts to federal healthcare programs in the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act created an affordability crunch for many Americans. They’ve ushered in higher health insurance premiums and confusion about who’s covered under new Medicaid rules.

Another result has been falling enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans and Medicaid. That’s leaving uninsured, according to an analysis by the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy’s Center for Children and Families. Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner appeared June 3 on WAMU’s Health Hub to explain who’s vulnerable to losing coverage and what it all could mean for the prices Americans pay for health insurance next year.

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

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

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2244771&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]> 2244771 Medicaid Work Rules Surprise States /podcast/what-the-health-449-medicaid-work-rules-exemptions-june-4-2026/ Thu, 04 Jun 2026 18:30:00 +0000 /?p=2244767&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2244767 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

New rules out this week from the Trump administration for implementing work requirements for adult Medicaid recipients surprised many state officials. The rules make it more difficult for states to determine who should be exempt from the requirements, including by stipulating that having a serious condition such as HIV or cancer does not automatically excuse an enrollee from having to engage in 80 hours per month of paid work, volunteering, or school attendance.

Meanwhile, a separate rule would give political appointees far more power over who gets health and science grant funding, and what political activities grant recipients can participate in. This would be a dramatic change — currently most decisions are made by career scientists and outside peer reviewers and based solely on scientific merit rather than whether they advance an administration’s political agenda.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal.

Panelists

Margot Sanger-Katz photo
Margot Sanger-Katz The New York Times
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
Liz Essley Whyte photo
Liz Essley Whyte The Wall Street Journal

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • The Medicaid work requirement was pitched as a massive money-saver for the federal government because, supporters argued, it will keep people who shouldn’t be eligible for the program from being on the rolls. But it is becoming clear that implementing the policy is going to cost states tens of millions of dollars in new hires, contracts, communication campaigns, and tech systems. State officials say this is coming when budget pressures are already high.
  • The White House has advanced long-anticipated draft regulations designed to give political appointees the final word on federal research grants. The regulations, which have been close to the heart of Office and Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and were included in Project 2025, would empower the federal branch to pull back funding if political appointees find grantees doing work at odds with the president’s agenda.
  • In a move that went somewhat unnoticed, President Donald Trump on Friday gave his official endorsement to a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that calls for cutting the number of vaccines recommended for every American child. It’s not clear what impact Trump’s action will have — the changes that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tried to make have been put on hold by federal courts.
  • A final rule issued this past week for the No Surprises Act makes changes designed to improve communication between insurers and providers. The rule does not, however, get at what’s emerged as the law’s biggest problem: When disputes between doctors and insurers reach arbitration, doctors are the overwhelming winners. And it is costing millions. Fixing the underlying issues would probably require legislative attention.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News reporter Lauren Sausser, who wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” about a patient with a temporary memory problem and a less forgettable $59,000 hospital bill. If you have an outrageous or inscrutable medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and The Associated Press’ “Festering Infections to Untreated Cancer: ICE Detainees Describe Medical Neglect Across US,” by Rae Ellen Bichell, Claire Galofaro, Maia Rosenfeld, Renuka Rayasam, Aaron Kessler, and Byron Tau.

Liz Essley Whyte: The Wall Street Journal’s “,” by Christopher Weaver and Anna Wilde Mathews.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “,” by Simar Bajaj.

Margot Sanger-Katz: ProPublica’s “,” by Alec MacGillis and Ken B. Morales.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • Politico’s “,” by Robert King and Alice Miranda Ollstein.
  • The New York Times’ “,” by Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff.
  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Lauren Weber.
click to open the transcript Transcript: Medicaid Work Rules Surprise States

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 4, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. Today, we are joined via video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times. 

Margot Sanger-Katz: Hello, everybody. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Olstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi, there. 

Rovner: And we welcome to our podcast panel this week Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal. Happy to have you join us. 

Liz Essley Whyte: Thanks for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my colleague Lauren Sausser, who wrote the latest Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News “Bill of the Month.” It’s about a woman with a temporary memory problem who probably wishes she could forget about a $59,000 hospital bill. But first, this week’s news. 

So, it’s been almost a full year since President [Donald] Trump signed the big budget bill that would reduce Medicaid spending by nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade, and this week we got the much-anticipated regulation outlining what states have to do in order to implement the new Medicaid work requirements for low-income adults on the program by next Jan. 1. And it’s safe to say that these rules â€” which are interim final rules, by the way, so that means they technically take effect immediately â€” are not what states were expecting. I want to break this down in pieces, but first, let’s talk about what a heavy lift this was going to be for the 43 states that are required to put these rules into effect.  before the rules came out, right? 

Ollstein: Yes, this is being pitched as a massive money saver, that was how it was framed. It’s being scored that way in the original bill in order to pay for a bunch of other things: tax cuts, etc. 

Rovner: I would say it is a money saver for the federal government, right? 

Ollstein: Well, that is the promise, that it will save money by reducing the number of people covered by Medicaid. And so proponents of this frame it as cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse, arguing that the only people who are going to get booted off of Medicaid are the people who deserve to be booted off of Medicaid, because in this piece of it they’re not working or volunteering or going to school or caring for a sick relative. We looked at, yes, this is aimed at saving federal money, but it is currently costing states millions or tens of millions of dollars to implement. It is extremely expensive to implement. States are having to hire a lot of people, they’re having to create, you know, brand-new tech systems that, or upgrade their old tech systems that they didn’t have before. And a lot of state officials told us that this is coming at really the worst time for them. They’re already losing other federal funding, they are really struggling, they’re having to make lots of cuts to social services. And so there just isn’t a lot of extra money to go around. And yet they have to spend all this money to implement these rules. And, especially, Democratic officials were telling us that, Look, we wouldn’t mind having to invest this money if it were going to lead to covering more people or offering people better, more comprehensive coverage. But they really resent having to spend this money in order to cover fewer people in the future.  

Rovner: So, let’s get to the rules themselves. As I like to explain, there are two big things that states are going to have to do here: first, to determine which Medicaid recipients are exempt from that community engagement requirement â€” to work, volunteer, or attend school 80 hours per month â€” and second, to determine if those who are not exempt are actually meeting the requirements. And these new rules make both of those harder for states, right, Margot? 

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, I think it’s been like this huge freak-out among states over these last few weeks, because there were a lot of rumors flying around, but I think there was just this concern, like, Whoa, if they make major changes right now, it’s going to be even harder for us to implement. And for states that were, as Alice said, some of these blue states that were trying to minimize the coverage losses under the Medicaid work requirement, I think they were worried, Well, they’re only going to make it stricter; they’re only going to make it harsher. Why would they be changing things now? And so, , it turns out that is, in fact, what they did, that there were a number of policy choices where they decided to apply a stricter standard than what states had been told before this week. 

So what are the biggest examples of this? I think there are two. One is that the work requirement doesn’t apply to everyone. The Republicans in Congress basically said we want people, adults without young children and without disabilities, to be engaged in their communities â€” to work, volunteer, go to school a minimum number of hours each month if they want to stay eligible for Medicaid. But we understand that there are certain people who are going to have trouble doing that, and so we want to have exceptions for those people. So not everyone has to do the work requirement, a bunch of people don’t have to. And the biggest category of this was a category that Congress called “medical frailty.” The idea was these are people who have medical problems that, like, might make it hard for them to work, or who might really suffer if they lost their health insurance. So, depending on who you talk to, that was what Congress was trying to protect with that exception. And what CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] had been telling states over these last few months is: Put together a list of diagnoses of serious illnesses, and you can data match, you know, you have people in your Medicaid system already. OK, if they had cancer, if they have HIV, if they have Parkinson’s disease, that’s a serious illness. Those people are medically frail. You can just automatically exempt them, and then you don’t have to check their work hours. 

Rovner: That’s what Nebraska is already doing, right? Because they’re one of the states that have started this early. 

Sanger-Katz: Correct. Yeah, so Nebraska is already live with its work requirement. And, again, Nebraska, even more so than these other states, got tons of guidance from CMS, because they were so excited to go first, and they wanted to do everything right. They wanted to be a good example. And I think CMS wanted them to demonstrate, OK, you can like do this policy. Yeah, they had a list, I think they had like 300 pages of diagnostic codes, you know, like all these diseases. If you have these diseases, we’re gonna exempt you, then you don’t have to demonstrate work hours. If you don’t, OK, like, then you’re gonna have to prove that you’re working or volunteering or going to school. 

So what the rule said is, like, that’s not good enough. It is not good enough to have cancer â€” that in order to be exempted from having to demonstrate that you are working, you have to prove that you have cancer, and that your cancer is creating a problem that would make it hard for you to work. And the rule creates a standard where states are going to have to evaluate not just what diseases people have, which might be easy to do using medical records, for at least people who are already enrolled and who have been getting medical care, but instead that they have to make something like a disability determination, which is something that the states were really not ready for, that they don’t really have the staff to do or the training to do, and that cannot be easily automated on the back end right now. I think there’s not an easy way for them to go into the medical record and decide whether or not someone’s illness is serious enough that it would impair their ability to work. And the language that they use in the rule, the standard, is not actually really like the standard in other programs that have work requirements, so the states have no experience with the standard.  

And, as it turns out, doctors don’t really have any experience with this standard either. So, you know, when you are making a workman’s comp claim, for example, like the doctors have forms, there’s a system, they understand what it means to be too sick to work because of an injury that would preclude you from workman’s comp. And in SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], it turns out, there’s also a standard if you’re unable to work, you could get out of the work requirements. But that is slightly different. And so I think there is this real concern by states that they just like actually don’t know how to do this. There might be some AI [artificial intelligence] solution where they’re data mining in the medical records and trying to figure out if they have these codes, and these codes, like, maybe there’s a way to prove that someone is sick enough. What most people that I’ve talked to said is that basically this is going to be a system that’s largely going to be achieved with doctors’ notes. Doctors have to be willing to do this thing that they’ve never done before, and they’re, you know, having to sign that someone can’t work, and that’s going to be a lot of frictions in that process. And then there’s going to have to be a caseworker on the other end who is going to have to look at those doctors’ notes and is going to have to read them and decide whether the doctor has specified the impairment such that it is in compliance with the work requirement. 

So this is just a lot of like administrative headache. I think there are reasonable arguments for wanting to have this standard given what Congress’ intent was, that they wanted to have a work requirement. The point was they wanted people who could work to work, and they wanted people to be exempted who could not work. I think not everyone in Congress agrees with that, but I think some of them do. But I think the reality of how you actually do this in real life is much, much more complicated than that. There is no, like, godlike state that can just see how sick you are and can make these determinations. And so I think that states are really worried about this. They’re worried about how they’re going to get in compliance with this, they’re worried about all the changes they’re going to have to make to the systems that they’ve already built. And I think that a lot of advocates for people with Medicaid, and a lot of disease groups, advocates for people with serious illnesses, are very worried that many, many more people are going to lose coverage, and particularly people who are medically frail. You know, if you think about, say, a person with HIV, they may be in treatment and getting their medicines, and they might even have undetectable levels of HIV in their blood, and they are perfectly capable of working right now. But if they lose their health insurance and they lose their access to their prescription drugs, they fall out of treatment, their health condition could worsen pretty substantially. And I think we can all think of lots of other diseases that are like that. I think cancer is a good example. You know, some people are living with cancer, and it’s kind of like a chronic disease, but it’s because they’re getting regular care. If they lose their treatment&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;they lose their treatment for many other diseases we can think of that are like this. Depression, you know, certain kinds of mental health problems, if people fall out of treatment, that actually could impair their ability to work, and that causality could run in the opposite direction. So, I think this is a big change. 

And then the other change that they made is more technical, but it was like, how are people going to prove various things under this law? And a lot of states were just expecting people would be able to sign a statement and say, I am caring for a disabled relative&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;you can trust me, I’m signing under penalty of perjury. This is what I’m doing. Or I volunteered 12 hours last month, you know, I’m just going to sign this under penalty of perjury. Because there’s not a good way to check. 

Rovner: And for the first year, that’s OK, right? They’re taking these attestations&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Sanger-Katz: For the first year, they’re going to allow it. And then after the first year, they’re going to allow it for medical frailty only â€” once. So if you sign up for Medicaid in 2028 and you claim that you’re too sick to work, you can sign a form that says that, but then, within the next six months, before you renew your coverage, you’re going to have to come back with some kind of medical record with some kind of doctor’s note that proves it. So you know these are some pretty big changes, and Trump administration officials said, you know, our view is this is consistent with [what] the law is for, which is to ensure that people are working and are engaged in their communities if they’re capable of doing it. They also said that this prohibition on people just signing statements is a way to avoid fraud, because why wouldn’t people just sign a statement saying that they didn’t have to do this work requirement if they could? But I think this is going to have real implications in the real world. It’s going to create a huge administrative headache for states. It’s probably going to impair a lot of people from getting coverage who would have otherwise been covered if CMS had stayed the course with what it had been telling states before. 

Rovner: So, I know my inbox is full of reactions from groups across the medical spectrum. Alice and Liz, I assume you guys are hearing lots of feedback about this, too. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. I mean, just like Margot said, there just isn’t really a good way to do this, trying to automate it and base it on medical claims, like 1) States don’t have that built yet, the different systems don’t, quote unquote, “talk to each other” in that way. But also, you know, just because someone used a certain number or kind of health services in a year doesn’t necessarily tell you whether they can work or not. You know, lots of people who are too sick to work maybe haven’t had the medical services, and someone who had a lot of medical services maybe can work fine. But then again, leaving it up to individual doctors who are not trained to make this determination, who don’t have the time to have a bunch of extra appointments just to do this, and who are more used to doing this for â€” Margot gave a few examples, but something some doctors brought up to me was like short-term disability, like evaluating, like, this is the number of weeks someone needs to recover from X surgery. So like that’s a determination a doctor feels qualified to make. Whether someone can work any job, I mean, that’s just not really something they can confidently say. I mean, working a job in a factory is not the same as working an email job, and what kind of jobs are available in this person’s area? It’s just a huge mess. 

Rovner: So, is there any chance the administration is going to back off? There is public comment being taken now until, I think, July. Or will Congress perhaps step in and say this is not what we intended, or does somebody get to sue here? I mean, or this is what’s called an interim, I’m saying, an interim final rule, so it’s not set in concrete yet. 

Sanger-Katz: I mean, I would not be at all surprised if we see lawsuits, but I think we’ll see something else happen first, which is: The law says the states have to get ready to go by&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;Dec. 31, 2026, to be ready to go live in January. But it says if they encounter a hardship, if they’ve been making good-faith effort towards getting ready for the work requirement, and they’ve encountered some hardship, and they, like, can’t make the deadline, they can apply for a waiver, basically a two-year extension from CMS. The Trump administration has been extremely clear to states about this all the way along, basically saying, You are not going to get these, we are not going to grant them, like, you know, maybe if there’s like a volcano that goes off in your state and the entire mainframe that holds your Medicaid enrollment system is melted, like, we’ll talk. But I think a lot of states now, especially some of these blue states that are really concerned about this stuff, I think that they are going to apply now, which they might not have done before. And I think if they are denied, I could see some lawsuits around that waiver process to just say, Look, like, you just changed the rules very late. There’s no practical way that we can get this done in time. We have been proceeding in good faith, and, you know, we need more time. So, I think that there could be litigation. I also think they did have this temporary policy for 2027 around self-attestation, which I think does help states get out of some of these, like, really tricky technical issues in the first year. I don’t know, like maybe there could be some further extension of that. But I don’t know. I’m curious, Alice, what, or Liz, what you think. But I am not holding out much expectation that Congress is going to make major changes here. 

Ollstein: Well, and because of the January deadline, making changes could solve one problem and create another. Because states already feel like they don’t have enough time, and they already feel like the rules of the game are being changed in the middle of the game. You know, what they had been spending months preparing for now has to change because of this guidance. If it changes yet again, and they have even less time to adapt and make a new change&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;like you said, they’re making hires, they’re trying to make contracts based on this, and so even as advocacy groups, and even states ask for additional changes, additional changes could make it even harder to implement in time. 

Rovner: All right, well, let us move on, because there’s lots more news. Speaking of new regulations, a proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget would basically make all grant funding from the U.S. Treasury subject to political appointee approval. Currently, most grant-level awards are determined by career scientists and peer reviewers, who make decisions based on scientific merit. Under this new policy, grants would have to, quote, “demonstrably advance the president’s policy agenda.” At the same time, the new 400-page document includes many new rules for grant recipients, including universities and other entities, including limiting their ability to engage in so-called issue advocacy and allowing the revocation of grant funds if recipients take actions that are not deemed by administration political officials to be in, quote, “the public interest.” Now, all this isn’t totally new. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has been talking about this literally for years. It was laid out in Project 2025 as well as in several executive orders that have been issued by President Trump, which is why I think it’s getting relatively little attention, given the pretty earth-shaking changes that it envisions. Still, putting it out in an actual proposed regulation raises the stakes here, doesn’t it? 

Whyte: Yeah, I would echo that. This has been on Russ Vought’s radar for many years. If you talk to folks, you know, who know him and know his thinking, this all comes down to this thinking about the executive branch and its role in the Constitution, and how there shouldn’t really be independent agencies or branches of the executive branch that aren’t doing what the president wants. And so that is manifested in this regulation that says you can’t promote anti-American values, contribute to illegal immigration, things like that, that are policy priorities of this administration, and a new filter that’s going to be applied to all federal grant-making, once this is finalized. And it’s a distillation of that theory about the executive branch that is now coming out in practice. 

Rovner: Although going back to what we were just talking about with the Medicaid work requirements, I mean, the idea of having to have a political appointee involved at this extremely micro level in the hundreds of thousands of grants that the federal government issues every year. I mean, some of it is the ideology, but some of it is just the logistics. I know that this has been part of the problem of getting money out the door at the National Institutes of Health â€” is that normally money that just sort of flowed when it was approved by career workers now has to wait for the approval of a political appointee, and there are not enough political appointees to approve all of these things, and people aren’t getting their money. So, I mean, this is a logistical logjam, as well as an ideological one, right? 

Sanger-Katz: And we’ve seen some evidence of this. The Department of Homeland Security has had an informal policy like this, where the director was personally approving any expenditure, I think, more than 100 â€”now, I’m forgetting. 

Rovner: $100,000, yeah, I think it was. 

Sanger-Katz: There was some threshold, and it did lead to this huge backlog, because you know this is a busy person who has a lot of other things to do. And it was leading to a lot of money not getting spent that had been authorized by the staff members who thought it was appropriate. And I think there’s also potential for corruption with this kind of system, where you have these bottlenecks where very few people are making all the decisions about where money goes, because then there is an obvious focus on where you send your lobbying efforts to try to get favorable outcomes in contracting and in grant-making. 

Whyte: Yeah, the concern from the science and public health organizations is that the merit of the scientific grant will no longer matter, that how good the science is won’t be the chief thing. 

Rovner: Yeah, that this is all about, you know, promoting the president’s agenda. I’m just wondering what Republicans will feel about this when Democrats, you know, take back the administration and try to do the same thing. 

Whyte: I think that’s exactly the concern that a lot of conservatives on the Hill have, which is, you know, all of this is fine and well, but you’re not going to like it when the tables turn. 

Rovner: Yeah, that was â€” that’s what I said, you know, when the Affordable Care Act passed, I said, there’s an awful lot of places where it says the secretary shall, or the secretary may, or the secretary will. I said, you know, the secretary’s not always going to be somebody who supports this. That&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;turned out to be a correct prediction.  

Moving on, the idea of this administration playing down its vaccine skepticism was so last month. Last Friday, President Trump issued an executive order basically endorsing Health and Human Services Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.]’s revamp of the childhood vaccine schedule, and ordering the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to review it and, quote, “take any appropriate steps to update said schedule.” What happened to “This isn’t popular, so we’re not going to push it,” or is doing this on a Friday afternoon how the administration is trying to placate the MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] movement, but not really make big headlines here? I also â€” this is another story that I think kind of flew below the radar. 

Whyte: Yeah, it’s funny because HHS can’t really say anything about this executive order due to their litigation ongoing, and so it’s just kind of out there. But it’s totally unclear to everybody why or what it’s expected to do, given that the court has put everything regarding the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on hold, and there currently is no ACIP. So what exactly the White House was intending with this remains pretty opaque, I think. 

Rovner: Like a lot of things, although I have started to, you know, like, pay attention on Friday afternoons again. Meanwhile, our podcast colleague  about how the anti-vax movement is trying to achieve its goal through the courts by arguing that vaccine mandates that lack religious exemptions are unconstitutional. And one of those cases is likely to reach the Supreme Court at some point in the not-too-distant future. What would it mean to public health if the court were to actually strike down the ability of states to impose vaccine mandates, which is one of the possible outcomes here? Or, as the groups claim, is this just about getting the five states that don’t have religious exemptions from vaccines into alignment with the rest of the states? 

Sanger-Katz: I think there is pretty strong evidence from the studies of state policies over the years that having really limited exemptions on mandatory vaccination really increases the number of kids who get vaccinated, that the more ways there are to kind of wiggle out of the requirement, the more parents will choose one of those options. And the narrower the exceptions, the fewer will. So, there are clearly some parents who really, really care about this issue and who do qualify for one of these exemptions. But I think there’s a larger number of parents who are maybe ambivalent or have kind of weakly held preferences not to vaccinate; if they’re not really being forced to do it, they won’t do it. If they are really being forced to go through a lot of administrative burden to prove that they need an exception, then they tend to vaccinate. And so I think this is an exception that almost every state already has, but I think that the evidence is relatively clear that opening up more exceptions in those states that don’t have them now, probably on the margin, will lead to fewer kids getting vaccinated in those states. 

Whyte: Yeah, the five states that don’t allow religious exemptions to vaccine mandates are West Virginia, California, New York, Connecticut, and Maine. So that would be, you know, an immediate effect there. But then I think we can expect from a Supreme Court precedent, if one is set, that other states, state legislatures, local school districts would perhaps expand the religious exemptions they have now, or make them easier. We’ve seen that how much friction there is when you get a religious exemption really matters. So, like, do you have to just sign a form, click a box, or do you have to go meet with someone and prove that you, you know, have sincerely held beliefs on this matter? And those kind of friction points matter a lot too. 

Rovner: Yeah, I just, I couldn’t help thinking, as I was reading this story, about going back to the Dobbs case, the abortion case, which was not originally intended or filed as one that was going to overturn Roe, and makes me wonder what the Supreme Court might do, even if the question that’s raised is, you know, about these religious exemptions, could they go on and overturn â€” I think that precedent was from 1905 that said that states can have vaccine mandates â€” and wondering whether a) that’s possible, and b) that’s likely. 

Sanger-Katz: It’s always hard to predict what the Supreme Court is going to do. 

Rovner: Always. 

Sanger-Katz: It’s really up to them. They’re an idiosyncratic group of people who get the final say on a lot of things. 

Whyte: I thought it was interesting, Lauren’s story was great, and one of the things it pointed out is that what the Supreme Court did is specifically give instructions to this lower court to go back and look at this question about religious exemptions for vaccine mandates using a case that happened in Maryland, where the Supreme Court found that the school district could not mandate that kids participate in lessons with LGBTQ content that would conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs. So in other words, the families had a religious right to not have to participate into that in school. And the Supreme Court is asking, is there a similar right that a family would have to not have to participate in vaccination to attend school? So that’ll be an interesting question, and it could, as we said, you know, have big impacts across the states and how school districts handle vaccine mandates for kindergartners. 

Rovner: Although I think this will take a while to play out. And before we leave the subject of vaccines, an update to our discussion from a couple of weeks back about the global vaccine alliance known as Gavi, which the U.S. owes some $600 million appropriated by Congress. That’s money that’s been held up by HHS Secretary RFK Jr. At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said his agency, which has historically been in charge of Gavi for the U.S. government, said that it is, quote, “sort of at a stage where we are going to re-engage. We need to drive this to an outcome.” Was that his polite way of saying that he plans to give Gavi the money that Congress allocated to it, and RFK Jr.’s concerns be damned? 

Whyte: I think a lot of people are reading it that way. You know, the State Department has a very practical view on these things. I also thought the way that Rubio phrased how they were giving Secretary Kennedy a large amount of deference because of his strongly held views on this matter was a very interesting insight into how the Cabinet works and how Trump has instructed his top officials to work together. And I think part of the problem here is that they’re just running into the practicalities of not having an Ebola vaccine. And so the State Department is going to have to do what it feels must be done. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was just a little peek behind the curtain of this intra-agency squabble that’s going on. We’ll wait and see if that happens. 

Whyte: I should say that they don’t have a vaccine for this newest outbreak that is going on. They, you know, the older Ebola vaccine, it was not appropriate to treat this one or to prevent this. 

Rovner: All right. We’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

All right. Our theme this week seems to be federal rulemaking. So, here’s another one. The Trump administration has issued final rules attempting to fix the arbitration system created in the, quote, “No Surprises Act” â€” that it is safe to say has not worked as it was designed by Congress. Margot, remind us what went haywire with the process that’s actually in practice [to] dramatically increase what providers get paid, and will these new rules make it all better?  

Sanger-Katz: So this is a system supposed to solve the problem of surprise medical billing when you, say, go to the emergency room and some doctor treats you, and it turns out that that doctor didn’t take your insurance and sends you a huge bill. So the law did away with that, basically said no one is allowed to send you a huge bill in that situation, and then it created a system on the back end for the insurance company and the doctor to kind of fight it out and figure out what the doctor was going to get paid if they didn’t have a contract with that insurance company. And the expectation of Congress was that this is a system that would be used fairly rarely, that most of the time this would be negotiated between the parties; they would just decide on a price and work it out, but every once in a while there would be a rare case where they would need to litigate their dispute. And it would go, they set up this arbitration system where a neutral arbiter, usually a lawyer, but not always, would hear arguments from each side and decide who had the more reasonable position, and would have to choose between the two bids. They couldn’t negotiate any further, but, you know, the doctor would say, This was a very complicated case, I deserve $10,000. And the insurance company would say, No, no, no, like, normally for this kind of visit we pay $500. And the arbitrator would have to decide which is more reasonable: $10,000 or $500. 

What’s happened, I think, to the surprise of a lot of people, is that instead of 17,000 of these cases going to arbitration, which is what CMS expected when the law passed, more than a million are going through a year. There has just been an explosion of cases coming through the system. Lots and lots of medical disputes are now being decided using this process, and the doctors are winning almost all of the time. I think in the last quarter for which there is data, 88% of these arbitration claims are being decided in favor of doctors. And because of that, the doctors, in many cases, have started getting more aggressive in what they ask for. Because they keep winning, there is not really an incentive to say that price is normally $500. They’re much more likely now to ask for $10,000 than early on in the system, where maybe they were asking for $1,000. And so we’re seeing some really eye-popping awards. Not all of them; there are a fair number of awards that are, you know, within a reasonable number of multiples of what the normal price is. But there are an increasing number where doctors are just getting huge, huge, huge increases over what you would expect. And my colleague Sarah Kliff and I wrote a story a few weeks ago about a plastic surgeon in New York and New Jersey who was routinely collecting fees of hundreds of thousands of dollars for breast reduction surgeries that he had previously accepted payments of around $10,000 from the same insurer prior to this law going into place. So big problems. Lots of complaints from insurers, as you can imagine, and also from employers who, in many cases, are actually paying the bills for their workers’ health insurance directly, because they have these self-insured ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974] plans. 

This rule that just came out is not getting at the real, like, meat of the system, how the arbitration works, and what&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;how the arbitrators make their decisions. But it’s dealing with, like, a lot of, like, technical issues about, you know, how do you submit paperwork? What kind of information do you provide? Is it all in one computer system? How can you make sure that you have identified the right insurance company? And what are the administrative fees that you pay when you want to initiate one of these claims? And so this is a very hot issue. I wrote this one story, and, like, everyone is just really worked up about it. The doctors are really worked up about it, the insurers are really worked up about it, the arbitrators are really worked, you know, everyone feels strongly about this law, and whether it’s going well or not well, or what changes or they want or don’t want. Everybody loved this rule. As far as I can tell, there have been, like, basically no complaints about this rule. The one complaint I’ve seen is that they lowered the fee to file a new case, and so I think people who feel like there are too many of these cases would like it to be a little harder to file a new case. But, in general, it seems like these were expected, helpful, technical upgrades that are just going to make the process work a little bit more smoothly and deal with some of the annoying administrative headaches. 

Rovner: But not address the deeper problem. 

Sanger-Katz: The bigger issues, I think, really do require the involvement of Congress. If Congress wants to revisit the law and change the way that this overall system is structured, they’re probably going to have to write new legislation. And I’m not sure how large the appetite is for that right now. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’m not going to hold my breath on that one. All right, that’s as much news as we have time for this week. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month.” Hi, Lauren. 

Lauren Sausser: Hi. 

Rovner: So, this month’s patient got caught in one of those fights between the insurance company and the hospital, and, of course, it turned out to be harder to untangle it than it should have been. Tell us who she was, what happened to her, what kind of care she needed. 

Sausser: Sure, so Jan Anderson is a 65-year-old woman who splits her time between Arizona and Washington state. And Jan was hiking with her husband about a year ago in Arizona. They were in Sedona. And later that afternoon â€” it might have even been pushing into early evening â€” she started repeating herself. So she asked her husband, Did we hike today? And he said, Yes, we hiked. And then a few seconds later she asked the exact same question, Did we hike today? And it was clear almost immediately that Jan needed to be seen. So her husband drove her to a freestanding ER in the Sedona area, and that facility assessed her but was not equipped to deal with patients who might be experiencing stroke. They didn’t know what was happening with Jan at this point, so she was airlifted to a hospital in the Phoenix area, where she was admitted. And they ran a bunch of different tests and images, and it turns out she wasn’t having a stroke, she was having, she was experiencing an episode of something that’s called temporary [transient] global amnesia â€” which, the good news is, is benign, and as the name suggests, temporary. But her hospital bill ended up being quite a lot, even though it was less of an emergency than they originally thought. 

Rovner: Well, of course, that’s what they always tell you: If you’re having symptoms, you should go to the emergency room. So, she did have insurance, right? So, why did the hospital in Phoenix think that she didn’t? And how much was the bill? 

Sausser: OK, so the total bill was $59,181. That’s just for the care she received at the hospital in the Phoenix area. She did have insurance. She was insured through Molina [Healthcare], and it was a plan that she had purchased through the federal healthcare.gov marketplace. For some reason, though, her insurance information was not transferred from that freestanding ER in Sedona to the facility where she was airlifted in the Phoenix area. So it was a mistake, but that second facility billed her as if she was a self-pay patient with no health insurance. 

Rovner: Now, once the hospital did figure out that she had insurance, why did the insurance company then still reject the claim? 

Sausser: It took a while to get some answers on this, but eventually Jan learned that Molina was not going to cover the cost of that care she received in Phoenix, because the Phoenix hospital had not sought prior authorization for her to be admitted. Now, under the federal No Surprises Act, emergency services are supposed to be paid for in-network without prior authorization. In this case, the insurer was saying Yes, we do cover emergency services without prior authorization, but in this case her care team was recommending that she be admitted. And the insurer argued that the insurance company needed to be notified before that happened. 

Rovner: So, I know I ask this question all the time: Why didn’t the No Surprises bill [Act] get the patient out of the middle of this obvious insurance company hospital dispute?  

Sausser: This&²Ô²ú²õ±è;…&²Ô²ú²õ±è;in this case, the No Surprises Act kind of worked. Jan received a bill pretty early on saying she owed about $15,000 of that $59,000 total charge. After she told the hospital that she did indeed have coverage, that bill was suspended. There was no one technically knocking on her door pressuring her to pay any amount of the charges she had accumulated in the Phoenix hospital. But every time she would log on to her patient portal, she would see these outstanding charges. The hospital didn’t understand why the insurance company wouldn’t pay. The insurance company was saying she needed to have had prior authorization, and these charges just weren’t disappearing, and so eventually she started reaching out to insurance commissioners, lawmakers, trying to get someone to pay attention, because she was worried at some point she might owe the hospital $59,000. She couldn’t get these charges resolved, and didn’t understand why. 

Rovner: And what eventually happened? 

Sausser: Well, she eventually contacted us. And, as is often the case when journalists get involved with these health insurance issues, the ball started moving. So Molina started talking to the hospital in the Phoenix area, the Phoenix-area hospital has assured Jan that she will not be billed for any of the $59,000. Even if Molina doesn’t pay, the hospital has assured her that they will write off the balance and that she will not be billed. Jan has asked for that assurance in writing. As of the last time I spoke to her, she hasn’t gotten that, but she has been told she will not have to pay any of it. 

Rovner: So, what’s the takeaway here? I mean, it sounds like, you know, she did everything right, and it seems to be resolved. 

Sausser: It seems to be resolved, although the last I heard the $59,000 in charges haven’t necessarily gone away. I spoke with a patient billing expert about this, and the advice that she gave in a situation like this, you know, when you have a hospital stay, you get all sorts of paperwork in the mail afterward. You get paperwork from the insurer, you get paperwork from the provider. This billing expert recommends that you look at the patient responsibility portion of your explanation of benefits. Now that’s a document that you will get from your insurance company. It should list the charges that the hospital has billed, but it should also list the portion of those charges that the patient is responsible for. In Jan’s case, her explanation of benefits clearly stated that she was not responsible for any of it. Now, that didn’t mean that those $59,000 in charges was automatically disappearing, as this story shows. More than a year later, it’s still not resolved. But it shows you that the insurance company is saying you are not responsible for this bill, in this case. The billing expert that I spoke to recommended that the patient mail or email the explanation of benefits from the insurer to the hospital and show that the patient responsibility is zero, in order to get that balance cleared.  

Rovner: We’ll see if this happens. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much. 

Sausser: Of course, thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I have a very interesting piece from The New York Times by Simar Bajaj, and it’s called “.” And it is about the trend we’re seeing under the MAHA movement, largely, you know, expressed by Secretary Kennedy, back towards putting a lot of focus on personal responsibility, personal lifestyle choices, and less focus on policy and environmental factors. And it’s, you know, digging into the history of that on a few different fronts, both with, you know, infectious diseases, but also with things like obesity. And it is talking about basically how we’re seeing a return to a system that didn’t really work before, which is, you know, basically browbeating and shaming people into healthier behaviors that did not work in the past. And yet we are sort of attempting to revive that, and part of that is a reaction to the fact that trying to move away from that also hasn’t seemed to work either. So it really explores these, the different history of these approaches in public health. 

Rovner: That’s why public health will continue to be studied. Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I want to suggest an article in ProPublica from Alec MacGillis called “.” I’ve been interested in the public health problem of gun deaths for many years, and I have to admit that Alec in the story has tackled an issue that I just wasn’t watching. I think it’s, like, one of these other things that has a little bit slipped beneath the radar, because the Trump administration makes so much news. But they, through the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which regulates firearms and firearms dealers, has really loosened up a lot of the restrictions that the Biden administration had put in place to try to prevent the trafficking of illegal guns onto the streets of American cities, where a lot of crime happens. And the story sort of looks at those policy changes and what it means for gun dealers and for people who buy guns. And I think it is too soon to tell whether these policy changes will have an effect on violence and gun deaths on the streets. I think it takes, in many cases, a long time for illegal guns to kind of get out there and be used for crimes. But we have been in this period of really merciful reduction in the crime rate and the murder rate in many American cities for the last few years, and I do think that Alec raises the question that if we are seeing more guns on the streets of the future, whether those declines can be sustained.  

Rovner: Liz. 

Whyte: My choice is from my colleagues Anna Wilde Mathews and Christopher Weaver at The Wall Street Journal, and it’s entitled “.” And it’s a really great look at how there are all these providers that have really exploited this new and growing segment of therapy for kids with autism, which is obviously a growing diagnosis, such that you have, you know, this mom in New Jersey who hears that she can get a no-out-of-pocket-cost treatment for her son and has someone come a few days a week, three or four hours of therapy, and winds up with a bill for more than $900,000, which is obviously a nightmare. So we had previously looked, The Wall Street Journal had, [at] Medicaid billing abuse with these autism therapy services, and found that it was a huge issue. And then this is a look at kind of the private insurance sector, where all these providers are charging private insurance a lot, and when an insurer says, No, we’re not going to pay that, some of these bills end up falling on the families, which is really tragic. About 40 large employers, covering 3.5 million people, their expenses for autism therapy doubled from 2021 to 2025, to $108 million. The Wall Street Journal looked at a bill that was $30,000 for one kid to get autism therapy for one day; it’s actually quite insane. So, kudos to my colleagues for writing about this.  

Sanger-Katz: Can I share one fact from this article that really struck me? 

Rovner: Sure. 

Sanger-Katz: One of the things that these reporters did that I thought was so smart is they documented the growth in the autism services workforce. So, the number of people who are providing this kind of behavioral therapy to children with autism is now larger than the workforce of the U.S. Postal Service. That’s according to a tweet from Derek Thompson, who compared the numbers. But it is kind of astonishing, the growth, not just in the Medicaid spending, not just in private insurance spending, not just in some of these unjustifiable bills that individuals have faced, but also that this is now a huge part of the American workforce is serving in this specific industry right now.  

Rovner: And if this story sounds familiar, it’s because we had a different autism therapy abuse story last week as one of our extra credits. It was written by Margot here, and Sarah Kliff. Yeah, a burgeoning source for reporters to plumb. My extra credit this week is a joint investigation between my colleagues here at Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and the AP. It’s called “Festering Infections to Untreated Cancer: ICE Detainees Describe Medical Neglect Across US.” The team of six reporters and analysts dug through court records to document that hundreds of immigration detainees in 33 states have filed suit, charging that they were denied adequate medical care. Quoting from the story, “Requests for help went unanswered for weeks, blood sugars rose, infections festered, cancers remained untreated, detainees collapsed and had seizures.” And there’s not even anyone to complain to. Officially, the administration shut down the office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman earlier this year. The story is really infuriating and worth reading in its entirety. 

OK, that is this week’s news. Thanks to our editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Alice. 

Ollstein: I am on Bluesky , and on X . 

Rovner: Liz. 

Whyte: I am , and on X , and Signal: JournoLiz.80. 

Rovner: Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I am @sangerkatz at , and on Signal. If you want to send me tips, I’m @sangerkatz.01. 

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Taylor Cook Audio producer
Stephanie Stapleton Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-449-medicaid-work-rules-exemptions-june-4-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2244767&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]> 2244767 Louisiana’s Reporting Law Chills Immigrant Medicaid Applications /medicaid/immigrants-medicaid-children-applications-louisiana-crackdown-citizenship/ Thu, 04 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2244790 Yolibeth’s 4-year-old daughter scrambled headfirst onto a cushy leather love seat at their home near New Orleans and pushed a hairbrush into the hands of Miriam Romero, a health coordinator who works with the family. Romero placed the girl in her lap and started brushing her dark hair.

Yolibeth, a 38-year-old single mother who moved to South Louisiana from Honduras 15 years ago, watched them, smiling. The daughter is the youngest of five children living in this mixed-status household. Yolibeth and her two oldest kids don’t have legal immigration status, but the other three — ages 4, 9, and 13 — were born in the U.S. and are citizens.

All of her U.S.-born kids were enrolled in Medicaid at birth, which made it affordable for her to take them to the doctor for regular checkups when they were little. Her oldest two, ages 15 and 17, have never had health insurance, so Yolibeth relies on low-cost community clinics when she can afford it.

But now she worries that healthcare access for all of her children is slipping away. Yolibeth has been waiting for months to hear whether any of her children’s Medicaid renewal applications  has been approved. She fears they will be denied because of a new Louisiana law targeting noncitizen Medicaid enrollees, even though she isn’t applying for herself. She worries particularly about her 4-year-old’s access to routine care and required childhood vaccines.

“ I cannot access the same services, and so my child is not getting what she needs to grow healthy,” Yolibeth said in Spanish as her daughter giggled on the love seat.

Verite News and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News agreed to not use Yolibeth’s full name, because she is worried about repercussions related to her immigration status.

Two women stand side-by-side, each with an arm around the other, and face away from the camera toward a building.
Romero (left) welcomes a community member to Familias Unidas en Acción’s office in New Orleans in April. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

Romero, who works for a local immigrant advocacy group, said that in a single week she received calls from eight immigrant families who had been denied after applying for Medicaid on behalf of children who are citizens.

“Because of the law that passed in Louisiana, children are losing their Medicaid every day,” Romero said in Spanish. “The more time that goes by, the more children are impacted by it.”

Romero said that all children from mixed-status families are likely to be denied Medicaid by the end of the year.

Missing Out on Care

Nationally, many immigrants said they skipped or delayed healthcare last year, citing issues including costs, struggles finding services, and fears about their or a family member’s immigration status, by KFF and The New York Times. Immigrants without legal status were the most likely to skip or delay care for themselves or their children. An increasing number of immigrants avoided applying for programs like Medicaid, too scared to risk drawing attention to their or a family member’s immigration status, even if they were eligible.

In Louisiana, where about a third of residents are enrolled in Medicaid, the has added to those fears. The law requires the Louisiana Department of Health to verify Medicaid applicants’ U.S. citizenship, terminate coverage for applicants with “unsatisfactory” proof of status, and report those applicants to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Since the measure passed in Louisiana, similar bills have passed in North Carolina, Wyoming, Indiana, and Tennessee. At least three other states were considering similar measures this year.

State Rep. Chance Keith Henry, a Republican who sponsored the Louisiana bill, did not return calls or emails from Verite News seeking comment on the effects of the law. He said in last year’s state House floor debate that he didn’t anticipate any chilling effect on immigrants seeking healthcare. He also said that children born in the U.S. to parents without legal status would still receive Medicaid.

“This is making sure that American citizens and our taxpayers are taken care of and not illegal immigrants,” he said in the May 2025 floor debate.

State health officials said Medicaid applicants can’t be reported to ICE under the law without a formal investigation request by “the appropriate authorities.” Otherwise, reporting applicants without their consent would violate federal Medicaid and privacy laws.

But immigrant rights advocates say the law has had a chilling effect on applications and has led to immigrant families losing healthcare and resources they qualify for.

They said cutting off that access compounds the fear created by immigration enforcement crackdowns in states including and Minnesota, and by federal policy changes such as between ICE and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and for Medicaid.

Advocates said it’s unclear whether the new law has led to any detainments or deportations of people applying for Medicaid or other public benefit programs. But Aaron Moseley-Saldívar, a legal and public policy adviser with the Louisiana Organization for Refugees and Immigrants, said the legislative and policy changes act as a deterrent to immigrant families, even if they qualify for Medicaid as a legal resident, refugee, or asylum seeker, or have another form of legal status.

“ People are not applying for things that they probably otherwise would be eligible for, because they are intimidated by these laws and they’re worried that they’re going to get caught up in the system,” Moseley-Saldívar said. “ You have a large amount of people in Louisiana that are not leaving their homes at all, because they’re afraid of policies like this.”

Moseley-Saldívar said he believes the Louisiana law and similar policies are primarily aimed at removing people from state services. The state legislature passed a on May 27 to build on the 2025 law. It seeks to further narrow which noncitizens are qualified for public benefits in Louisiana, even though such restrictions for Medicaid are typically governed at the federal level.

The Louisiana Department of Health’s on the new law does not contain any data on applicants reported to ICE since the law took effect last August. But by February of this year, the state had terminated the coverage of 87% of enrollees who had unverified immigration or citizenship status as of June 2025.

From July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, according to the report, 1% of the 1.6 million people in Louisiana enrolled in Medicaid weren’t citizens, and fewer than 4,000 had an unclear immigration status.

A view from outside looking into a building through a door with screen where a woman stands with her hand to the door as if she's about to push it open.
Romero says that all children from mixed-status families in Louisiana are likely to be denied Medicaid by the end of the year. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

‘A Double-Edged Sword’

Late last year, more than 600 people lined up at 4 a.m. outside a Louisiana Organization for Refugees and Immigrants health fair, hoping to receive a free health checkup, said Sharon Njie, the nonprofit’s communications and strategic partners director. The fair was scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.

“ We had to start calling the doctors to see if they could come there at 7 a.m., because these people have been waiting for two hours in the cold,” Njie said. “We were so overwhelmed.”

Romero said some families in the New Orleans area have been waiting six months to vaccinate their children at one of the free events put on by healthcare providers. But she said fewer free health events for children have been scheduled, and even fewer for adults. For many of the residents she works with, Romero said, preventive care such as a Pap smear or prostate screening is out of reach.

“The challenge right now is a double-edged sword of people not going to the doctor out of fear but also ending up in an emergency that is too hard to treat,” Romero said. “It’s a life-or-death situation.”

For families with no other option, Njie and Romero try to connect people to doctors sympathetic to the immigrants’ plight and willing to absorb the cost of care or offer a discount, such as medical providers who are immigrants themselves.

But that does not address the systemic problems of immigrant access to healthcare created by the state law and federal immigration policies, or the lower quality of care for those who seek it. For example, one local New Orleans clinic, Luke’s House, caters to Spanish-speakers and immigrants, though it’s staffed largely by medical students, Romero said, so the level of care isn’t the same.

A close-up of hands holding several colorful brochures.
Romero says some families in the New Orleans area have been waiting six months to vaccinate their children at one of the free events put on by healthcare providers. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

While she waits for word on three of her kids’ Medicaid applications, Yolibeth secured a free insurance plan for them on the Louisiana Affordable Care Act marketplace, she said. But she hasn’t found any doctors who will accept the coverage, she said, leaving them effectively uninsured.

When her 13-year-old son recently fell ill, she wanted to take him to a pediatrician. But she said she couldn’t afford the $200 the appointment would have cost, plus any tests and medication.

Without a doctor’s note to provide proof of his illness, she said, she had to send her sick son to school, potentially exposing other children to a virus. Earlier in the school year, she was called into the school’s office after he missed five days because of illness. In Louisiana, truancy can be punishable with parental fines, community service, or jail.

Romero said if enough school is missed because of sickness, a criminal case could lead to family separation.

“That is unthinkable,” she said. “All because a family could not afford to take a child to see the doctor as opposed to these things being guaranteed to begin with.”

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

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

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2244790&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]> 2244790 Trump’s Medicaid Work Rules Force States To Scrap Plans and Rework Systems /medicaid/trump-law-medicaid-work-rules-states-overhaul-eligibility-systems/ Wed, 03 Jun 2026 19:53:14 +0000 /?p=2246301 The Trump administration’s rollout of a federal mandate that millions of Americans on Medicaid must work or risk losing health benefits will force states to scrap months of preparation, according to advocates for Medicaid enrollees and consultants advising states.

And they say an overhaul — less than seven months before states must start enforcing the requirement — will be costly.

by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services dictate many granular details about how the new work requirements will play out. They cover how states should check whether Medicaid enrollees are following the rules, and how people can claim an exemption so that their health benefits don’t hinge on work, community service, or going to school.

Next year, President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act could require roughly across 42 states and the District of Columbia who receive Medicaid benefits to prove they’re working or participating in a similar activity to keep their health coverage — unless they qualify for an exemption.

Much of the verification will run through state computer systems that assess whether low-income people qualify for Medicaid and other safety net programs — technology often built and run by private companies under contracts routinely worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Many of those systems have a history of errors that can cut off benefits to eligible people.

For months, states have been communicating with federal regulators and rushing to build systems to comply with the looming mandates, said Kinda Serafi, a partner at the Manatt Health consulting and legal firm. The rules released this week represent a “significant policy pivot” from what states were expecting, Serafi said.

“The administration has actually taken what we know to be a tough situation and has just made it even worse,” Serafi said. States had already committed to paying contractors tens of millions to adjust their systems.

After Trump signed his signature tax-and-spending bill into law last July, one of the most significant remaining questions was how much discretion the federal government would give states to define exemptions for people too sick to work. The “medical frailty” exemption allows a person to claim they have a health condition that prevents them from working at least 80 hours a month, as the law requires.

To qualify, a person generally must fit into at least one of five categories: They must be blind or disabled; have a substance use disorder; have a disabling mental disorder; have a physical, intellectual, or developmental disability that significantly impairs their daily life; or have a serious medical condition. States are not allowed to add categories.

Under the new regulations, CMS said having a medical condition alone isn’t sufficient to exempt someone from the work requirements. States must assess “the severity of an individual’s condition” to determine whether they can stay on Medicaid without working — a standard that makes it more difficult for enrollees to meet the criteria.

CMS officials did not list specific conditions that qualify for exemptions, but the agency did say homelessness can’t be a reason to claim that exemption because it is not a medical condition.

To implement the law, states “will have to undo work that they did,” said , deputy director of Princeton University’s State Health and Value Strategies program, which works with state governments on various health coverage issues.

The Trump administration previously acknowledged that the work to upgrade state Medicaid eligibility systems to comply with the law is coming at a cost. In January, top CMS officials said government contractors, including Deloitte, Accenture, and Optum, and reduced rates through 2028 to help states adjust their systems.

The discounts “may be helpful” in some states, but they’re “not going to be helpful across the board” due to variations in state contracts, said , director of the State Health and Value Strategies program.

“Anytime you have to go back and say, ‘Oops, we need to reprogram this one thing,’ there’s a cost,” Howard said.

States were prepared to create lists of conditions and diseases to qualify people for work requirement exemptions, according to health care experts advising them. Mining data to verify someone’s illness was already a tall order for states because the computer systems that determine whether someone is eligible for Medicaid often do not communicate with the systems that track medical claims.

America’s health care payment systems rely on a set of standardized codes that correspond to specific diagnoses.

But there’s no “code that designates that someone is too sick to work — that’s a subjective assessment,” said Rachel Klein, deputy executive director of , a nonpartisan advocacy group for people with HIV. “This is a recipe for disaster.”

The new federal standards pose immediate issues for Nebraska, which launched its Medicaid work requirement on May 1, eight months before the federally mandated deadline. Nebraska handles decisions on medical frailty differently than the Trump administration does.

Nebraska officials had already released a nearly of medical conditions that qualify as exemptions, such as types of cancer, dementia, autism, epilepsy, HIV, and Parkinson’s disease. The state, which relies on government workers to check Medicaid eligibility, doesn’t require a person to prove how sick they are.

But under Trump’s rules, people will have to show their qualifying illness is impeding their ability to work.

Now, Nebraska is “going to have to go back and figure out how to assess whether all of these people are too sick to meet the requirement,” Klein said.

Medicaid enrollees are slated to start losing coverage this summer under Nebraska’s early rollout.

Sarah Maresh, a program director with , an advocacy organization for people with low incomes, said the state should refrain from terminating people’s coverage until next year because of the changes it will need to make. State residents are already confused and scared, she said, and the new rule “makes matters much worse.”

In response to several questions, Jeff Powell, a spokesperson for Nebraska’s Department of Health and Human Services, said the state is reviewing the new federal regulation to determine potential impacts.

The new federal standards will limit people’s ability to attest that they are medically frail starting in 2028 and will require documentation as proof, another change states weren’t expecting, Meuse said. had planned to allow applicants and enrollees to declare conditions themselves to get exemptions, according to KFF.

Striking the right balance of flexibility was an important part of deliberations when crafting these rules, CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said on a June 1 call with reporters. “The mantra we kept coming back to was that we’re forgiving, but we’re not foolish,” he said.

Trump officials wrote in the regulation that Medicaid work requirements have “the potential to empower Medicaid beneficiaries” by allowing them to “escape isolation and dependency, build confidence, achieve self-sufficiency and prosperity, and improve health.”

Stephanie Burdick, a leader of the Protect Medicaid Utah coalition, disputed the premise.

“If they want to improve work opportunities or connection and decrease isolation and loneliness, they would be starting job programs and volunteer service programs,” Burdick said. “They wouldn’t just be forcing more administrative burden onto people and then saying that it’s good for them.”

An estimated will become uninsured by 2034 due to Medicaid work requirements, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

But with the new regulations, Howard said, there’s a risk of “that number being even higher.”

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicaid/trump-law-medicaid-work-rules-states-overhaul-eligibility-systems/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2246301&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]> 2246301 Telehealth Booms as Demand for GLP-1s Surges and Questions Mount About Safety, Oversight /health-industry/glp1-weight-loss-drugs-telehealth-oversight-regulation-compounded-semaglutide/ Mon, 01 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2236393 Within 24 hours of injecting the first dose of a weight loss medication she received following a visit with a telehealth doctor, Karleigh McClain was admitted to the hospital, she said.

The 31-year-old compliance consultant from Hendersonville, Tennessee, said she couldn’t stop vomiting.

“Sunday morning, it all hits,” McClain recalled, as she described what happened that weekend in January. “I can’t keep anything down.”

McClain said she thought the dosage the telehealth company had prescribed seemed too high. She tried to contact her doctor, but when she didn’t get an immediate response, she said she called the company and a “care team” representative confirmed the instructions — which said to inject 2.21 milligrams of the semaglutide medication once a week — were correct.

It turned out, however, that was nearly nine times the amount patients are typically told to take for their first dose.

Nearly a month after she was diagnosed with an overdose, McClain said she was “still dealing with the residual side effects,” including an elevated heart rate and vision problems she felt were tied to the medication.

Most patients who have taken a GLP-1 received their prescription through a primary care doctor or a specialist, shows. But as the uptake of telehealth has grown substantially since the start of the covid pandemic, McClain is one of millions of Americans who have used online companies to meet a variety of their medical needs.

Many of the companies have started offering GLP-1 medications for weight loss as demand for these drugs has exploded. But certain medication errors tied to GLP-1s have exploded too, according to a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News review of Food and Drug Administration data, and physicians and telemedicine researchers worry that adverse experiences tied to telehealth companies are becoming more common.

Bad outcomes aren’t unique to telehealth providers or to the compounded weight loss drugs many of them offer. In fact, product liability lawsuits alleging patient injuries have been filed overwhelmingly against pharmaceutical giants Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, which manufacture name-brand weight loss drugs, court data shows. The drugmakers have defended their products.

However, some critics are also concerned that getting a weight loss prescription online is usually much easier than getting one through an in-person appointment. Not only do many telehealth companies write quick prescriptions for GLP-1s, but they often sell the medications, too, allowing patients to bypass in-person pharmacy visits. This one-stop shopping isn’t necessarily a good thing, according to critics who say some telehealth providers are writing prescriptions for people who should not be taking GLP-1s and then providing little or no follow-up care.

“It gives a black eye to telemedicine,” said Elizabeth Krupinski, an experimental psychologist at Emory University who has conducted research on the effectiveness of telehealth.

Telemedicine stands to benefit “so many people,” Krupinski said, particularly when the technology is integrated within a larger healthcare system. That way, patients benefit from the convenience of telehealth while maintaining a connection with their in-person providers.

But some telehealth companies are marketing GLP-1s as an easy way to lose weight — sometimes with the help of paid celebrity endorsements — without emphasizing the importance of healthy eating and exercise, she said.

They may be following the letter of the law, Krupinski said. But writing prescriptions while skimping on care “is not in the Hippocratic oath.”

A woman's hand holds a small vial of liquid GLP-1 medication on a table.
McClain says she overdosed on an injectable weight loss medication in January after following dosing instructions from a telehealth provider. (Arielle Weenonia Gray for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

The Perfect Storm

Starting around 2020, many states loosened restrictions on telehealth, which allowed online companies to proliferate. This helped accommodate patients who could not, or chose not to, be seen in person at the height of covid transmission.

Expanded telehealth access was also intended to lower barriers in rural communities, as well as mitigate doctor and nurse shortages. In many places, telehealth doctors and nurses are legally allowed to treat patients across state lines. But the way telemedicine is practiced , and state laws largely dictate rules that telehealth providers must follow.

Some companies, such as Mochi Health, require patients to meet virtually with a provider, such as a doctor, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant, before they can get a GLP-1 prescription.

But others, including Ro, sometimes require nothing more of patients than an “asynchronous” evaluation, which does not include a live conversation with a healthcare provider. During this type of evaluation, customers are typically asked to fill out an intake form and answer a medical history questionnaire before they are evaluated for a prescription. Ro requires a conversation in real time when required by state law, or when requested by a patient or clinician, said Nicholas Samonas, a spokesperson for the company.

“Every patient is counseled by their provider on the potential benefits and risks of treatment based on their individual medical history,” Samonas said. Ro’s clinicians can order lab work when necessary and, when appropriate, may recommend patients seek in-person care, he said.

But some medical experts are concerned that virtual care may be insufficient for prescribing weight loss drugs.

Patients with a history of pancreatitis, for example, should be counseled about potential complications, medical studies show. The same goes for people with a condition called gastroparesis, which affects stomach nerves and muscles, and those susceptible to medullary thyroid cancer.

Some patients may also benefit from blood work or muscle mass screening before starting a GLP-1.

But not all telehealth companies are adequately evaluating patients before writing prescriptions, said Marc-Andre Cornier, an endocrinologist at the Medical University of South Carolina and the immediate past president of The Obesity Society.

When it comes to parsing the good from the bad, “whose job is it to police that?” he asked. The problem, he said, is there aren’t criteria written by a government agency or a medical society to determine which providers are treating patients appropriately and which aren’t.

While the first GLP-1 was approved by the FDA more than 20 years ago, to treat Type 2 diabetes, the use of these drugs took off in 2021 when Novo Nordisk received approval for a semaglutide drug to treat obesity, with the brand name Wegovy. In a 2025 KFF poll, said they had taken a GLP-1.

In a in The New England Journal of Medicine, physician Amanda Banks noted that the proportion of GLP-1 prescriptions written for people who were not diabetic, obese, or overweight increased from 4.5% in 2018 to 17% in 2023.

In the paper, Banks called it “troubling” how easy it is to obtain a prescription for weight loss drugs and worried they might exacerbate existing eating disorders or cause new cases, including of anorexia.

Cornier, who has received compensation from Novo Nordisk for serving as a consultant, echoed some of Banks’ concerns. “It’s not just filling out a form online and then having some random healthcare provider sign off on it,” he said. “There are concerns with some of these online programs that there’s not a proper evaluation, there’s not a baseline, and there’s not proper supervision.”

The American Telemedicine Association, which advocates for the expansion of “digitally enabled care,” has not addressed how telehealth providers prescribe GLP-1s, spokesperson Gina Cella said.

“This is a bit out of our scope,” Cella said, when asked if the association had addressed the topic of telehealth providers and GLP-1 prescriptions.

The lack of clarity makes choosing a company potentially confusing for patients, and the medical profession is partly to blame, said Jamy Ard, an obesity doctor and researcher at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Doctors have historically done a bad job counseling patients about weight loss, and many people aren’t comfortable talking to their primary care doctor about it, Ard said. Patients think, “Why would I go to my doctor and have them say, ‘Eat less and move more,’ when I have heard that a million times and I don’t want to have that lecture again?” Ard said.

This problem, combined with past shortages of name-brand versions of GLP-1s, such as Ozempic, Mounjaro, and Trulicity, has created a “perfect storm” for telehealth companies to flourish, said Ard, who has received support from pharmaceutical and telehealth companies.

While some telehealth companies prescribe only name-brand weight loss drugs, many also offer cheaper, compounded versions. They act as intermediaries between customers and mail-order compounding pharmacies, which create GLP-1s by mixing active ingredients, such as semaglutide, with additives. The ingredients for compounded drugs are commonly sourced from overseas suppliers, and the formulations are not reviewed by the FDA for safety.

The environment is “very much uncontrolled and poorly, if at all, regulated,” Ard said. “There is just no standard of care.”

Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that compounded drugs “should only be used in patients whose medical needs cannot be met by an FDA-approved drug.”

Hilliard said the agency urges “consumers to be vigilant and know the source of their medicine.”

Understanding the Risks

While weight loss drugs have helped millions of people lose weight, they’re not without risk, the data shows.

A Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News data analysis of the FDA’s Adverse Event Monitoring System found that medication errors made by providers or patients with popular weight loss drugs exploded from just over 2,000 reports in 2020 to over 25,000 in 2025. Those self-reported events involved semaglutide, tirzepatide, dulaglutide, and liraglutide, the generic names for leading GLP-1s.

Among frequent issues cited in the adverse event reports were administration of an extra or incorrect dose, issues with communication about a product, and prescribing errors.

Reports of GLP-1 Errors Explode (Column Chart)

Since 2019, the National Poison Data System has fielded a related to overdoses or side effects from injectable weight loss drugs. The data does not distinguish between overdoses tied to a telehealth prescription and those stemming from an in-person medical appointment, but it is a reflection of how prevalent these drugs have become.

Yet data on potential medication errors and adverse reactions to GLP-1 medications is incomplete, because many issues are never reported to federal officials.

For example, in a , the FDA accused drugmaker Novo Nordisk, the maker of Wegovy and Ozempic, of failing to report some adverse events to the federal government, including suicidal ideation and death.

Nobody knows how often adverse events occur, said Kristen Nixon, a Johns Hopkins University researcher who has studied posts about weight loss drugs on Reddit, a popular online forum.

Her team analyzed hundreds of Reddit posts from 2020 through last August and identified frequent mentions of drug reactions and user errors, such as patients’ not knowing how to correctly dose and inject the medication.

But another finding also stood out to her.

“Wow, there are a lot of people talking about telehealth,” Nixon recalled thinking. Reddit commenters said they got GLP-1 prescriptions from scores of telehealth platforms, Nixon found. Commenters also mentioned several dozen compounding pharmacies — often in the same posts about telehealth.

Pharmacies are typically required to counsel patients on medications they receive. But Nixon’s research found that telehealth companies often mail the medications directly, meaning patients do not need to go to a pharmacy.

“Anecdotally, it seems like the telehealth companies are really facilitating access to compounded medications,” Nixon said.

A collage of 6 advertisements for online GLP-1 medication.
A collage of weight loss drug advertisements on social media from telehealth companies. In recent months, the Trump administration has sent warning letters to online companies for false or misleading claims related to compounded versions of GLP-1 medications. (Collage by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Leslie Gammon, 54, an office manager from Wendell, North Carolina, said she turned to a telehealth company called Amble Health for a weight loss drug prescription. She was given a GLP-1 after filling out an online form, she said.

Like McClain, when she received her mail-order compounded medication in late October, she thought the dosage that accompanied it seemed too high. She’d received a box of semaglutide earlier in the month with a much lower dose. But the refill she received was a stronger formulation, and the instructions told Gammon to inject three times the volume she had been taking in previous weeks.

Even though she injected slightly less than that recommended amount before bed on a Sunday evening, she woke up in the middle of the night “throwing up every 20 to 25 minutes,” she said. And it didn’t stop until Tuesday. She was eventually admitted to a hospital in Raleigh and now owes the hospital over $9,000, a medical bill shows.

Amble Health did not respond to questions for this article.

The delivery system for injectable versions of weight loss drugs is more complicated than for a pill. In its National Poison Data System alert, America’s Poison Centers noted that some people reported “accidentally taking 10-times the recommended dose due to confusing measurement units while using a syringe.”

And people who are eager to lose extra weight — before a wedding or a vacation, for example — may choose to self-administer a higher-than-recommended dose, said Arthur Caplan, a bioethics professor at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine.

Some telehealth companies aren’t doing enough, he said, to make sure patients understand the risks or the complex delivery system associated with the injectable drugs.

“The consent is not adequate,” Caplan said. “There’s no probing to see if you understood anything.”

Cella, with the American Telemedicine Association, said the group has not addressed the difficulty of educating patients about the risks of injecting weight loss drugs. But she pointed to the association’s “,” which states that telehealth business models “must put the patient first.”

Proceed With Caution

Pharmaceutical companies must list potentially harmful side effects when they advertise the name-brand versions of their FDA-approved medications. Potential include nausea, vomiting, changes in vision, low blood sugar, and, in rare cases, thyroid cancer. Meanwhile, telehealth companies have not historically followed the same rules that drugmakers have in disclosing medication risks in advertisements. But the FDA has started cracking down on misleading drug ads.

A national shortage of weight loss medications in 2022 opened the door for compounding pharmacies to manufacture these drugs. But since the FDA declared the shortage over last year, companies that offer compounded drugs are increasingly facing legal and regulatory challenges related to their marketing tactics.

Mounjaro manufacturer Eli Lilly and other drugmakers are suing multiple telehealth companies for promoting compounded versions of their drugs. In one legal complaint, Eli Lilly alleged Mochi Health had engaged in “deceptive” business tactics. In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit last year, lawyers for Mochi Health called the complaint part of a “nationwide campaign to bolster Lilly’s profits by dictating patient care through the elimination of compounded drugs as a treatment option for weight management.” The lawsuit is ongoing.

Eli Lilly spokesperson Michael Jamison said in a written comment that telehealth companies sued by the drug manufacturer threaten “patient safety by falsely promoting supposedly ‘personalized’ compounded tirzepatide” and mislead “consumers about the safety, clinical testing, and effectiveness of their compounded knockoffs.”

Meanwhile, Novo Nordisk has filed 130 lawsuits against “entities engaged in unlawful marketing and sale of knockoff semaglutide drugs,” said Liz Skrbkova, a spokesperson for the drugmaker.

She said the company is committed to “protecting patients from unapproved knockoff drugs made with foreign, inauthentic active pharmaceutical ingredients that pose significant safety and efficacy risks.”

The Trump administration sent a in September and February to online companies such as , , , and . The FDA said these and other companies had made false or misleading claims related to compounded versions of weight loss drugs.

“Your claims imply that your products are the same as an FDA-approved product when they are not,” the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research on Sept. 9. HHS later referred the company to the Department of Justice after it announced the launch of a $49 version of Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy pill.

When asked about the FDA warning, Abby Reisinger-Moley, a spokesperson for Hims & Hers, pointed to a announcing a shift away from compounded weight loss drugs. The company said in the press release that it had entered into an agreement with Novo Nordisk to sell name-brand versions.

Alex Smith, CEO of Join Josie, an online platform that helps women in menopause lose weight by prescribing GLP-1s, said his company also made changes in response to an FDA letter, to include removing Join Josie’s name from medication vials. “Which I agree with,” Smith said, “because you don’t want patients thinking you’re the compounding pharmacy.”

SkinnyRx and Genesis Health International did not respond to requests for comment.

But these warnings aren’t the first time the federal government has stepped in to ensure that telemedicine is being used appropriately, said Mei Wa Kwong, executive director of the Center for Connected Health Policy.

Prior cases involved attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medications and other controlled substances prescribed by telehealth providers, she said. While those drugs pose more risk to patients than GLP-1s, the companies were also accused of improperly screening potential customers.

The onus still falls on consumers to research companies before signing up for their services, Kwong said.

“Always approach anything on the internet with a hint of skepticism,” Kwong said.

A woman stands beside her kitchen counter and dining table and faces the camera.
McClain was admitted to the hospital after injecting nearly nine times the amount of semaglutide that patients typically take as a first dose of the popular weight loss drug. That’s what her prescription from a telehealth provider had dictated. (Arielle Weenonia Gray for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

‘Keeps Getting Worse’

McClain, the Tennessee woman hospitalized this year after a GLP-1 overdose, said she lost 50 pounds a few years ago by taking a name-brand GLP-1 prescribed by her doctor.

At the time, the medication was covered by her health insurance. This year, when she was ready to take a GLP-1 again following a pregnancy, the drug was no longer covered for weight loss.

To save money by obtaining a cheaper, compounded GLP-1, McClain signed up for Mochi Health after doing her own research. “That was just the most affordable option,” she said.

But within hours of her first dose, she said, she found herself on the phone with poison control.

After her overdose, McClain said, she spoke to a clinical director at Mochi Health, once by phone but mostly via email, about her lingering symptoms before communication paused.

David Pilip, a spokesperson for Mochi Health, said in a statement that the company would not discuss individual patients due to privacy obligations. But he said adverse events are “immediately flagged” and “investigated with extreme precision.”

“Mochi Health takes patient safety extremely seriously,” Pilip wrote in an email. “We promptly initiated a review and have been in direct and ongoing communication with the patient to reach a resolution. We remain committed to doing so.”

McClain anticipates her healthcare bills related to the hospital stay will total at least $900. She said that to get the $159 refund for her three-month membership and reimbursement for the hospital expenses, she has been asked to sign a document saying she won’t take legal action against the company. Her experience, she said, “just keeps getting worse.”

NBC News producer Jessica Herzberg and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News senior correspondent Fred Schulte contributed to this report.

Do you have an experience using an online company for healthcare services or medicinal products that you think others should know about? Click here to contact our reporting team.

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/glp1-weight-loss-drugs-telehealth-oversight-regulation-compounded-semaglutide/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2236393&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]> 2236393 Baffling. Frustrating. Frightening. What It’s Like To Be Sued Over Medical Debt. /health-care-costs/connecticut-hospitals-medical-debt-patient-lawsuits-frustration/ Mon, 01 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2244633 When Christine Wood received a $12,000 bill from Bristol Hospital, she thought it must be a mistake. It was more than she and her husband made in a month combined.

“I’m freaking out,” said Wood, who lives in a 1,700-square-foot home in Terryville, a village just outside Bristol, Connecticut. “I don’t understand it.”

Wood, 52, had weight loss surgery at Bristol Hospital in 2022, hoping it would help with her sleep apnea and the pain in her knees and back. Before scheduling the procedure, she checked with her insurer, she said, and was told the surgery would cost $5,000 out-of-pocket. She paid in advance.

More than six months later, Bristol sent Wood another bill that pushed the cost of her surgery to more than $17,000. Wood said she tried to dispute the charge. The hospital sued her.

“That’s ridiculous. I was told so many times by Aetna: ‘$5,000 out-of-pocket,’” Wood said. “I never would have had the surgery had I known it was going to cost almost 20 grand.”

Wood is among more than three dozen Connecticut patients the Connecticut Mirror and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News interviewed over the past year who were sued by their hospital or physician over unpaid bills.

The patients include teachers, small-business owners, a postal worker, a retired nursing home aide, a nurse, and a hotel bellhop. Most had jobs and health insurance. Nearly all said they wanted to pay what they owed.

Patients taken to court described baffling bills, confusing health plan rules, and frustrating and fruitless telephone calls to hospital billing offices and health insurers’ customer-service lines. Even when they tried to resolve their outstanding bills, many said they couldn’t get answers.

Bristol Hospital is part of Bristol Health, one of Connecticut’s most financially strained health systems. (Shahrzad Rasekh/CT Mirror)

Their experiences encapsulate breakdowns in the healthcare system that trap patients in debt. Health insurance didn’t cover care for reasons they couldn’t understand. Several patients did not qualify for financial assistance from providers, despite modest incomes. If they committed to pay, patients were hit with liens on their homes or interest payments and court fees that piled new debt onto their medical bills.

The industry’s key players blame one another for a broken system. Providers say insurers’ saddle patients with massive bills even when they have coverage. Insurers say at rates that outpace inflation.

Meanwhile, patients are stuck with the fallout. In 2022, about carrying medical or dental debt.

“It’s bad enough that I have bad health and have to pay mountains of medical bills,” said Samantha Mantiera, whom Danbury Hospital sued in 2024 over $10,000 she said she was erroneously charged. “Then to constantly be dealing with incorrect bills and then a lawsuit on top of it took me over the top.”

Mantiera said she spent months trying to explain to the hospital and then a collection agency that her insurance statements indicated she owed just $260. She was sued anyway.

After Mantiera contested the lawsuit, Danbury Hospital withdrew it, court records show.

Mantiera said she and her husband now travel up to an hour from their Brookfield, Connecticut, home to avoid hospitals owned by Danbury’s parent company, now called Northwell Health.

Kathy Holt, who leads the state Office of the Healthcare Advocate, said that in the past several decades healthcare has only gotten harder for patients to navigate. The agency fields thousands of calls every year from residents looking for help with medical billing questions.

“I’ve talked to too many people who have just given up,” Holt said. “The system has been made so hard for them, and I feel like it’s deliberate.”

‘They Would Not Talk to Me’

Debt collection lawsuits against patients have declined in Connecticut since 2019, a CT Mirror-Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News analysis of state court records found. And court records show most Connecticut hospital systems have stopped suing patients, including the state’s two largest systems, Yale New Haven Health and Hartford HealthCare.

Most hospitals stopped suing patients during the covid-19 pandemic as they reevaluated their collection practices, said Sarah Ginnetti, chief revenue cycle officer at UConn Health. The system ceased lawsuits in 2022, records show.

“In some of those circumstances, it just felt misaligned with our mission as an organization,” Ginnetti said. “For the small handful of cases that we might gain some type of legal victory, we really didn’t feel as though that would be our best path forward.”

Yale New Haven Health and Hartford HealthCare would not discuss why they stopped suing patients, instead issuing statements about their financial assistance programs.

Scores of medical providers — including physician groups, dentists, and hospitals — , data shows. The CT Mirror-Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News analysis found more than 1,500 healthcare-related debt cases filed in Connecticut courts in 2024.

This included lawsuits by Bristol Health, an independent local health system that includes Bristol Hospital, and Nuvance Health, a chain of seven hospitals recently acquired by Northwell Health, a multibillion-dollar system based in New York.

Nuvance hospitals filed over 4,000 collection lawsuits from 2019 to 2024, records show. Over the five years, the health system accounted for more than a quarter of the roughly 16,300 medical debt collection lawsuits against patients identified in state court records.

Hospital officials and other medical providers say they try to work with patients who have trouble paying their bills. Nikki Schulz, chief revenue officer for Northwell’s Connecticut hospitals, said in a statement that years ago the system “eased” its collection practices, leading to a “precipitous decline” in medical debt referred to collections.

“We fundamentally retooled our approach to align with industry best practices,” Schulz said. Records show the health system sued about 200 patients in 2024, down from 2,200 in 2019.

Healthcare executives also say they have a responsibility to try to collect.

“I don’t have a choice,” said Bristol Hospital CEO Kurt Barwis. “What we’re trying to do is sustain a mission of taking care of this community.”

This is a stacked bar chart that shows total hospital lawsuits declining from roughly 5,000 cases in 2019 to fewer than 500 in 2024.

Bristol Health is one of Connecticut’s most financially strained systems, and executives are currently in talks with the administration of Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont about an . The proposed deal is, in part, an effort to keep the hospital afloat.

Barwis said the hospital has taken steps to help patients with unexpected bills, including enlisting financial counselors to reach out to patients before elective procedures to discuss cost and financial assistance.

But Wood, who was sued by Bristol, said no one from the hospital talked to her before her surgery. When she called the hospital after receiving the $12,000 bill, she said she was told there was nothing they could do because her insurance had denied the claim.

“They would not talk to me about it,” Wood said. “They wanted their money.”

Bristol spokesperson Albert Peguero also blamed Wood’s insurer and said the hospital worked with Wood as she went through numerous insurance appeals with Aetna.

Wood didn’t fare any better with Aetna. It turned out that her health plan covered only $15,000 worth of bariatric surgery, meaning she was responsible for any bills that exceeded that.

Aetna spokesperson Shelly Bandit said Wood had been notified of this provision, though Wood disputes this.

The back-and-forth with the hospital and the insurer enraged Wood. But after she was sued, she concluded she had no more options. She settled with Bristol, agreeing to pay the full balance on a payment plan of $150 a month, court records show. Under the agreement, it would take Wood almost seven years to pay off the debt.

Last year, Wood faced additional financial challenges after her mother died and her husband lost his job and was unemployed for six months.

Wood said she’s regained about a third of the 100 pounds she lost after her surgery because of the stress. Some months she pays Bristol less than $150. In January, the hospital placed a lien on her home.

“We don’t have savings. We don’t have the extra money. We’re living check by check,” Wood said. “We’re working-class people trying to make a living, trying to do the right thing. And we always get screwed.”

‘I Don’t Have Hours on End’

It’s difficult to know how many medical debt lawsuits arise from disputed bills. But most U.S. adults with healthcare debt say they’ve received a bill in the past five years that they thought contained an error, according to a .

The prevalence of disputed medical bills is one reason many advocates for patients say hospitals and other healthcare providers shouldn’t sue people they treat.

“Understanding insurance to begin with and then navigating denials or bills that are not plainly understood leaves patients stuck in an opaque system where they have the least leverage and power,” said Eva Stahl, a vice president of Undue Medical Debt, a nonprofit that has worked with states to buy and retire debt — including for more than 150,000 Connecticut residents.

“Patients understandably are left with questions and confusion,” Stahl said.

Last year, a judge dismissed one of Danbury Hospital’s lawsuits against a patient over a $64,000 unpaid bill, citing the hospital’s “failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence,” according to court records. (Shahrzad Rasekh/CT Mirror)

Timothy Bigham, who owns a construction company and was sued in 2023 by Danbury Hospital, said he never understood why he was billed more than $64,000 after he was hospitalized following a 2019 heart attack.

Bigham, who lives in Danbury, Connecticut, said he was insured at the time. But soon after he got home, Bigham began getting regular calls from the hospital. He was told his insurer wasn’t paying the bill because he refused to “release medical records,” he recalled.

“I had insurance when I had the heart attack, but it’s my job to get the insurance company to pay?” Bigham said. “I’m self-employed. I work in construction. I don’t have hours on end to sit on the phone trying to talk to somebody at an insurance company.”

Bigham said he ultimately “stopped dealing with it” because he didn’t know what else to do.

Then, in 2023, Danbury Hospital sued him. A judge dismissed the case in 2025, citing the hospital’s “failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence,” according to court records. But by then, the alleged debt had devastated Bigham’s credit score, tanking it by over 100 points, he said.

Northwell’s Schulz declined to comment on any specific patient cases, citing privacy laws.

Connecticut barring medical debt from consumer credit reports.

A handful of states have tried to protect patients from lawsuits through limiting when hospitals can pursue legal action. Illinois, for example, prohibits lawsuits against uninsured patients who prove they can’t afford their unpaid bills. Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia prohibit liens and foreclosures for medical debt.

Dominique Jean Pierre was sued by Norwalk Hospital for over $20,000 after being hospitalized. (Joe Buglewicz for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

‘It Was a Nightmare’

Dominique Jean Pierre was equally surprised by the $20,000 bill he got after he was hospitalized at Norwalk Hospital with a urinary tract infection in July 2020.

Jean Pierre, 66, had worked for nearly two decades as a bellhop at a Hilton hotel in Stamford owned and operated by Atrium Hospitality, a Georgia-based company. When he got sick, the hotel was temporarily closed because of covid lockdowns.

What Jean Pierre didn’t realize, he said, was that the hotel had also cut off employee health benefits. He said he was told by the hospital that he’d be responsible for the bill.

“It was a nightmare,” he said.

Jean Pierre said he begged his manager for help but was told there was nothing the company could do. Atrium Hospitality did not respond to requests for comment.

Two years after Jean Pierre’s hospitalization, Norwalk Hospital sued him for more than $20,000, court records show.

Jean Pierre said he tried twice to apply for financial assistance, but the hospital told him he and his wife made too much to qualify, even though his medical bills totaled almost a quarter of their annual income of about $87,000.

With nowhere to turn, Jean Pierre settled with Norwalk Hospital, now part of the Northwell system, in 2025, agreeing to pay the full bill in $100 monthly installments, records show. At that rate, he will be paying off the debt until 2042.

After the settlement, he said, the judge encouraged him to reach out to elected officials to try to get the debt canceled. Jean Pierre was exhausted.

“He says to me, ‘You have to go to your senators. Go to the governor.’ I said, ‘That’s too much. [I’m just going to] let it go.’”

Jean Pierre has left the Hilton and now works as a personal care attendant, as does his wife. But he said it still nags him that businesses and healthcare providers received millions of dollars in government aid during the pandemic, while he was left with $20,000 in medical debt.

“They gave money for the hotel. They gave money for the hospital. They gave money for a lot of stuff,” he said. “But we don’t see none.”

Jean Pierre settled the lawsuit that Norwalk Hospital brought against him, agreeing to pay his bill in $100 monthly installments, records show. At that rate, the debt will be paid off in 2042. (Joe Buglewicz for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

‘I’m Not Trying To Run Away’

Other patients said they felt trapped, even if they tried to do the right thing.

Deneen Brown, who runs a small daycare out of her home in Norwalk, was sued by Norwalk Hospital in 2024 for $7,200 over bills she allegedly incurred “on or about 2019 and 2020,” according to the lawsuit.

Brown said she was stunned by the lawsuit, as she believed she’d had health insurance at the time. But as a small-business owner who took pride in maintaining good credit and staying on top of her finances, she said she committed to taking care of it.

“I’m not trying to run away from something that may be my responsibility,” Brown said. “If you say I owe it, I’m going to figure it out, and I’m going to pay it.”

In January 2025, she agreed to a nearly 13-year payment plan of $50 a month, court records show. Often she pays more, she said.

The following month, the hospital placed a lien on her home. Brown said she never realized the hospital would continue to penalize her, even after she agreed to a payment plan.

“Had I known that, I would have never settled,” she said.

Norwalk Hospital in Norwalk, Connecticut, and other medical providers owned by Nuvance Health, now known as Northwell Health, filed over 4,000 debt collection lawsuits from 2019 to 2024, records show — accounting for more than a quarter of such suits against patients identified in state court records during that period. (Shahrzad Rasekh/CT Mirror)

This article was produced in partnership with , a statewide nonprofit newsroom that covers public policy and politics.

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/connecticut-hospitals-medical-debt-patient-lawsuits-frustration/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2244633&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]> 2244633 Budget-Strapped Montana Will Stress-Test Trump’s Medicaid Work Rules /medicaid/the-week-in-brief-montana-medicaid/ Fri, 29 May 2026 18:30:00 +0000 /?p=2244154&preview=true&preview_id=2244154 Montana will soon test whether cash-strapped and strained state health departments can carry out federal Medicaid work requirements without ending coverage for eligible adults. 

On July 1, Montana plans to become the second state after Nebraska to make Medicaid enrollees prove they’re working to keep their coverage. That’s six months ahead of the federal deadline for states to implement Medicaid work rules for millions of enrollees.  

That date is also the start of a new state budget year, as well as the deadline for Montana health officials to climb out of a previous Medicaid-driven spending deficit. Montana lawmakers underfunded the health agency when they set the state budget last year — before congressional Republicans passed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Health policy analysts say the state’s budget crunch is a hint of the challenges to come nationwide.  

That’s because the federal spending law requires states to check every six months whether millions of Medicaid enrollees work, go to school, or volunteer at least 80 hours a month, or qualify for an exemption. Those checks will take time and money. Simultaneously, the law is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending — the largest pool of federal funding for states — by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years, shift more food assistance costs to states, and add tax breaks that could hit state budgets. 

“States are the ones that are gonna have to do the dirty work of implementing cuts,” said Joan Alker, a Georgetown University researcher focused on health coverage.  

Part of Montana’s proposed budget fix is to stall rate increases for healthcare providers that were due July 1. Clinicians told me they already struggle to afford hiring staff amid growing waitlists for care, which they blame on low Medicaid payments. 

Meanwhile, there are some red flags in the state’s Medicaid data from recent years: People often face long waits to access public assistance, and many can lose coverage at renewal time because of paperwork issues. 

All these problems reflect a national challenge to connect people to care through strained public assistance programs. Our reporting has long shown how states have struggled to process Medicaid applications. 

“Our concern is, is the department ready?” Jean Branscum, CEO of the Montana Medical Association, said of the state health agency. “Does the capacity exist for all this to be done right and ensure that patients don’t pay the price?” 

State officials have said they’ll scan existing data to try to automatically confirm whether people meet the work rules. And they’ve been building up their public assistance team for months.  

But they’ve had to wait on unanswered questions from the federal government that are key to exempting especially vulnerable people from the incoming rules. And now, they’ve got a lot more work to do with less money. 

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

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

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2244154&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]> 2244154 After Her Bout of Amnesia, a $59,000 Billing Dispute Wouldn’t Go Away /health-care-costs/amnesia-arizona-hospital-prior-authorization-bill-of-the-month-may-2026/ Fri, 29 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2241524 On April 10, 2025, several hours after finishing a hike in Sedona, Arizona, Jan Anderson started repeating herself.

“Did we hike this morning?” she asked.

“Yes, we hiked,” said her husband, Steve Francks. “And you did really well.”

But 15 seconds later, she asked the same question: “Did we hike today?”

Anderson, 65, a retired finance executive, doesn’t remember any of it. She can recall what happened that afternoon only because her husband started recording her on his cellphone.

“I was just on this nonstop loop,” she said.

Almost immediately, Francks knew something was wrong. “Jan was out of it,” he said.

He took her to an emergency room in Sedona, where staff initially thought she might be having a stroke. Because the facility wasn’t fully equipped to evaluate or treat stroke patients, Francks said, she was airlifted to a Phoenix-area hospital, where she was admitted.

It turned out she wasn’t having a stroke. Her medical team eventually determined she was probably experiencing , a rare, temporary, and benign memory disorder.

The good news was that her symptoms didn’t last long, and she has suffered no long-term effects from the episode. It took about 24 hours before she was able to start forming new memories, and she was discharged the next day. Anderson and Francks, who split their time between Sedona and Edmonds, Washington, returned to the Pacific Northwest a few weeks later.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Service

The sudden confusion associated with transient global amnesia can also be a sign of a more common neurological condition, so it’s important to rule out other possible causes — such as a stroke, for which timely emergency care can spell the difference between life and death.

Anderson’s records show her care at Abrazo Health’s Arrowhead Campus in Glendale, Arizona, included an electrocardiogram, which can detect underlying cardiac abnormalities, and imaging, which would rule out any vessel blockages that might cause a stroke. She also underwent various lab tests commonly used to diagnose a stroke.

The Bill

$59,181: $35,302 for diagnostic/therapeutic imaging, $8,147 for laboratory services, $8,146 for a special care unit, $5,532 for EKG services, and $2,054 for pharmacy. Anderson’s first bill from Abrazo Health said she owed $15,312.43, citing an insurance adjustment of $43,868.57, even though her insurer had not covered any of the charges.

Anderson said her insurer covered separate charges for the ER and helicopter transfer.

The Billing Problem: Communication Breakdown

The federal No Surprises Act bans out-of-network bills for most emergency services, even if those services are received at an out-of-network facility and are not preapproved by the insurer.

That means the cost of Anderson’s hospital care should have been covered as though it were in-network. At the time, she was insured by Molina Healthcare, through a plan purchased on the federal Affordable Care Act marketplace.

But for a year, Molina declined to pay for her care in Glendale, at one point arguing that her hospital stay required authorization when, or even before, she was admitted.

“I can’t get anyone to resolve it,” Anderson said. “It’s almost $60,000 hanging over my head.”

The first problem arose about two weeks after she was discharged, when Abrazo Health sent Anderson a bill indicating she was a self-pay patient.

The hospital didn’t request her insurance information at any point during her stay, Francks said. He assumed, at the time, that his wife’s financial paperwork had been transferred from the ER in Sedona. It had not.

She called the Glendale hospital and corrected the error.

Then, in late June, Anderson received notice from the hospital indicating she was not a Molina member.

“Your insurance company notified our office that the patient was not a covered member for the services provided by Abrazo Arrowhead Campus on the above referenced service date(s),” the notice said. It showed the total charges for her stay exceeded $59,000.

But when Anderson called Molina to confirm her coverage, she said, the insurance company assured her the claim was being processed.

That didn’t mean Molina was willing to cover her hospital bill.

Anderson spent months trying to resolve the balance. She filed complaints with members of Congress, the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions, and the Office of the Insurance Commissioner in Washington state.

Jan Anderson sits at a kitchen island counter. A laptop and paperwork is in front of her. She holds paperwork in her hands.
Anderson has fully recovered from her bout of transient global amnesia, but a dispute over nearly $60,000 in hospital charges has been a source of stress for over a year. (M. Scott Brauer for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

In an October letter to Washington’s insurance commissioner, an appeal and grievance specialist for Molina wrote that the claim was denied because “inpatient stays require prior authorization, or notification at the time of admission. No notification of admission or prior authorization was received from the hospital, so the claim was denied.”

It continued: “Molina covers out of network emergency services but since this was an inpatient admission authorization is required.”

Nicole Broadhurst, who focuses on medical billing issues as CEO of a , said this dispute appears to rest between the insurer and the medical provider.

She said that Anderson’s insurance information should have been transferred between the first ER and the Glendale hospital. Since it wasn’t, Broadhurst said, Anderson shouldn’t be held liable for her hospital bill. (Broadhurst was not involved in efforts to resolve Anderson’s billing dispute.)

Unfortunately, Broadhurst said, these situations are “not uncommon, even though we have the No Surprises Act.”

The Resolution

Anderson said she was told by Abrazo Health for months that it was working with Molina to resolve the bill. She said she was also told that even if Molina did not cover the full cost of her hospital care, she would not be liable for the balance — but she never received that assurance in writing.

Meanwhile, Molina continued to uphold its decision to deny payment.

After Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News contacted the insurer and the hospital with questions about her case, Molina told Anderson it had launched an internal review of her claim, and a revenue director with Abrazo Health told her the company was “treating this as a high-priority matter,” she recalled.

Anderson said the revenue director for the health system assured her that if Molina continued to deny payment, “the balance will be written off on the hospital’s end,” she said. “I will not be responsible for any balance” — not even the $15,312.43 the hospital initially billed her after the hospitalization.

Linda Nofer, a spokesperson for Abrazo Health, would not answer questions about Anderson’s bill. In a statement, she said the hospital system is “committed to working closely with our patients to resolve billing questions and concerns.”

Molina spokesperson Caroline Zubieta would not discuss or respond to questions about Anderson’s case on the record.

The Takeaway

The flurry of insurance paperwork and medical bills patients receive after a hospital stay can be overwhelming — and may sometimes appear contradictory.

Broadhurst said it’s important for patients to focus on the “patient responsibility” portion of an insurance document called an explanation of benefits.

Patients should not pay a bill if their explanation of benefits indicates they aren’t responsible for the amount charged.

In this case, Anderson had received a bill from the hospital saying she owed money. And her explanation of benefits from Molina confirmed she’d racked up more than $59,000 in hospital charges.

But that document also indicated her patient liability was “$0.00.” Anderson said the hospital was not pressuring her to pay the $15,312.43 bill or any of the charges tied to her account, but she was worried she would eventually owe a large sum because the charges remained unresolved for more than a year.

“The question I kept asking them was, ‘How much am I going to owe?’” said Anderson, who is now insured by Medicare. “It could be anywhere from that $15,000 adjusted amount to the full balance of $59,000.”

Broadhurst said she tells patients facing similar situations to “send the hospital a copy of the EOB and ask them to correct the account to $0 patient responsibility.”

“Even if no one is actively trying to collect, I’d still push for written closure so it doesn’t keep hanging over them,” she said.

Jan Anderson stands on her porch, framed by doors on both sides.
(M. Scott Brauer for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/amnesia-arizona-hospital-prior-authorization-bill-of-the-month-may-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2241524&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]> 2241524