Medicaid Archives - ��ýҕ�l Health News

They Harvest the Nation’s Food, but a New Rule May Strip Them of Health Insurance

Paula Andalo — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Seasonal work. Inconsistent hours. Frequent moves. Cash payments and informal jobs. For farmworkers who rely on Medicaid, these common employment patterns could put their health coverage at risk.

It’s a heightened concern for the estimated who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, as new work requirements kick in for the federal-state healthcare program that serves low-income and disabled Americans.

Starting next year in most states, many adults enrolled in Medicaid will have to prove they work, are enrolled in college or vocational courses, volunteer, or do unpaid work for at least .

Advocates say this could pose a significant challenge to Medicaid-eligible farmworkers, who frequently work more than 80 hours a month during harvest season but less in other months. What’s more, outside the harvest season, many workers take on informal jobs in construction, landscaping, or home repair for which they don’t receive formal paychecks that would prove their continuing Medicaid eligibility. Still, they can establish eligibility if they prove their average monthly income over six months is equivalent to at least 80 hours of work at the federal minimum wage.

“Having a work requirement — having to create more paperwork and more proof — is certainly extremely challenging for farmworkers and others who are low-income and who may especially have seasonal jobs, not year-round, and do have periods” when there is no work available, said Alexis Guild, vice president of strategy and programs at .

New Requirements, Additional Hurdles

Agriculture is a , and Americans to put food on their tables. Nearly 60% of those workers are U.S. citizens or green-card holders, according to the . The remaining 40% lack legal status or are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid.

Even among farmworkers with citizenship or legal status, the uninsured rate is three times that of the general population, and most farmworkers with insurance are Medicaid beneficiaries, although participation rates vary by state. According to a , 71%-79% of eligible farmworker households report participation in Medicaid.

The new Medicaid work requirements were a key provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed last July by President Donald Trump. Under the federal law, and the District of Columbia must implement the requirements by Jan. 1. A few states have the work rule early.

The 80-hour rule applies in states that expanded Medicaid, a process that began in 2014 and was tied to the Affordable Care Act. Following the initial expansions, agricultural workers with legal documentation became to have health insurance, according to a 2021 article in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Immigration Anxieties

The work requirements are the latest in a long list of obstacles placed between workers and the healthcare they’re legally entitled to, Guild said. “Medicaid certainly helps because it alleviates the cost issue,” she said. “But there are still other barriers, such as transportation, taking sick leave, and finding time to visit a health center. All these factors can prevent them from actually receiving medical care.”

For farmworkers with green cards and naturalized U.S. citizens, there is another source of stress: the fear that signing up for Medicaid could put personal information in the hands of immigration authorities.

That’s what worries Luis, a 45-year-old green-card holder and Medicaid recipient who dreams of becoming a U.S. citizen. Luis — who asked to be identified by only his middle name — lives with his wife and daughter in North Carolina, where he has worked in agriculture for nearly a decade.

Speaking in Spanish, he said that when he learned about the work requirements, he knew it would be challenging for him to prove that he works 80 hours a month. “I only work on farms for six or seven months; the rest of the year I work in whatever I can find,” he said.

Republicans in Congress argue that work requirements will reduce federal healthcare spending, encourage nondisabled adults to , and preserve safety net resources for the most vulnerable populations.

Among Hispanic adults enrolled in Medicaid, 67% are already working, according to a 2025 .

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services did not respond to requests for comment for this article. But in June, when its “nationwide framework” to implement the Medicaid work requirements, Administrator Mehmet Oz said it would help beneficiaries “build skills and independence through work, education, job training, or community service, creating new opportunities for themselves and their families.” Federal officials say the new requirements “could reduce poverty by as much as 2.9 million people.”

Chronic Illness

Agricultural work is one of the nation’s , and it is associated with and , including respiratory conditions. A found that 37% of male farmworkers and 47% of female farmworkers in the state had at least one chronic health condition. The new work requirements present one more barrier for those seeking care, advocates said.

“People skip checkups and screenings, and conditions that could be caught early and treated cost-effectively” aren’t, said Adriana Cadena, executive director of .

Emergency rooms often become the “natural” place to go for healthcare, Cadena added. “This drives up waiting times and costs for all of us. … And when people are sick enough that they miss work, it starts a vicious cycle of lost productivity and family economic instability that again threatens all of us.”

A Loss for Families and Children

The new federal rules also require beneficiaries to verify their eligibility at least twice a year, twice as often as previously, creating another potential obstacle.

“Letters can easily be missed, and forms may go unfilled. If people get caught up in the paperwork, they could lose coverage,” said , an assistant vice president at , a nonprofit that promotes an equitable healthcare system.

For farmworkers who travel from state to state, the process can be especially difficult.

“You have to find the time to transfer your coverage and probably find a person or organization that can help you — and that can be really hard when you’re constantly moving,” Cadena said.

The situation highlights the difficulties of navigating a complex system for individuals and families already struggling to make ends meet.

“The result,” Cadena said, “could be the loss of coverage not only for workers, but also for their families and children.”

��ýҕ�l 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 article/insurance/agricultural-workers-medicaid-eligibility-immigration-food-harvest/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2257673&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

My Search for a Psychiatric Bed in an Overburdened Health System

Helen Santoro — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing or texting “988.”

Eight days before my 33rd birthday in April, a social worker at a crisis clinic near Denver determined I was an imminent danger to myself. She placed me on an involuntary 72-hour mental health hold.

What came next wasn’t treatment, but a search for a bed. Clinic staffers called area hospitals with inpatient psychiatric units, asking if they had available beds. They didn’t. So, I was told I had to spend the night at the clinic, which is open 24/7. I settled into a recliner, trying to make myself comfortable as my mind drifted in a blank, disassociated haze. Sleep came in brief bursts.

Since the 1950s, the United States has seen a nationwide due in part to deinstitutionalization and the rise of antipsychotics. But that has created a critical shortage for those needing help. From 2011 to 2023, the number of hospitals with inpatient psychiatric units , according to a 2025 study. Another study from that year found that this country has 28.4 inpatient psychiatric beds per 100,000 people — not even half the 60-bed ratio researchers frequently refer to as the .

The shortage has created what the American Psychiatric Association : emergency rooms overwhelmed with people suffering from severe mental health illnesses, inpatient stays prematurely shortened to speed up bed turnover, and acutely ill individuals left without critical care.

(Oona Zenda/��ýҕ�l Health News)

“Where are these people going?” said , an assistant health policy professor at Rutgers University, who co-authored those 2025 studies. “For people who don’t receive this care, they don’t just go away. How is it affecting them? Society? Their families?”

Meanwhile, the White House shut down the part of the national suicide hotline catering to LGBTQ+ youth, President Donald Trump’s 2027 budget proposal calls for cuts to agencies , and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently announced a plan to .”

A Fractured System

I was already intimately familiar with the country’s fractured mental healthcare system before I was involuntarily committed. What I had yet to experience myself, I saw through my wife: waitlists, outpatient programs stretched beyond capacity, and inpatient psychiatric care so scarce that access often depends on surviving a crisis severe enough to justify it.

She died by suicide after we had separated.

As the years passed, grief and anxiety pushed me from observer to patient.

At the crisis clinic, I woke up the following morning disoriented and groggy. In the bathroom — its door deliberately unable to latch, swinging both ways so staffers could enter in case of an emergency — I stood at the sink and watched the faucet run, trying to piece together how I had ended up here.

(Oona Zenda/��ýҕ�l Health News)

America’s history of treating mental illness is long and complicated.

The 19th and 20th centuries saw the removal of people with severe mental disorders from jails and — squalid facilities designed to house the poor — to state asylums that (though they ultimately became ). From the 1860s to the 1930s, the number of psychiatric hospitals increased dramatically, according to the American Psychiatric Association, and by 1955, the number of psychiatric beds in the U.S. peaked at more than half a million.

However, owing to the development of antipsychotics, the belief that psychiatric institutions were inhumane, and President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 to free thousands of Americans from a life in institutions, many state hospitals shut down. An estimated for adults and kids are left in a country where more than 14 million experience severe mental illness each year.

Two years after JFK’s legislation passed, a new policy prohibited federal Medicaid funds from covering inpatient psychiatric care in facilities . The goal was to encourage states to move patients out of large, often substandard psychiatric institutions into community-based care settings.

The consequences of these changes, however, have been far-ranging. People with severe mental illnesses are often forced to as they wait for a bed to open. The length of stay in state psychiatric hospitals , according to research by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a national organization focused on eliminating barriers to the treatment of severe mental illness. And some people with mental illness .

From 1986 to 2014, as the behavioral health crisis intensified, mental health expenditures in the U.S. rose from $32 billion to $186 billion — though the proportion of that spending allocated to inpatient care .

This period also recorded major policy shifts affecting inpatient hospitalization rates, notably the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. The ruling shifted care away from psychiatric facilities by mandating states to people with developmental and mental disabilities.

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” said Leslie Carpenter, legislative advocacy manager at the Treatment Advocacy Center. “A lot of these bills, including the Community Mental Health Act, were really well intended and ended up with adverse consequences.”

For me, that next day at the clinic passed both painfully slowly and in a blur. A staff member I hadn’t met before told me they were still reaching out to hospitals across the region. The search for a bed continued.

(Oona Zenda/��ýҕ�l Health News)

‘No One Wants To Pay for Any of This Care’

Last year, members of Congress introduced two bills to change the 16-bed Medicaid funding cap at inpatient psychiatric facilities, the and the , which would increase the cap to 36 beds. Both have stalled in the House.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, a federal agency that analyzes budgetary and economic issues, eliminating the 16-bed limit would increase Medicaid expenditures from 2024 to 2033.

“No one wants to pay for any of this care that people need,” said Colorado state Sen. , a Democrat who has witnessed limitations to Colorado’s mental healthcare system firsthand because her son has schizoaffective disorder.

In lieu of federal action, states are stepping up to bridge the gaps.

Colorado, 15 other states, and Washington, D.C., now operate under waivers allowing Medicaid to fund inpatient facilities for mental health treatment, according to KFF data. Seven additional states have waivers pending. One 2025 study found that these waivers may be tied to fewer hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and incarcerations .

Yet even local efforts to improve mental healthcare face resistance. In California, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and New York, locals have pushed back against proposed psychiatric facilities for minors, claiming such facilities will worsen safety and lower property values. Behavioral health advocates have disputed these claims and argued they are rooted in stigma.

That psychiatric facility in Colorado was . The state has nearly 20 inpatient beds per 100,000 people, , according to 2022 data across all 50 states plus Washington, D.C., collected by the Treatment Advocacy Center. Wyoming ranked first with 47.3 beds per 100,000 residents, although, as the least populous state, it has only 275 total inpatient beds compared with California’s 5,703. Minnesota ranked last, with only 4.3 inpatient beds per 100,000 residents.

While increasing the number of inpatient psychiatric beds is vital, mental health advocates are also calling for , such as peer support specialists and clubhouses, where people with serious mental illnesses can learn life skills and find community.

(Oona Zenda/��ýҕ�l Health News)

When it came time for me to use our mental health safety net, I was among the fortunate ones: At noon the day after my hold began, a bed opened at a hospital in Denver — a rare stroke of luck in a system in which many people wait days or weeks for the care they need. An ambulance transferred me to the hospital at 3 p.m., marking 21 hours into my 72-hour hold.

Two days later, on my last day at the psychiatric hospital, I stood outside the nurse’s station awaiting discharge papers.

A man I had not seen before looked at me and asked, “Are you leaving?”

“Yes,” I said. “Are you being admitted?”

“Yeah,” he responded. “This is my third time being hospitalized in a year.”

I shook his hand. “Good luck,” I said, and I walked out the door.

This article/health-industry/psychiatric-bed-shortage-overburdened-health-system/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2245238&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

In California Governor’s Race, Voters Face Stark Choice on Immigrant Healthcare

Christine Mai-Duc — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000

For decades, Californians have generally said that immigrants, who make up of the state’s population and of its labor force, are beneficial to the state and its economy. But budget instability and concerns about rising costs are spilling into a debate over the controversial and expensive policy of allowing low-income immigrants without legal status to receive state-funded health coverage.

Now, Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton present a stark choice to voters in the race to be the next governor at a moment when public support for the state’s generous safety net is starting to fray.

Both frame the choice as an economic one.

Becerra, former secretary of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, has to exclude the poorest immigrants from routine care and push them into expensive emergency rooms . Hilton, a conservative commentator backed by President Donald Trump, has promised to eliminate their coverage and has echoed national Republicans who have to bolster their claims of fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program.

With voters nationwide worried about inflation and the rising cost of living, some Californians might feel less inclined to provide full healthcare coverage to those lacking legal status. What the state does next could have profound implications for its healthcare system and sprawling economy.

Over the past decade, California lawmakers used state dollars to expand Medi-Cal, offering all low-income residents comprehensive coverage regardless of immigration status. But enrollment surpassed initial projections, as did the cost. Medi-Cal coverage of immigrants without legal status costs the state roughly , according to California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, more than double the initial estimates.

California lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who , have approved major rollbacks of benefits for those residents. They said the state can’t afford ballooning healthcare costs amid massive federal cuts from the GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; the California Health and Human Services Agency projected up to 3.4 million Medi-Cal enrollees and the state could lose more than $30 billion a year in federal funding under the law, causing major disruptions in the safety net health program.

Medi-Cal’s budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year is $217 billion, and the program serves more than 14 million Californians.

Meanwhile, many legal U.S. residents and citizens have seen their health premium payments skyrocket this year after Congress let enhanced federal Affordable Care Act subsidies expire at the end of December.

As the state grappled with a deficit last year, a majority of likely voters in California said — for the first time in nearly a decade — that they opposed providing health insurance to immigrants without legal status, by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“The state faces major challenges, and healthcare is one of the major expenditures,” said Mark Baldassare, PPIC survey director. “People have become more selective about how they want to see those limited healthcare dollars spent.”

Hilton, running on a platform of affordability and lowering taxes, has seized on the sentiment, casting health coverage for immigrants without legal status as and a to the state’s ability to help citizens.

“Stop taking money from California taxpayers who can barely afford their healthcare to give free healthcare to citizens of other countries who shouldn’t even be here,” Hilton said in a the morning of the June 2 primary.

In campaign stump speeches, to use the savings to for other Californians without detailing how. Hilton did not respond to requests from ��ýҕ�l Health News for comment.

“Their messaging is very, very simple: It’s an us vs. them,” said Roger Salazar, a Democratic political consultant who represents a coalition of healthcare advocates who argue providing coverage to people who can’t afford it strengthens the workforce and, as a result, the economy. “It’s just a question of convincing the average voter that it’s much better economically.”

A son of immigrants, Becerra for decades pushed to in Congress and has made a similar pitch in his campaign for governor. He did not respond to requests for comment.

“Immigrants, whether documented or not, work hard. They pay taxes, and sometimes they get injured on the job or their children get sick,” during a debate in May. “It would be foolish to tell a family that they don’t have access to the pediatrician or the family doc.”

Becerra, who could become California’s first elected Latino governor, when Newsom and legislative leaders decided to for adults without legal status, cut benefits, and impose monthly premiums.

“Stop treating coverage as a budget variable that expands in good years and contracts when revenue dips,” Becerra wrote in May in response to an Orange County Register . He has new, steady revenue to fund basic services, such as by upping taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Californians.

In 2023, California was home to about 2.3 million people without legal status, representing of the state’s labor force, according to the . And live in a family that includes at least one member without legal status, according to the California Department of Education. Healthcare economists say giving people access to preventive healthcare saves taxpayers money in the long run by and relieving pressure on an overburdened system.

That, Baldassare said, wasn’t a hard argument to make during the covid pandemic, when immigrants were and the link between individual well-being and public health .

But Medi-Cal costs to cover roughly 1.4 million immigrants , according to the latest estimates from the Department of Health Care Services. Because only some lawfully present immigrants are eligible for federal Medicaid benefits, states like California must do so exclusively with state funding.

California’s budget experts that maintaining full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without seeking additional revenue would destabilize the state’s long-term fiscal outlook.

In a legislative hearing last year, Republican Assembly member Carl DeMaio questioned whether California taxpayers would prioritize the expansions, saying he doubted “illegal immigrant healthcare in the general fund would be at the top of their list.”

After lawmakers approved the spending reductions, support for immigrant health coverage dropped, Baldassare said. Democratic lawmakers and Newsom several Medi-Cal cuts until July 2027, leaving decisions for the next governor.

David Hayes-Bautista, who has spent his career studying the economic contributions of Latinos and immigrants, said Californians without legal status and tend to work in industries and occupations that . As a result, many resort to Medi-Cal, saddling the state with the healthcare costs instead of employers.

“California, as a state, has the world’s fourth-largest GDP, which is true thanks to Latinos,” said Hayes-Bautista, director of the Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture at UCLA. Without contributions from Latinos, many without legal status, it drops to eighth place, about the size , he added.

Immigrant advocates hope to have a more vocal champion in Becerra, the favorite to become governor in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2-to-1.

“He will fight, he will push back, he will do all that he can,” said state Sen. María Elena Durazo, a former labor leader who has championed the immigrant healthcare expansions. “That’s the most we could expect.”

This article/elections/california-governor-becerra-hilton-immigrant-healthcare-medicaid-medi-cal/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2252202&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

New Medicaid Work Rule Means More Opportunities To Lose Coverage

Sam Whitehead — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000

0:00 0:00

Produced in partnership with:

Volume Speed

Embed this player

Too sick to work? You may have to prove it. Next year, Medicaid recipients will have to start showing documentation such as a doctor’s note to avoid a new work requirement. ��ýҕ�l Health News correspondent Sam Whitehead broke down the rule and exceptions on WAMU’s Health Hub on July 1.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz. (Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Study, work, or volunteer: That’s what many people will have to do to keep their Medicaid starting next year, according to new rules issued by the Trump administration. But consumer advocates worry the new requirements will catch many recipients flat-footed.

��ýҕ�l Health News correspondent Sam Whitehead joined WAMU’s Health Hub on July 1 to explain who will be affected, who can get an exemption, and what enrollees can start doing now to prepare.

This article/medicaid/wamu-health-hub-audio-medicaid-work-rule-requirement-tips-coverage/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2254150&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Affordable Healthcare Emerges as a Voter Priority in Purple Nevada

Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000

One issue will decide Steven Cohen’s vote for Nevada governor this fall: Which candidate can best protect him from getting kicked off Medicaid?

Cohen is a 38-year-old Las Vegas resident with autism and has dual enrollment in Medicaid and Medicare. He said he’s very concerned that he could lose his Medicaid coverage once work requirements and more frequent eligibility checks take effect in January, under congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“When you’re going to some providers, notably mental health, once a month, or in the case of one provider, a couple of times a week, those copays quickly add up,” Cohen said.

Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo is running for reelection against Democratic state Attorney General Aaron Ford in one of to be decided in November. Lombardo has , but healthcare policy changes made by the Trump administration are working against him with voters like Cohen in the swing state.

Those changes include Medicaid funding cuts that are expected to strain state budgets, along with new work requirement and eligibility rules for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food assistance for low-income families. The changes are expected to increase the number of people without health insurance nationwide by an estimated and decrease the number of people who receive SNAP by from 2025 to 2034.

People across the U.S. have also been feeling the pinch of rising health insurance premiums since Congress allowed enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire at the end of last year. Many who purchase health plans on the ACA marketplace have chosen less expensive plans with less coverage or are going without insurance altogether.

These changes will have a significant impact in Nevada, where tourism, hospitality, and gaming are cornerstones of the state’s economy. Nearly are self-employed, independent contractors, or freelancers without employer-sponsored health insurance benefits. Many purchase insurance through the state’s ACA health exchange, in enrollment this year after a record 110,000 people signed up for 2025.

Even before the federal changes, Nevada’s 11.4% uninsurance rate was already the , according to data from 2024. A in May that an estimated 70,000 Nevadans could lose their Medicaid coverage under the new rules. Around in the state lost access to SNAP in May.

“This is going to come down to an affordability election, and that’s going to hurt the Republicans,” said , a professor in the political science department at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.

In a national this year, two-thirds of respondents said they were worried about affording healthcare, more than said the same about food and groceries, housing, or gas. And more than half said their healthcare costs had increased in the past year. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes ��ýҕ�l Health News.

While most respondents said that healthcare costs will influence whom they vote for in November, the issue was more pressing among Democrats and independents.

Competitive gubernatorial races are also underway in Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin, with all those races .

The Democratic Party has the edge on healthcare issues over Republicans, but about 3 in 10 voters reported that they don’t trust either party, noted Liz Hamel, a senior vice president and the director of public opinion and survey research at KFF.

“It’s not an overwhelming advantage,” she said.

Not Your Textbook Republican Governor

Lombardo’s campaign his support for a children’s hospital set to be built in Las Vegas; his consolidation of the state’s Medicaid program, ACA marketplace, and public employee benefits program into a single agency; and the expansion of the number of community behavioral health centers in the state during his term.

Before running for governor and unseating Democrat Steve Sisolak in 2022, Lombardo served eight years as sheriff in Nevada’s Clark County. Before that he spent with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

Lombardo has taken healthcare stances in his first term that diverge from the typical Republican playbook. For example, that he would oppose a national abortion ban, and in 2023 he prohibiting state agencies from cooperating with other states seeking to prosecute people for traveling to Nevada to get an abortion.

The governor also signed bills into law in 2023 that from engaging in gender discrimination and to ensure greater protections for transgender and nonbinary people, including setting standards for medical care and mental health treatment.

More recently, Lombardo has taken actions more aligned with the Make America Great Again movement. In 2025, he that would have created protections for clinicians who provide gender-affirming care. This year, he to ban transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports.

Lombardo’s campaign declined to make the governor available for an interview for this report. In a with Jon Ralston, CEO of the nonprofit news outlet The Nevada Independent, Lombardo said he was surprised during his first term as governor by how “complicated” and “encompassing” healthcare is, and by the “cost of it.”

“Government seems to complicate some of those bigger processes more often than not,” Lombardo said, “but in this case, they’re instrumental in the success or failure of healthcare and how people suffer as a result of bad decisions.”

His opponent, Ford, began his political career as a Nevada state senator and became the state’s first Black attorney general in 2019.

Ford has talked about how he raised his eldest son on his own while attending Texas A&M University. He said he relied on public benefits such as Section 8 housing, Medicaid, food stamps, and the Women, Infants and Children program to provide for them.

He said because of those experiences, his thoughts go to the Nevadans expected to lose Medicaid coverage whenever he hears a reference to the “Big Beautiful Bill.”

“It hits me differently,” Ford said.

His campaign’s calls for lowering prescription drug costs, boosting awareness of the state’s public-option health plans that debuted this year, and canceling medical debt.

A Referendum on Trump?

Most voters who responded to KFF’s poll said they have little or no confidence in how the Trump administration is addressing the cost of living.

“It seems like, if anything, the Trump administration’s approach is not going to help Republicans in the midterms,” Hamel said. But, she added, “November is many months away. A lot of things could change.”

Lombardo appears to be distancing himself from the president amid soaring gas prices and broader affordability issues.

When Trump visited Las Vegas in April, Lombardo didn’t attend the event. The governor later that he would be meeting with the president during his visit, but they spoke only by phone. Damore said he doesn’t think it was an accident that Lombardo didn’t appear with the president publicly.

“Lombardo has done a nice job trying to thread the needle between himself and Trump,” he said.

But Ford has an easier road ahead when it comes to campaigning for healthcare issues, Damore said.

“He just kind of has to say, ‘I’ll do better,’ and point the finger at Trump and say, ‘Where is Lombardo fighting this kind of stuff?’” Damore said. “That’s a pretty easy campaign for him.”

Partisan Nevada voters are nearly evenly split between the two parties, but the majority are registered as nonpartisans, probably because the state’s makes “nonpartisan” the default option for residents who register at the Department of Motor Vehicles. As of last year, voters can no longer choose a party at the DMV, instead needing to fill out paperwork their county election office mails after they register.

Clark County, home to Las Vegas and of , leans Democratic. The next-largest county by population is Washoe County, which is home to Reno and is the in the state. The rest of the state is rural and consistently votes Republican.

But voters in Nevada are fatigued, Damore said, after years of inflation and rising costs since the covid pandemic.

“People are just kind of surly,” he said. “They keep kind of ping-ponging back and forth between the parties. It doesn’t seem to change much.”

Cohen, the Las Vegas voter, is a registered nonpartisan. He said he plans to vote for Ford because he is the candidate who seems most willing to work to protect Medicaid enrollees.

“Sometimes the only way to get something done, to protect it, is to sue,” Cohen said. “I think he’ll bring that background.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact ��ýҕ�l Health News and share your story.

This article/elections/midterm-elections-nevada-governor-joe-lombardo-aaron-ford-affordability-healthcare/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2250771&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Trump Officials Still Delaying Funds

Thu, 25 Jun 2026 19:04:57 +0000

The Host

Julie Rovner ��ýҕ�l Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of ��ýҕ�l 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.

For the second year in a row, Trump administration officials are delaying the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in health-related grant funding as political appointees seek to ensure the funding adheres to the administration’s priorities — despite promises to Congress that the money would be spent as directed.

Meanwhile, four years after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion, nearly half the states have banned or substantially restricted the procedure. But while most voters say they support abortion rights — and majorities in several states have approved ballot measures to enshrine them — that sentiment has not translated into major gains for Democrats running for office.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of ��ýҕ�l Health News, Maya Goldman of Axios, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Rachana Pradhan of ��ýҕ�l Health News.

Panelists

Maya Goldman Axios

Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico

Rachana Pradhan ��ýҕ�l Health News Read Rachana's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

Federal funding for health grants and international humanitarian aid is not reaching its recipients, demonstrating that congressionally authorized and appropriated funding is still encountering roadblocks under the Trump administration. At least some of the money is being tied up in review, with political appointees requiring personal signoff on any and all disbursements. While many lawmakers have made their frustrations known, Congress has few levers to ensure the money goes where lawmakers say it should.
This week marked the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court case that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. Yet research shows there were more abortions performed in the U.S. last year than there were in the year before the court’s decision. Access to medication abortion and telehealth prescribing are credited for that increase — two methods that activists who oppose abortion have targeted in their continuing efforts to eliminate it.
In vaccine policy news, a study showing the effectiveness of the covid vaccine that was spiked by Trump administration officials was recently published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reinstated a flu vaccine mandate for the military after a significant flu outbreak at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.
Amid concerns over healthcare affordability, two states are taking measures to address prices. A new Indiana law imposes price controls on hospitals, and Colorado has received federal approval to import drugs from Canada — though Canadian distributors have shown no interest in working with American states.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “,” by Silvia Foster-Frau.

Maya Goldman: Stat’s “,” by O. Rose Broderick.

Rachana Pradhan: ��ýҕ�l Health News’ “Arrests of Immigrant Parents Create Mental Health Crisis for Children,” by Claudia Boyd-Barrett.

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “,” by Sarah Kaplan.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

NOTUS’ “,” by Eric Katz and Paige Winfield Cunningham.
Stat’s “,” by Lauren Chan and O. Rose Broderick.
ProPublica’s “,” by Anna Maria Barry-Jester.
��ýҕ�l Health News’ “A Ban Won’t Stop Abortion Pill Access, Telehealth Providers Say,” by Kate Wells.
Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
��ýҕ�l Health News’ “Indiana Takes On Powerful Hospitals by Capping Prices They Charge Employers,” by Phil Galewitz and Samantha Liss.
Stat’s “” by Lizzy Lawrence.

Click to open the transcript Transcript: Trump Officials Still Delaying Funds

Indiana Takes On Powerful Hospitals by Capping Prices They Charge Employers

Phil Galewitz — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Tired of watching its employers struggle to afford the cost of healthcare, Republican-controlled Indiana is trying a traditionally liberal tactic to control costs: setting government price controls on hospitals.

Under a law enacted last year, five of Indiana’s largest nonprofit hospital systems cannot charge patients covered by job-based health plans more than an established price cap. Hospitals that fail to keep prices below the threshold by 2029 risk losing their tax-exempt status — which would mean owing millions of dollars in state taxes.

Even before that penalty kicks in, the law requires these hospitals, which control nearly half the state’s hospital market, to offer direct-to-employer contracts — bypassing insurers — and stay within limits set by the state. Hospitals that don’t comply face a $10,000-a-day penalty.

Many other Indiana hospitals must comply with this provision beginning in September.

Indiana’s law comes amid growing frustration with rising insurance costs and hospital prices, the of growing healthcare costs.

Government price controls, of course, are nothing new in healthcare. Since the mid-1960s, the federal government has set prices it pays hospitals for treating Medicare enrollees, as states do for Medicaid patients. Those two government programs cover more than 135 million people nationwide.

But hospitals face no such government limit on what they charge for the more than 165 million Americans covered by employer-paid insurance.

Indiana isn’t the only state targeting hospital prices. Vermont also limits how much hospitals can charge for people covered by employer plans.

Washington and Oregon have made similar attempts, on a smaller scale, targeting state employee health plans. Oregon’s hospitals cannot charge the state employee plan more than two times the Medicare rate for services. This caps the state payment for a service at $200 if Medicare pays $100. Within the first two years, the plan saved more than $100 million.

Legislation has been proposed in Colorado and New York to enact similar price controls.

Hospital leaders and other opponents of price controls argue that the strategy doesn’t address the root causes of high hospital prices, such as rising labor, drug, and technology costs, and that the caps will force hospitals to cut services. Another challenge is that few employers contract directly with hospitals.

On most policy issues, Indiana and Vermont likely agree on very little, “except for this is one area where they both see that hospital prices are high,” said Brown University economist Christopher Whaley.

Wielding state power to control prices is a strategy typically led by Democrats. But Mike Braun, the Republican governor who helped muscle through the changes over the objections of the Indiana hospital industry, said the healthcare system is too broken to leave alone.

“Government has to intervene, because healthcare is run like an unregulated utility,” he told ��ýҕ�l Health News.

The five Indiana nonprofit hospital systems involved are Ascension St. Vincent, Community Health Network, Franciscan Health, Indiana University Health, and Parkview Health.

The price cap will be based on the statewide average for inpatient and outpatient hospital prices. Indiana will use Medicare as a yardstick by which to measure commercial prices, a comparison commonly used by researchers. This will show how much higher commercial prices are than the government program’s.

By June 30, the state is expected to issue a report showing average hospital prices in the state and where individual hospitals fall on the spectrum.

For years, have found that Indiana hospital prices are some of the highest in the nation.

The , produced in November, found three of the five nonprofit hospital systems exceeded a voluntary benchmark when excluding practitioner services, such as doctor fees.

However, all five hospital systems were below the voluntary benchmark when doctor services were wrapped into the overall score. This finding illustrates how prices for doctor visits may obscure overall hospital prices by bringing down the average, researchers and lobbyists for employers told ��ýҕ�l Health News.

Rand researchers found that while Indiana is home to some of the highest-paid hospitals, its doctors are among the lowest paid in the nation. That’s partly because the doctors don’t have the same negotiating leverage as the handful of large health systems.

This disparity has sparked a debate over which prices should be used to calculate the upcoming cap. Including doctor services would likely allow hospitals to keep prices high because they would be offset by low doctor prices, said Whaley, who has co-authored Rand’s pricing reports. This would let hospitals off the hook from doing the work to “move the needle” on lowering prices, he said.

Indiana Hospital Association President Scott Tittle said it’s unfair to exclude doctor services.

Hospitals often acquire physician practices to help drive admissions, . But Tittle said it also helps keep doctor offices open and preserves access for residents. That comes at a cost, he said.

“We know it is absolutely part of the complete cost of care,” Tittle said.

Despite the hospital lobby’s efforts, Tittle said, the state will exclude doctor services from the cap.

Regardless, Tittle said it’s unnecessary to put price caps in state law. “Hospitals can and have done the hard work to reduce their pricing,” he said.

For employers, rising healthcare costs are a headache. They’re unpredictable and make it difficult to budget each year.

Doug Bawel, chairman of Jasper Holdings, an automotive parts company based in Jasper, Indiana, has tried various strategies to wrestle high healthcare costs. For his workers, he’s purchased diabetes drugs from New Zealand and housed on-site health clinics.

Under the law enacted last year, Indiana hospitals must offer direct contracts to employers for a variety of procedures priced at or below 260% of what Medicare pays for hospital care. That’s setting a ceiling at slightly more than 2.5 times what Medicare pays.

Bawel expects the state’s price controls on direct deals to significantly strengthen his negotiating leverage with hospitals. He belongs to a consortium of southern Indiana employers that buy services directly from area hospitals.

This move represents a departure from the status quo for the business lobby. Ashton Eller, a healthcare lobbyist for the Indiana Manufacturers Association, said the group generally opposes government price controls. But it believes this is a step in the right direction, he said.

“Is this a silver bullet that will bring down prices overnight? We don’t pretend it is,” he said.

No matter what happens in the Hoosier State, Indiana’s experiment with price controls has attracted attention.

“As employers and states are dealing with double-digit premium increases, there is tremendous interest in healthcare affordability, and what happens in Indiana is being closely watched by many states and Washington, D.C.,” Whaley said.

This article/health-industry/hospitals-price-controls-indiana-cap-healthcare-costs-debate/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2249681&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

The Drip, Drip, Drip of Declining Coverage

Thu, 11 Jun 2026 18:56:29 +0000

The Host

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 — 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 ��ýҕ�l Health News, Lizzy Lawrence of Stat, Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Lizzy Lawrence Stat

Sandhya Raman Bloomberg Law

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: ��ýҕ�l 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

Looming Medicaid Cuts Supercharge California’s Latest Labor-Industry Fight

Bernard J. Wolfson — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000

The looming impact of federal Medicaid cuts has reignited a long-simmering, costly battle between California’s medical industry and one of its largest health worker unions.

, with approximately 120,000 members, has put forward two ballot initiatives to cap the pay of medical executives and require community clinics to spend the vast bulk of their revenues on patient care.

The California Hospital Association has responded with its own ballot proposal that would make it tougher for unions to spend money on political initiatives in the future. It would require approval by a union’s rank-and-file membership for any spending of $1 million or more on statewide measures, or $100,000 or more on local ones.

The competing measures, which have drawn enough verified signatures to qualify for the November ballot, come at a time when the rising cost of healthcare is emerging as a .

The Service Employees International Union affiliate has seized upon affordability angst to resurrect a proposal for a cap on healthcare executive compensation, which it has failed to achieve multiple times before. The proposed measure garnered more than 1 million petition signatures.

“This initiative reflects the serious crisis we face and that affordability is a real thing,” said Vikas Saini, president of the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts-based healthcare think tank. “I think it also reflects grassroots anger and a desire to do something.”

Mikey Vaughn, a certified nursing assistant at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said that the Los Angeles hospital, despite its reputation as the go-to place for the rich and famous, often lacks supplies and staffing levels that he and his colleagues need to do their jobs effectively and without undue stress.

“The executive pay initiative would, I hope, be used to hire staff and to actually provide better resources for our patients,” said Vaughn, a member of SEIU-UHW’s executive board and political committee.

Thomas Priselac, then-president and CEO of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, in fiscal year 2024, according to the organization’s most recent available federal tax filing. Kaiser Permanente’s CEO, Gregory Adams, made . Warner Thomas, head of Sutter Health, made .

Cedars-Sinai spokesperson Duke Helfand said if the measure passed, the hospital would be unable to recruit and retain physicians, nurses, and specialists, dramatically impairing its ability to provide healthcare.

“Such a scenario would be disastrous not only for Cedars-Sinai but for hospitals across Los Angeles and California,” Helfand said.

The union wants to cap compensation at $450,000 a year for senior hospital and medical group executives, as well as other administrative and managerial staff. However, the initiative does not stipulate how dollars diverted from payroll must be spent.

The union has dubbed the latest proposal the “Health Care Executive Compensation Act of 2026.” A heavyweights opposing it — hospitals, physicians, and clinics, among others — has rebranded it the “Health Care Endangerment Act.”

Carmela Coyle, CEO of the hospital association, called the measure a cynical political ploy. “It’s bad policy and it’s going to have bad consequences across California,” she said.

Glenn Melnick, a healthcare economist at the University of Southern California, said that even if the initiative were fully implemented and pay cuts enacted, he doubts it would reduce the cost of healthcare for patients.

SEIU-UHW does not have an estimate of the total amount the initiative would claw back from pay packages that exceed the limit.

Opponents of the initiative note that it doesn’t target only executive pay but would affect medical practitioners who are also managers. That could include chief medical officers and chief nursing officers, as well as heads of surgery, emergency rooms, oncology, obstetrics, cardiology, and other specialties, they say.

It would be up to each hospital, health system, and physician group to report which staff members exceed the cap and by how much.

Ultimately, who is subject to the pay cap “probably will have to be battled out in court,” said the hospital association’s Coyle. “That’s why we are throwing everything we can at it.”

The second SEIU-UHW ballot initiative, on community clinics, is already in court. , which represents clinics, filed a federal lawsuit in April seeking to invalidate it before it reaches the November ballot.

The proposed measure would require to spend at least 90% of their revenues on activities directly related to their mission of providing care for low-income populations. If it were to pass, over 90% of those clinic organizations would be on the hook for penalties totaling $1.7 billion in the first year alone and “would face similarly crippling penalties every year,” commissioned by the primary care association and conducted by the Berkeley Research Group, an international consulting company.

Louise McCarthy, president and CEO of the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County, said many pivotal services the clinics provide — translation and transportation, for example — would likely not be counted toward the spending requirement.

“They are targeting a group of what they see as employers and we see as the safety net,” she said.

The lawsuit cites the harm to clinics and claims the proposed spending requirement would interfere with federal authority.

Renée Saldaña, a spokesperson for SEIU-UHW, characterized the lawsuit against the initiative as “a really desperate attempt by the clinic industry to try and avoid accountability.”

SEIU-UHW, , is also behind a controversial proposal that would impose a one-time 5% levy on California residents with fortunes over $1 billion to backfill the funding gap created by federal cuts coming down the pike under Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law, passed last July and signed by President Donald Trump, is projected to squeeze over $900 billion from the Medicaid health coverage program for low-income people by 2034, including as much as in California.

The hospital association, the community clinic group, and the California Medical Association, which represents physicians, oppose the wealth tax proposal. But Saldaña said all three of the union’s ballot proposals tie into an overarching strategy to counter the widening healthcare disparities caused by the federal law. Referring to the proposed pay cap, she said, “We believe the primary concern of healthcare providers, including executives, should be to serve the community, heal patients, and not be in healthcare just to enrich themselves.”

Over the years, the union has submitted dozens of local and statewide ballot initiatives, including ones to cap the pay of hospital executives, regulate dialysis clinics, and raise the minimum wage of healthcare workers.

The hospital association calculates that SEIU-UHW has spent nearly $125 million on local and statewide initiatives since 2012. But healthcare industry groups have spent far more opposing them. The hospital association data shows that the union spent nearly $36 million on three ballot proposals to regulate the dialysis industry, but dialysis companies poured in $302 million to defeat them, according to state campaign finance records.

The union’s ongoing political efforts “threaten patient access to quality health care,” according to the hospital association’s ballot initiative, which could limit how much unions spend on future ballot measures.

Saldaña hinted at a possible lawsuit should that measure pass, saying that “we don’t see the legal viability” of it. The proposal, she said, is an attempt “to silence the front-line healthcare workers.”

Ultimately, a ballot initiative won’t cure the ills that plague healthcare in the United States, said the Lown Institute’s Saini. What’s needed, he said, is “an evaluation and reimagination of healthcare.”

This article/medicaid/seiu-uhw-union-healthcare-industry-california-ballot-initiatives-clinic-executive-pay/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2245967&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Trump’s Medicaid Work Rules Force States To Scrap Plans and Rework Systems

Rachana Pradhan — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 19:53:14 +0000

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.”

This article/medicaid/trump-law-medicaid-work-rules-states-overhaul-eligibility-systems/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2246301&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Medicaid Archives - �������ýҕ�l Health News

They Harvest the Nation’s Food, but a New Rule May Strip Them of Health Insurance

My Search for a Psychiatric Bed in an Overburdened Health System

In California Governor’s Race, Voters Face Stark Choice on Immigrant Healthcare

New Medicaid Work Rule Means More Opportunities To Lose Coverage

Affordable Healthcare Emerges as a Voter Priority in Purple Nevada

Trump Officials Still Delaying Funds

Panelists

Indiana Takes On Powerful Hospitals by Capping Prices They Charge Employers

The Drip, Drip, Drip of Declining Coverage

Panelists

Looming Medicaid Cuts Supercharge California’s Latest Labor-Industry Fight

Trump’s Medicaid Work Rules Force States To Scrap Plans and Rework Systems

Medicaid Archives - ��ýҕ�l Health News