Mental Health Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /topics/mental-health/ Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Thu, 17 Sep 2026 09:05:09 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.9 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Mental Health Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /topics/mental-health/ 32 32 257378068 3 Common Drugs Older Adults Might Be Overusing /aging/3-common-drugs-older-adults-might-overuse-new-old-age-column/ Thu, 17 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2282208 The scenario often unfolds like this: Medical researchers investigate a frequently used drug and report that it’s less effective for older patients than previously thought, or that its risks outweigh its benefits in older adults. More studies follow, confirming those findings.

After a few years, medical associations revise their guidelines, warning that the drug in question should be avoided or at least prescribed more selectively. It might be added to the Beers Criteria, an influential list of potentially inappropriate medications for older patients, published by the American Geriatrics Society.

If the drug’s role is preventive, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent expert panel, may weigh in with cautions. The FDA may issue “black box” warnings about concerning side effects.

After a few more years, researchers look at broad national data to see whether use of this drug declined. Often, the answer is: Yes, but not enough. Sometimes, though, use didn’t decline much at all or actually increased.

“Medications are like barnacles,” said Michael Steinman, a geriatrician at the University of California-San Francisco and co-director of the . “They’re easy to start, but they can be hard to stop.”

This medical inertia partly reflects the time lag involved in disseminating findings. “Clinicians have a million things they need to know and attend to, and information may take a while to get to them,” Steinman said.

But it also reflects the way “clinicians and patients get used to treating conditions in certain ways,” he said. “They become ingrained habits.” Finding alternative approaches is challenging, so “it’s easy to go with what you know.”

Recent studies of three medications or classes of drugs widely used among older Americans illustrate the problem.

The Drawbacks of Benzodiazepines

Scientists began about benzodiazepines more than 20 years ago. Prescribed for insomnia and anxiety, “they offer prompt relief,” said Mark Olfson, a psychiatrist and epidemiologist at Columbia University.

? Benzodiazepines (including Valium, Xanax, and Ativan) and the related “Z” drugs (Ambien, Lunesta) “may impair balance, coordination, and cognition that can translate into falls and fractures and motor vehicle accidents,” Olfson said. In patients also taking opioids for pain, benzodiazepines can cause overdoses.

Moreover, “once you’ve taken them for a period of time, you develop a dependence,” Olfson added. “When you come off them, you may develop withdrawal symptoms.”

So what’s happened to , who are more sensitive to these effects? In a , published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Olfson and his team reported progress. Among people 65 and older, the rate of patients filling prescriptions for benzos dropped to 11.5% in 2024, from about 14% in 2015.

But that decline has stalled since 2020, perhaps related to the covid-19 pandemic. Moreover, prescribed use actually rose among those over 75, from 12% in 2020 to about 13% four years later. Dispensing through pharmacies in long-term care facilities more than doubled. And about a third of users were taking the drug for longer than six months, increasing the likelihood of dependence. “It’s worrisome,” Olfson said.

But he cautioned that patients shouldn’t stop benzodiazepines suddenly or on their own, which can provoke withdrawal. “It requires supervised tapering” with a medical professional, he said. “It takes many weeks.”

Overprescribing Antibiotics

For years, the standard treatment for diverticulitis, the inflammation or infection of small pouches that form in the colon, was antibiotics, primarily fluoroquinolones (like Cipro and Levaquin) or amoxicillin-clavulanate (Augmentin).

“It was unquestioned,” said Jesse Sutton, a pharmacist and researcher at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs healthcare system. “Antibiotics are safe and effective, great, lifesaving drugs, so the mindset was: When in doubt, use them.”

But in 2015, the against routinely prescribing antibiotics for “uncomplicated” diverticulitis, which represents a great majority of cases. Other .

Clinical trials had shown that, for this condition, antibiotics on mortality, the need for surgery, complications, or recurrences. “They hadn’t improved anything,” Sutton said.

And as with any drug, “, unintended consequences,” he said. “Side effects from antibiotics account for a ” for symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Antibiotics heighten the risk of the virulent C. difficile infection, too.

Plus, “the more you use antibiotics, the less they work in the future,” Sutton said. The World Health Organization has “a major global health threat.”

So Sutton and his colleagues, studying treatment in 70,000 visits to 120 VA facilities, expected to see antibiotic use for uncomplicated diverticulitis decline over 10 years.

Instead, they in the Annals of Internal Medicine that antibiotic prescriptions remained nearly universal at 97% of visits, guidelines or no guidelines. The patients would most likely have done as well with a few days of Tylenol and a clear liquid diet.

for other conditions of later life, too, including the kind of that cause no troublesome symptoms and upper respiratory infections that are typically viral, not bacterial.

In such cases, when a doctor prescribes an antibiotic, “I’d encourage patients to say, ‘Please explain the rationale for doing this,’” Sutton said. “If they don’t, it’s OK to press pause.”

When Aspirin Isn’t the Answer

Aspirin is different. Because it’s cheap and sold over the counter, anybody can start taking it on their own — and , thinking it will help prevent cardiac problems.

For people who’ve already had a heart attack, stroke, or cardiac intervention like a stent or bypass surgery, daily low-dose aspirin for “secondary prevention” does lower the odds of another event, studies have demonstrated.

But for “primary prevention” in people who haven’t had one, the guidelines changed in 2019, when the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association for this purpose in those 70 or older. The , warning against aspirin for primary prevention starting at age 60.

Large clinical trials had shown scant benefit for aspirin as a primary prevention measure, but there were harms, notably gastrointestinal bleeding. “As we age, the risks of bleeding go up,” said Timothy Anderson, an internist at the University of Pittsburgh who co-directs its Prescribing Wisely Lab. More rarely, but more seriously, aspirin can cause bleeding in the brain.

In a published last year, Anderson and his co-author found the message was getting through: Aspirin use for primary prevention, as reported in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, had dropped substantially from 2011 to 2023. But more than a third of those 70 or older were still taking it.

Some caveats: A subgroup of older adults with high risk factors for cardiovascular disease may benefit from aspirin for primary prevention. And, confusingly, some evidence suggests that older patients already taking aspirin face a higher risk of cardiovascular disease .

“Step 1 is a conversation with your primary care physician” about aspirin, Anderson said. “‘Is this still right for me as I get older?’”

Older patients taking aspirin, , “are interested in reducing their risk of heart attack and stroke,” he said. “They’re trying to be proactive and healthy.” But with blood pressure medications and statins for cholesterol, “we have better strategies than aspirin for that.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership 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 article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2282208
A Generation of Kids Suffer as Trump Destabilizes Immigrant Families /race-and-health/trump-ice-immigration-immigrant-families-kids-parents-separation-health-trauma/ Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2277474 The little girl stared up at Norma Gómez from the doorway of her neighbor’s apartment, her sad, brown eyes suddenly flashing with hope.

“Are you the person who’s going to bring my mom back?” she asked.

Gómez struggled to find an answer. It was a December morning, and she’d brought food, diapers, baby wipes, and clothes — items she hoped would help the 6-year-old girl, her baby brother, and the neighbor who had stepped in to care for them. The children were left alone after federal immigration agents arrested their parents outside their apartment in Oxnard, a mostly Latino agricultural community on the Southern California coast. But Gómez had no power to bring the parents back.

“We’re working on that,” Gómez recalled telling the girl. In reality, she was at a loss for how to answer truthfully without upsetting her.

As a project manager for a nonprofit that provides food assistance to immigrant families affected by Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, Gómez has witnessed the tumult and pain that have roiled the lives of since President Donald Trump returned to office, with devastating consequences for children’s health. They include an estimated with at least one parent detained by immigration authorities through April, a number that has undoubtedly climbed since. Separation from parents harms children psychologically. It destabilizes families, often leaving the remaining parent or caregiver scrambling to stay housed, buy food, and fulfill kids’ medical needs. Some kids are to care for themselves.

A portrait of a woman wearing a colorful embroidered short sleeve shirt.
Norma Gómez, a project manager with the Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project in Oxnard, California, provides food and basic supplies to family members caring for children with parents detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They’ve included a stepfather caring for four girls; a 16-year-old caring for her younger siblings; and numerous aunts and uncles. (Karla Gachet for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Many kids whose parents aren’t detained are experiencing threats to their health and well-being too. Two children in the South in February 2025 after reportedly being bullied over their family’s alleged immigration status.

Millions of children live in families losing access to , , , and other supports as roll back eligibility for immigrants with and without legal status. Fear of federal enforcement has pushed parents to avoid , going to the doctor, and . Some have disenrolled from or avoided signing kids up for health and nutrition programs.

Children from immigrant backgrounds are also . They’re experiencing more , increased , and anxiety about , even when they or their family members are citizens or legal residents.

Most of these children are American citizens. About have an immigrant parent, including around 4.6 million with a parent who lacks legal status.

“I’m really concerned about how long it’s going to take for us as a country to address all of the harm that’s happening to this generation of kids,” said Wendy Cervantes, director of immigration and immigrant families at the . “This type of stress can have long-term developmental harm and can really inhibit their ability to do well in school, to have good health outcomes, and to grow into thriving, stable adults.”

Curbing Public Benefits

Trump has made cracking down on immigrants — including the children of immigrants — a priority since his second term began last year. On Inauguration Day, he issued an purporting to end birthright citizenship for kids born to parents without legal status or in the country on temporary visas, an attempt ultimately blocked by the Supreme Court.

His administration, with the approval of Republicans in Congress, has into immigration enforcement, detaining the parents of an estimated 145,000 U.S. citizen children as of April, and, according to an analysis by nonprofit newsroom The Marshall Project, . It’s sought to rescind , or TPS, for over 1 million immigrants, tens of thousands of whom have U.S. citizen children, and in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which includes the parents of about .

White House officials say the immigration crackdown by freeing up resources such as jobs and housing, reducing pressure on public coffers, expelling criminals, and restoring integrity to the immigration system. (Studies have shown that mass deportations .) Trump and other Republican leaders have argued that birthright citizenship and “,” and that TPS has allowed immigrants from “” to remain in the United States indefinitely under what is supposed to be a temporary program.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis did not directly address whether the administration is concerned about long-term harm to children and increased healthcare costs because of its immigration policies. Instead, she repeated past White House criticisms that President Joe Biden’s immigration policies allowed children to be trafficked across the U.S. border.

“The real story is the psychiatric impact on the tens of thousands of children who were smuggled across the border — many by human and sex traffickers,” she wrote in an email.

A woman writes on a clipboard as she speaks to another person whose back is to the camera.
Gómez at a monthly food distribution organized by the Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project in Santa Paula. She says she has delivered food to families caring for children with one or both parents detained by immigration authorities. (Karla Gachet for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Only 39% of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, according to a recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll.

Stephen Miller, the chief architect of Trump’s immigration policies, has accused the children of immigrants of draining public resources and perpetuating problems from their parents’ home countries. Research, however, shows that immigrants and the longer they live in the United States and that they and their children . Data also shows they than native-born Americans.

“This is the great lie of mass migration,” on the social platform X in November. “You are not just importing individuals. You are importing societies. No magic transformation occurs when failed states cross borders. At scale, migrants and their descendants recreate the conditions, and terrors, of their broken homelands.”

The Republican tax-and-spending law enacted last summer curbs immigrant eligibility for health and food assistance programs. And this July, the administration issued new “public charge” rules that give immigration officers broad discretion to deny green cards to lawfully present immigrants if they or family members have used public benefit programs, a move that could result in U.S. citizen children disenrolling from safety net healthcare programs.

Together but Afraid

Separation from parents is and can lead to , including anxiety, depression, cardiovascular disease, and learning difficulties. Children separated from their parents at the border during the first Trump administration were found to exhibit . Researchers have also tied deportations and detentions of immigrant parents — as well as the threat of them — to widespread , higher , , among both immigrant and U.S.-born children.

It’s also costly to society. A by federal researchers estimated that health conditions related to childhood trauma accounted for $292 billion in healthcare spending in 2021 alone, including by taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.

Emmanuel, a 13-year-old in Oxnard, gets anxious every time his dad goes to work as a farm laborer, his mother, Ana, said. He asks her for reassurance that his father will return, and about what would happen to him if his parents got detained. He tries to hurry Ana up when they’re out in public, worried that ICE could suddenly appear. Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is not using their full names because they fear deportation.

Doctors and therapists interviewed by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News said they have observed a notable increase in mental health problems, especially anxiety, in children from immigrant families. Kimberly McNally, a pediatrician at Venice Family Clinic’s Inglewood South La Brea Health Center, said she’s regularly referring children of all ages for mental health services related to fears that their parents will be taken away. At daycares, kids have been showing up with an extra bag in case their parents don’t pick them up, said Liza Davis, advocacy director for Children in Immigrant Families at The Children’s Partnership, which works with a coalition of early childhood educators.

Sometimes, the distress leads young people to take extreme actions. In June, 19-year-old Eliel José after his father was deported from the Atlanta area to Mexico, according to Univision.

Rosie Harrison, executive director of Grow Initiative GA, a community organization that serves low-income families, said she’s received calls over the past year from immigrant parents seeking help for suicidal and depressed kids. Their situations are often made worse because many lack health insurance and can’t afford to pay for therapy. That’s often because parents have lost jobs that came with health insurance due to worksite raids or because of eligibility changes imposed by the Trump administration.

“I’m concerned about the families that are going to be burying their child,” Harrison said. “I’m concerned that we are going to miss out on having an amazing person do amazing things for our community, for our country, because they took their life.”

Strength Under Pressure

Many children are showing resilience, though.

In a role reversal, some children have become their parents’ protectors. They go grocery shopping and take their younger siblings to school so that their parents don’t have to leave the house.

A small crowd of people stand in front of a refrigerated delivery truck that says, "Food Share" on the side.
Gómez (center), a project manager with the Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project, stands next to volunteer Ezequiel Alonso (left), as they prepare to distribute food and school supplies to families in Santa Paula. Many families are struggling due to the Trump administration’s immigration policies. (Karla Gachet for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Giselle Gonzalez, a university student and volunteer with the immigrant protection network VC Defensa in Ventura County, California, said she’ll never forget the morning last summer when she woke up to the sound of kids on bicycles pedaling through her immigrant-heavy neighborhood in Thousand Oaks, yelling “La migra! La migra! Don’t come out!” They’d spotted ICE agents grabbing factory workers and gardeners on their way to work, she said.

Neighbors, community groups, health providers, and others have also in a to support children and families affected by immigration enforcement. They , provide , , and help parents create in case they get detained or deported.

Ultimately, more humane immigration policies and enforcement tactics will be required to end the harm being done to children, academic experts and advocates said.

Researchers at point to a pilot called the as a model for keeping families together while also enforcing immigration laws. Launched in January 2016 under President Barack Obama, the program allowed families seeking asylum to remain in the community while awaiting resolution of their cases. Through a case manager, they received support in meeting the obligations of their immigration cases and preparing for deportation if needed. The program, which and cost-effective, was terminated by the first Trump administration.

At Venice Family Clinic in Los Angeles, case manager Mabel Alavez sees the pressures facing families who are still together but worried they could be separated. Many of the people are parents or grandparents who have been in the U.S. for decades. Some are afraid to take their children to school, the park, or the beach. They ask whether it’s safe to enroll their U.S.-born kids in Medicaid. She helps families who are facing eviction because they’re afraid to go to work and can no longer afford rent. She often helps them create plans for who will look after their children if they get detained.

Raised in an immigrant family herself, Alavez knows how challenging it can be for kids who are first-generation Americans to navigate growing up, going to school, and finding a sense of belonging in a country their parents aren’t from.

“It’s hard for me to imagine how they could possibly do that in addition to what’s going on now,” she said. “I do feel like there will be a big impact on them. What that might look like, I’m not exactly sure.”

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

]]>
2277474
Journalists Detail Data on Suicide, Primary Care Shortages, and Gun Violence /on-air/on-air-september-12-2026-opioid-settlements-primary-care-gun-violence/ Sat, 12 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2283273&preview=true&preview_id=2283273

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News senior correspondent Aneri Pattani discussed Louisiana sheriffs’ spending of opioid settlement payouts on Attitude With Arnie Arnesen on Sept. 1. Pattani also discussed addressing loneliness and isolation as part of suicide prevention on Good Faith Media’s Our Stigma on Aug. 31.


Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News senior correspondent Renuka Rayasam discussed primary care shortages on PBS News’ Horizons on Aug. 28.

  • .

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Florida correspondent Daniel Chang discussed how gun violence affects Florida’s children on Fox 13 Tampa Bay on Aug. 26.


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

]]>
2283273
When a Friend Becomes a Caregiver /aging/new-old-age-column-friends-become-caregivers/ Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2278781 For several years, Nicole Straight and Patricia Wood, who lived across the street from each other in Sausalito, California, were more neighbors than friends, exchanging sociable greetings and occasionally having coffee.

Then, last October, Wood took a fall, broke her neck, and spent three months in rehabilitation. When she returned to the house she shares with her niece, she couldn’t walk without assistance. “I still don’t dare go up and down stairs unless someone is with me,” said Wood, 93.

That has redefined their neighborly relationship. Straight, 53, a retired chef, now visits weekly, bringing lattes and cookies, and often leftovers from dinners she has made. Her husband installed a grab bar in Wood’s bathroom, put up shelves, and changed her light bulbs and smoke detector batteries. The texts fly back and forth.

Straight calls to say I’m going to the grocery store. Do you need anything? Wood, who no longer drives, provides a shopping list.

“She is a gift from heaven,” said Wood, a retired insurance executive. “We talk and talk. Sometimes we shed a few tears, but mostly we laugh. I never thought I’d have a new best friend at this time of my life.”

Eldercare, typically considered a family obligation, is evolving to adapt to demographic shifts that make reliance on spouses and children less assured.

“The number of older adults who have never married or are divorced has been increasing, so we have more people aging alone,” said Deborah Carr, a sociologist at Boston University who has investigated these trends.

“The proportion who are childless, by choice or not, is also growing,” she added, and families with children have fewer of them than in past generations.

Geographic distances or also fuel the need for other kinds of caregivers — roles that friends or neighbors can fill.

How commonly do friends step into caregiving gaps? A recently published study in JAMA Network Open, led by researchers at the University of Michigan, looked into , usually in supplementary roles.

They used data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, in which more than 2,600 older people with health limitations (average age: 79) identified friends and family members who provided help. Family members were most likely to care for aging relatives, but about 14% of participants identified friends (including neighbors) in that role. That represents 2.4 million caregiving friends nationally, the authors estimated.

Last year, a by AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving put the proportion of caregivers supporting nonrelatives at 11%.

“Friends are among the auxiliary caregivers who have not been acknowledged,” said Karen Fingerman, a gerontologist at the University of Texas-Austin and co-author of a the study. “We neglect the sacrifices they make.”

The study, believed to be the first nationwide look at caregiving friends, found they functioned differently from relatives. They’re unlikely to live with the person they’re helping, for example, and rarely serve as the sole caregiver.

“They provide fewer care hours,” said Yee To Ng, a gerontologist and lead author of the study, which found that friends supplied 18 hours of help a month on average, compared with about 67 hours from family.

They assist in different ways, too. “Friends are more likely to provide transportation,” Ng said. Two-thirds of caregiving friends drive their friends around; shopping, helping people go outside, preparing meals, and accompanying patients to medical appointments round out the top five tasks.

Sometimes they do more. Czes Ferrino, 82, is widowed and lives alone in Westerly, Rhode Island. She has no disabling health problems, but when her car died recently, her next-door neighbor went with her to several Subaru dealers to find a used replacement. “He walked me through it like a son would for a mother or grandmother,” Ferrino said.

On the other hand, “there are some tasks friends might not be well equipped to provide or be comfortable with,” Ng said. Personal care, like bathing and dressing, remains largely the province of family members.

“Those can infringe on people’s self-esteem,” Ng said. “With family, we accept that when you’re really ill, they step up with intimate activities. It’s embarrassing to have your friends help you use the toilet.”

The researchers also found that respondents who named friends as caregivers were younger than those with only relatives in that role, and more apt to have college degrees. People with higher education levels have larger social networks, Fingerman said.

Those assisted by friends were also, unsurprisingly, less likely to be married and more apt to live alone — like Ann Greenwater, 84, who lives in a mobile home park in rural Humboldt County, California.

She managed independently until a few years ago, when severe back pain rendered her bedridden for nearly three months. Although she’s up and about now and can handle housekeeping, cooking, and personal care, “I’ve never really fully recovered,” Greenwater said.

She is single, with no family beyond a distant nephew she barely knows, and has stopped driving. But a cadre of friends she knows from a nearby Zen Buddhist center stepped in.

Milli Quam, 86, does her laundry and drops it off, sometimes picking up prescriptions en route. A 73-year-old helped Greenwater with her computer and, along with several others, takes her grocery shopping or shops for her. Members of a local volunteer organization drive her to medical appointments.

“I love Ann, and I’m happy there’s something concrete I can do,” Quam said. “I hope I can keep doing it for a long time.”

Friends have some advantages as caregivers. “Our friends are our own age and understand what we’re going through,” Carr said. “They may have more empathy and sometimes real knowledge they’ve acquired.” When family caregivers are on the job, friends’ efforts can reduce their burden.

But nonrelatives may also prove less stable as a source of help. Neighbors move. Strains can develop if the person needing care becomes too demanding or feels guilty about accepting help, challenging the egalitarian expectations for friendships. These in those with physical limitations, a study led by Carr found.

Nor is there much policy support for these caregiving relationships. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act, for instance, “with rare exceptions does not provide job-protected leave from work to care for a friend with a serious health condition,” Laura Lawless, a labor and employment lawyer with Squire Patton Boggs, said in an email.

“For family, ‘through thick and thin’ is the expectation,” Carr said. “There’s huge stigma to being estranged from your family, but it’s kind of normal for some friendships to just fall away.”

In Sausalito, Wood tells Straight that “she’s not allowed to move until I die.” She’s joking, sort of.

Greenwater’s friends in Humboldt County, to her gratitude, have not fallen away either. But they are aging along with her; at 86, Quam pointed out, she may stop driving before long, too.

“I’m wondering what will happen when these friends aren’t able to come to me,” Greenwater said. “I guess we’ll deal with it when it comes.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership 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 article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2278781
Summer’s Health Policy Themes /podcast/what-the-health-461-affordability-measles-pennsylvania-dolly-parton-august-27-2026/ Thu, 27 Aug 2026 19:10:32 +0000 /?p=2279917&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2279917 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.

Summer may be approaching its end, but the health policy stories that have marked the season continue. In Washington and across the country, public health officials are still struggling with outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles, while states and health systems are preparing for the impact of major federal funding cuts to their Medicaid programs.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Shefali Luthra photo
Shefali Luthra The 19th
Rachel Roubein photo
Rachel Roubein The Washington Post
Margot Sanger-Katz photo
Margot Sanger-Katz The New York Times

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • More Americans are struggling to afford health coverage, even before some of the biggest GOP-initiated changes to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act plans take effect next year. And the federal government’s efforts to block coverage of drugs used in gender-affirming care and to claw back ACA subsidies are creating access issues for a wider pool of Americans.
  • Pennsylvania health officials this week reported two measles-related deaths amid an ongoing outbreak and the national debate over vaccines. While many of the actions taken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Robert F. Kennedy Jr. remain held up in litigation, President Donald Trump has made his personal skepticism about vaccines known, including through his recent executive order. Meanwhile, the administration is scaling back enforcement of civil rights protections for people with autism.
  • The Trump administration is inviting states to participate in price negotiations with manufacturers over GLP-1 drugs if the states opt to offer the drugs through their Medicaid programs. But, amid concerns over cost, only one state has taken the federal government up on its offer.
  • And farewell to Dolly Parton, the superstar country music singer and songwriter, also known for her philanthropic work, who died this week at age 80. In addition to her donation in 2020 supporting the development of the mRNA-based covid vaccine, Parton funded pediatric infectious disease research, a women’s health center in the Tennessee county where she was raised, and training for pediatric medical professionals.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Dean Rosen about his work for former Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum, a Kansas Republican and the first woman to lead a major Senate committee, who died last week at age 94.

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 Tamar Haspel.  

Margot Sanger-Katz: Stat’s “,” by Anil Oza.  

Rachel Roubein: The New York Times’ “,” by Noah Daly and Andrew Jacobs.  

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “,” by LJ Dawson.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • Stat’s “,” by Daniel Payne.
  • Modern Healthcare’s “,” by Nona Tepper.
  • Stat’s “,” by John Wilkerson.
  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Naema Ahmed, Lena H. Sun and Aaron Steckelberg.
  • CIDRAP’s “,” by Meghan Holohan.
  • Stat’s “,” by Elizabeth Cooney.
  • Politico’s “,” by Kelly Hooper.
  • Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Trump Puts Autistic Kids in the Spotlight and Cuts Agencies Built To Protect Them,” by Claire Sibonney.
Click to open the transcript Transcript: Summer’s Health Policy Themes

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using transcription software. 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, Aug. 27, 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: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello! 

Rovner: And Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Hi. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Dean Rosen about his time working for Kansas Republican Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum, who died last week at the age of 94, and how she represented a type of lawmaker we don’t see that much anymore. But first, this week’s news. So we’re taking the next week off for a needed break for our entire team, which makes this the last podcast of the technical summer. And I thought I’d do something just a little bit different. I’m going to break the discussion up into what I’m calling “The Themes of the Summer” — things we’ve talked about nearly every week. I hope it gives some of you the realization that I get from putting this together every week, that we’re looking less at a long list of separate events and items and more at pieces of a much larger picture that we don’t often see. 

So, theme No. 1 this week is declining health coverage. When Republicans passed their big budget bill last summer, they thought they were being clever by backdating most of the Medicaid cuts so they wouldn’t happen before the 2026 midterms. Well, the problem for them is that states and health systems are already making their own cuts in anticipation of those federal cuts to come, and people are already starting to feel them. This week’s evidence is from a Stat News piece called “,” and it includes ways that access is shrinking overall, particularly in heavily rural states like Maine and Louisiana, as the number of people without insurance goes up and the money from the government goes down. Is it really possible that Republicans didn’t see this coming? Or did they really believe they could take a trillion dollars out of the nation’s healthcare system and not have people notice? 

Sanger-Katz: I think that many of them were not paying very close attention. I think it may be accurate to say that they were indifferent to this possibility and are, in fact, surprised now to see the way that it is working out. I just, you know, for context, this bill that made these very large cuts to Medicaid and some smaller cuts to Obamacare funding was part of this huge package that included, you know, major tax cuts and tax reforms that were a big priority for Republicans, changes to energy policy, changes to other social welfare programs, changes to education policy, and, you know, they called it the One Big Beautiful Bill. And I think the bigness of it is easy to forget, in retrospect. But I think for a lot of lawmakers, they were really focused on the parts of the bill that they really cared about. For many of them, it was the tax part of the package. And the president and their leadership repeatedly told them not to worry about the Medicaid changes, characterized them as not being cuts. And I think, you know, a good, responsible lawmaker ought to do some diligence about that. But I think that many of them maybe took their eye off of the healthcare parts of the bill, were focused more on these other parts of the bill, and now are really starting to see what is happening in their home states as these policies are starting to roll out. 

Roubein: And I also think it’s true that, like, some of the full impacts, as I think Daniel Payne pointed out in his Stat piece, won’t be felt for years to come, particularly as the Medicaid work requirements do kick in next year. So once there are more concrete human faces and examples, that tends to come to more the forefront and, like, you know, the political mind. So yes, those changes a lot of them are not fully going into effect till after the midterms. 

Rovner: I do think that one thing that lawmakers really didn’t appreciate was how much this might impact not just people who would be losing coverage, but people who would be losing access. I mean, people who still have coverage, but, you know, if a hospital can’t keep its door open, or a clinic can’t keep its door open, or a doctor can’t, you know, keep the practice going, that’s going to impact people with insurance as well as people who are losing their insurance. I mean, that’s, I think, that’s part of why this piece went to explore some of these more rural places, where people are going to feel this first. Shefali, I see you nodding. 

Luthra: Yeah, one thing I’ve been thinking about a lot is you do hear Republicans, especially someone like [Maine Sen.] Susan Collins, really trying to tout the rural health fund that was part of this, right, and that was meant to, at least rhetorically, offset these massive healthcare cuts. Obviously, you look at math, you look at numbers, and one doesn’t really undo the other. But …  

Rovner: Yeah, the rural health fund is, what, $150 billion of $1 trillion … ? 

Sanger-Katz: $50 billion, I think. 

Rovner: Or, oh, it was even less. 

Luthra: And so, yeah. I mean, I think what maybe people didn’t fully appreciate is that voters are less compelled, perhaps, by [lawmakers] saying I voted for this funding, and more compelled by what they see happening around them, which is these massive cuts resulting in major changes to what is often the biggest employer, what is often the only source of healthcare for miles, something that is very intimate, very much of the community. And that’s why this is just such a potent issue, especially in a lot of these really close Senate races now. 

Roubein: I mean, we’ve seen in the past how rural healthcare can impact politics. With Medicaid expansion, Republicans were really, really, really against it, and then you saw some begin to change their mind — North Carolina being a notable example, and just all of the ballot measures in red states — Oklahoma, for instance. 

Rovner: Idaho. 

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s worth just pointing out how much is still to come. I think a lot of what we’re seeing right now is hospitals and other healthcare organizations that were kind of in a difficult financial situation going into this change in policy. They’re looking around, they’re already in the red, and they see they’re not going to get more money in the future; they’re going to get less money. And so I think a lot of them are accelerating changes that they were hoping to stave off. But the real cuts in almost all cases have not come yet. So, you know, the work requirements, as Rachel noted, are going to reduce the number of people who are covered by Medicaid. So that means that a lot of these healthcare organizations are going to have to absorb uncompensated care that was previously paid for. But then, further down the road, there are actually much larger cuts that are coming to state Medicaid budgets that are done in these kind of complicated, a little bit obscure, formulaic ways. But there are these reductions on how much the state can directly pay hospitals for care. There are reductions in how much states can raise through Medicaid taxes that then get transferred back. And there, I think, have been very valid criticisms of these funding mechanisms for Medicaid. They are this kind of Rube Goldberg complicated ways of financing the program, but they’ve been around for decades, and these healthcare organizations and these state budgets have really been built on the foundation of these funding streams. And so, as that money starts to go away, I think, then we may see even larger impacts because, again, the things that are happening now are healthcare organizations looking down the road and thinking, Ooh, it’s going to get messy. Maybe I should start adjusting now. But down the road, it will start getting messy for them, and I think there are going to be potentially some much harder choices for some of these organizations. 

Rovner: Well, continuing along that theme, , we talked earlier this summer about a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to enforce the administration’s ban on the use of the Medicaid or CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance] Program to pay for gender-affirming care for minors. But it seems that the mechanism CMS is using could open the door to denying coverage for other drugs too, or at least some uses of other drugs. Now, this isn’t in the Stat story, but, Shefali, when I read it, I wondered if one goal here is to cut back on the use of drugs like misoprostol, which is used for a lot of things, but also for medication abortion. 

Luthra: That’s a really good question, and I think one that we still don’t really know. And obviously, a lot of states’ Medicaid doesn’t cover abortion to begin with. That really only happens in states that have actively made an effort. But, I mean, misoprostol is not only used for abortion; it is used for miscarriage management. And I think it’s just something really important for us to keep in mind what happens when you see these sorts of approaches to just, like, carving out individual forms of healthcare. And obviously, it’s very interesting as well because drugs used for gender-affirming care are also used for other things. RFK [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. really loves hormone therapy for many people, just not trans people. And so I think there’s just a lot of questions that we don’t really have answers to about just how sweeping the implications of something like this could be. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will see as it goes. Well, it’s not just Medicaid. that CMS is clawing back billions of dollars in Affordable Care Act premium subsidies from insurers who have allegedly phantom enrollees, people with zero premium plans who don’t file claims. And while that is a known problem, a lot of those people might be actual enrollees who just haven’t needed their insurance yet, as in young, healthy folks who have health insurance just in case, or because their parents told them that they should, and, by the way, they could get a plan with a zero premium. And stripping these people from the rolls is likely to boost premiums overall by making risk pools sicker, in general. I feel like this administration might not be familiar with the bizarre and sometimes illogical way the health insurance market works? 

Sanger-Katz: I think there’s a delicate balance going on here, where if there are people who are enrolled in these plans who are fake, are not real people, do not know that they have insurance, never plan to use their insurance, you know, that is a waste of federal dollars to subsidize those premiums and just give that money to insurance companies. But I don’t think that there’s very strong evidence that there are a lot of these people. And I also think that the mere fact that someone has not used their health insurance yet, in a year, is not by itself evidence that they are a fake person or that their enrollment is fraudulent. As you said, Julie, there are a lot of reasons why people in this market may not have used their insurance. You know, a lot of the people who have become newly enrolled are relatively young and healthy. That is good for the risk pool, but it may mean they don’t have a lot of healthcare needs. There’s also, just because of the nature of the individual market, you know, one expert pointed out to me, there’s just a lot of churn. You know, someone loses their job, they sign up for a plan, then they get a different plan, or, you know, people who are in this market may only be in this market for a short period of time, and that may also explain why there’s a higher share of them who don’t make any claims, because they haven’t sort of gotten through the whole year, they haven’t had a healthcare need yet. So I think deciding to just disenroll people on this basis does risk disenrolling people who are legitimately insured, who are not phantoms, and who are not committing any kind of fraud. To the degree that there is fraudulent enrollment, and I think there’s evidence that there’s some of it, there are, you know, I think that is a valid concern, and I think the federal government is certainly within its rights to try to address that and make sure that these federal tax subsidies are being appropriately spent. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think “delicate balance” is exactly the right word. I mean, that’s, you know, with the work requirements too. I mean, the idea is to make sure that people are doing things. But if you make the administrative requirements so burdensome, then you’re going to throw off people who are legitimately enrolled. 

Moving on to the next theme of the summer: the resurgence of measles, and the continuing fight over vaccine policy. Until this week, the Trump administration had boasted that while measles cases have been rising pretty precipitously — they’re at the highest level in more than three decades — the U.S. was actually doing better than most other countries with outbreaks, and besides, no one had died of measles yet this year. Well, that worked until Tuesday, when the Pennsylvania Department of Health announced two measles-related deaths in Lancaster County — although we have few details other than that both people were unvaccinated and one was an infant. The announcement touched off a rather nasty war of words between Pennsylvania governor (and possible 2028 presidential candidate) Democrat Josh Shapiro and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who said that the state was not cooperating with federal health officials, and maybe the people didn’t actually die of measles after all. This isn’t really going to get more people vaccinated, I would suggest — this just sort of fighting back and forth, right? 

Luthra: It’s a good question. It certainly doesn’t help. I think one thing I was thinking about this morning, and this is not measles-specific, but there’s a really great New Yorker piece from this week looking at the actual vaccine data over the past year and a half, and obviously people are affected by public rhetoric, but the declines in vaccination are not as big as one might have feared when RFK Jr. was initially nominated and really made a point of highlighting anti-vaccine beliefs. And so obviously, like, this is, the fact that people are dying is very bad. The fact that they’re sowing confusion … 

Rovner: The fact that people are getting measles is very bad! 

Luthra: Yes, it’s very, very bad. It’s not, none of it is good. But that was actually really striking to me that amidst all of this, like, really terrible news, there is a bright spot, which is that things could be a lot worse. That is something that I hadn’t thought about. 

Roubein: I mean, if, I think … I’ve been thinking about this today, like, if you kind of step back from the really high-level view, I think Americans who are watching this are confused. They are not sure who to trust. There are, you know, Republicans are saying one thing, Kennedy allies are saying one thing, the Department of Health [and Human Services] and Gov. Shapiro, Democrats are saying another thing. You’re seeing a, you know, a war of words between, like, Republican and Democratic county commissioners on this, you know, just from a public health messaging standpoint. 

Rovner: Yeah, it has not been a great job of communication all the way around. I think there, I mean, there are even, you know, public health defenders who are saying, Why don’t we know more about these two deaths yet? There’s been not a lot of information, and that has, of course, as we saw, you know, during covid, the more noninformation you have, the more people try to fill in their own information, whether it’s true or not.  

Well, even before the Pennsylvania news, we had a somewhat excruciating pair of appearances on CBS’ Sunday show Face the Nation this week. First, CMS Administrator Dr. [Mehmet] Oz needed three separate tries to be able to say that, no, President [Donald] Trump was incorrect when he said in his Oval Office vaccine event that the measles, mumps, rubella combination shot was lethal. Spoiler: It is not. Then Florida Republican congressman Byron Donalds, who’s now the Republican candidate for governor, said the measles outbreak there has been caused by illegal immigration rather than residents not getting their children vaccinated. What happened to the idea we heard last winter that being anti-vax wasn’t good politics? I think this speaks to what you were just saying, Shefali. You know, I think in January and February we thought that Republicans were going to sort of leave this alone and focus on other things. 

Sanger-Katz: Well, I think one thing that we’ve learned recently is that while a lot of the president’s advisers and political staff, I think, were concerned that an anti-vaccine message was damaging, what we’ve seen is that the president himself sincerely has anti-vaccine views and has been saying them out in public. And so I think it does put other Republican political figures in a difficult bind, and certainly puts folks like Dr. Oz, who work in the administration, in a difficult place. Whatever his genuine views are, whatever his political advisers and his public health advisers are telling him, he works for President Trump, and President Trump has made it pretty clear what he thinks. And so I think that’s why we are now seeing this kind of new round of muddled messaging around vaccines, when I do think for a little while there was kind of a pullback on the most overt anti-vaccine rhetoric, and, you know, we saw RFK talking less about it, for example, in public. Now, I think we’re in a little bit of a new phase, where the president is leading the way back. 

Roubein: Yeah, I mean, I think that’s exactly right, and I mean, Trump has, you know, privately questioned why his administration had yet to release new vaccine recommendations, , with Lena [H. Sun] and my colleague Dan [Diamond]. And that’s, you know, some of what, a lot of what drove the executive order that we saw from just a few weeks ago to reduce the childhood vaccine schedule. Trump says he wants to break up the MMR shot. That’s not something that is currently available, but, you know, he has driven that by pushing some of his advisers. 

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. Well, meanwhile, demonstrating just how expensive it is to track, trace, and quarantine people after a confirmed case of measles. One Denver outbreak that ended up being just 10 cases still cost state and local agencies nearly a half a million dollars, almost 7,000 hours of work from 189 staff members, not to mention 91 people being quarantined and 500 days of school being missed. We may call public health invisible when it works, but it is certainly not cheap. 

Roubein: Yeah, I mean we don’t talk about the economics of it very often. I mean, public health officials always say that they are underfunded, but just, in general, the talk of the economics here is generally not a huge part of the conversation. 

Sanger-Katz: And measles is just such a difficult disease to contain because it is so contagious. It is one of the most contagious infectious diseases out there. And so that means that any person who has measles just has the potential to spread it to so many people. And I think that really strains these traditional public health approaches of trying to track, trace, and quarantine because you have to find so many contacts. 

Rovner: Yeah, just a reminder, I mean, measles can linger in the air after the infected person has left for, I think it’s like, two hours. So it’s, you know, anybody who’s been in a place where somebody with measles has been is potentially at risk if they’re not vaccinated. 

Sanger-Katz: I mean, we remember how hard this was with covid. Of course, in the early days, no one was vaccinated, so there were more people who were susceptible to covid. But measles is substantially more contagious even than covid. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, as yet, as the debate continues to rage over vaccines, the evidence continues to pile up that vaccines are actually, on balance, a very good thing. Just this week, we have two more studies. of 4 million teens and young adults that found that those who received that controversial mRNA-based covid vaccine were less likely than those who just got covid to develop myocarditis or other heart problems. That was something that people were worried about with young people getting this vaccine. appears to confirm that the shingles vaccine, Shingrix, appears to not only have a protective effect against dementia, something we reported earlier this year, but also against cardiovascular disease. How do we get to a place where vaccines have become controversial again? I assume, I mean, I want to go back, Margot, to what you were saying that it does seem that President Trump himself has anti-vax views that I think we didn’t appreciate until this year. I mean, I think most of us thought that this was all being driven by RFK Jr., who’d obviously made a career of being anti-vax. But when he backed off, we saw the president basically fill right in, and that’s kind of where we are? 

Sanger-Katz: And I also think this is a reminder to us, both of these studies and others that have come out recently, that, you know, vaccines have some risks. They do. But infectious disease can be really dangerous for people, and it can have lingering and downstream effects that are not obvious. It’s not just that you get sick in the moment that you get sick, but having that disease affects your body in ways that may show up much later. And I think some of these longer-term studies that are following people — you know, not just in the weeks and months after they get a vaccine, but what happens years later to their heart or to other major organ systems —really shows that preventing people from getting serious illness is good for their long-term health. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Roubein: And I mean, Secretary Kennedy, just to go back to last year, he did drive changes. He fired CDC’s [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] vaccine advisers, who had made changes to vaccines. The health department did release a new childhood, slimmed-down childhood immunization schedule earlier this year. A lot of those changes, though, have been on hold from a federal judge. 

Rovner: Yeah, he also fired the head of the CDC, who refused to rubber-stamp his vaccine changes. So, he was busy before he got sort of unbusy with this. All right, we are going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

OK, our next theme of the summer are the continued cutbacks by the Trump administration to federal health programs, including some of those that have been specifically funded by Congress. First up is a story from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News this week about how, at the same time President Trump can’t stop talking about the increasing rates of autism and what a problem it is, the administration is scaling back enforcement of civil rights protections for people with autism, research into the education needs of people with all sorts of disabilities, and even data collection efforts. So, on the one hand, the president keeps pressuring RFK Jr. to find a definite cause of autism, but at the same time, this administration is doing less to help those who are already diagnosed? 

Luthra: I think what I find really interesting every time we talk about this is the really, really long tail of funding cuts, because this is something on, like, a broad macro scale that began at the beginning of this administration, right? Just massive funding cuts and freezes across the board and have continued. And because of the way grant-making works, because of the way research works, we keep seeing the consequences. We keep getting more people reporting, “Oh, my funding didn’t come,” or “This was held up,” or “This project I was working on no longer can.” And what I think is also really interesting is we see how slow the ability to respond is because of the long tail of funding cuts. I mean, courts take a long time, finding new funding when you suddenly lose yours actually is very difficult. And this is something that we’re just going to keep coming back to. We are going to be seeing the consequences of these funding cuts for months and years, as we’ve been talking, but also for much longer as the consequences in terms of research, of cures developed or not developed, becomes even more clear. 

Rovner: Yeah, although sometimes I think it’s going to be hard to connect the dots to get from, you know, from you cut this so this didn’t happen. It’s almost going to be like proving a negative at some point. 

Well, another big theme this summer has been drug prices, particularly prices for those expensive GLP-1 weight loss drugs. As part of the administration’s push to make those drugs less expensive for the end users, CMS offered states the option to participate in its direct negotiations with the drug manufacturers if they would offer them through their Medicaid programs. Only, , so far only one state has taken up the offer, and more states are actually cutting back on their GLP-1 coverage through Medicaid that they have been offering because it’s been such a financial strain on their programs. Several state officials told Politico that they worry about the long-term financial sustainability of the program. I know it’s also a worry for the Medicare GLP-1 program, which is basically at this point a year-and-a-half-long pilot for drugs that, as far as we know, need to be taken indefinitely. Is it fair to say that the president has not really been able to keep his promise to make these drugs cheaper and much more widely available, or that if he has, people may end up getting them yanked out from underneath of them? 

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s complicated. I think it’s hard to know how much credit the president should get. But I will say that the prices for these drugs — the kind of cash-pay prices, that he was able to negotiate allegedly, and that he was able to announce certainly a few months ago — were substantially lower than what individuals and insurers, including some public insurers, were paying for those drugs. So we are now seeing a kind of cash price for the main anti-obesity drugs that is much more affordable than it had been in the past. I think some of that was driven by market pressures and would have happened regardless of the president’s intervention. But I think certainly his pushing these companies, his threatening of these companies, his cajoling of these companies probably maybe did induce them to sort of do it at the same time, to do it faster, and to do it more prominently. 

Rovner: Well, some of it already had happened, before he got in. The self-pay cost had already gone down because so many insurers had stopped covering it. 

Sanger-Katz: It had gone down, but it then went down again.  

Rovner: It did. 

Sanger-Katz: The prices that are available now that the president announced are lower than what we had seen in the past, and they are a major discount even compared to the previously lowered prices that had been public. So I think that is a real thing. Whether or not those prices were meaningfully lower than the price that the Medicaid programs in states were already paying is a little bit of an unanswered question. But my understanding from talking to some Medicaid officials is that Medicaid was already getting very similar prices, even before the president announced these discounts. And that’s because Medicaid has, by law, gets the best price for drugs. They get discounts that are not available to other purchasers. And Medicaid budgets are quite tight. You know, as we were just discussing, all of these state Medicaid programs are facing very substantial cuts that are coming down as the rollout of the big tax-and-spending bill is implemented. And the states that went early and did cover GLP-1 drugs for obesity, I think that they saw that interest and uptake really exceeded their expectations. There were a lot of people in the Medicaid population who stood to benefit from these drugs, and that when so many of them enrolled at once and started taking these drugs at once, it did create, I think, an unanticipated budget strain. So I think states are in a difficult position. This pilot is offering them this cash price for their Medicaid programs, and I think a lot of them are looking at that, and they’re saying, “Well, this is, like, a good price. It’s not that much better than what we could have gotten before, and we weren’t doing it before because we didn’t think that we could afford it.” And so I think those circumstances really haven’t changed. It will be interesting to see what happens over time. It does seem like there is huge potential public health benefit for Medicaid populations if these programs can find a way to cover these drugs. You know, the evidence about the health benefits of these drugs for people who have obesity are just really tremendous, and we’re seeing them over numerous, different health conditions and body systems. And, you know, in my own reporting on North Carolina’s Medicaid program, which was one of the early ones to cover these drugs, you know, I just talked to a lot of people who were really excited about having this opportunity to take this drug. People who had really struggled with their weight and related illnesses, and, you know, were glad that the state was offering it to them. And now, you know, North Carolina has had, is one of the states that’s had to roll back. 

Rovner: Yep. All right. Well, finally, this week, a word about Dolly Parton, possibly the only person in America who was pretty literally loved by everyone. The country and pop music superstar and actress who was known for her genuine kindness and generosity was, in fact, also an important healthcare philanthropist. A lot of people probably remember she gave a million dollars to Vanderbilt University in 2020 to help develop the aforementioned mRNA-based covid vaccine. What people might not remember is that she also used her own money to fund pediatric infectious disease research, underwrite a women’s healthcare center in the East Tennessee county where she was raised, and help train pediatric health professionals. There are celebrities who lend their name and their time and sometimes their money to causes to help burnish their personal PR, and then there are those who clearly do it because they want to give back. I think it’s fair to say that Dolly Parton was one of the latter, and I think she’s going to really be remembered for a lot of the work that she did on bringing healthcare to more people, right? 

Luthra: Yeah, yeah. It’s very sad. 

Rovner: It is. And healthcare owes her a debt. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with Dean Rosen, and we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Dean Rosen. Dean is a partner at Mehlman Consulting, where he landed after a long career on both sides of Capitol Hill, during which he helped shape some of the most important health legislation of the 1990s and early 2000s, including President George W. Bush’s HIV/AIDS program, PEPFAR; the Medicare prescription drug law; and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. But before all those things, Dean was the top health aide to Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum, the Kansas Republican who passed away last week at the age of 94. After Republicans took over Congress in the wave election of 1994, Kassebaum chaired the then-Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, now the HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee, and stewarded the surprisingly difficult path to law of what was originally a very bipartisan bill, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA. Dean Rosen, welcome. 

Dean Rosen: Thanks, Julie. I’m honored to be here, and I’m a longtime fan of What the Health? — so this is a real great opportunity. Excited to be with you. 

Rovner: Great. So, HIPAA, which was known at the time as Kassebaum-Kennedy for its bipartisan Senate sponsors — your boss and the late Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts — is today mostly known for its medical records confidentiality provisions. But that’s not how it started out, right? It was really an effort to do something bipartisan in the wake of the failed Bill Clinton very partisan health plan. Talk about how it kind of came to be. 

Rosen: Yeah, that’s exactly right. It sort of started in the Senate and then moved to the House and then moved to a traditional conference committee, which we don’t seem to do very much of, either, anymore these days. But when it started off, it really did start, as you said, as a health insurance portability bill, and just a really, in some ways, minimalist solutions-oriented legislative proposal that was designed to try to get at what was really, I think, the core concern, or one of the core concerns, at the time, which was people’s ability to get and maintain health insurance if they had preexisting conditions.  

And really what happened was the Clinton plan had kind of imploded spectacularly, as you know, despite the fact that there were huge Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate — not filibuster-proof, but close in the Senate — and the Democrats just couldn’t … get it done. And they couldn’t get any Republican support. They couldn’t get enough Democratic support. And then in the 1994 election, something unexpected happened. I guess polling was a little less sophisticated at the time, but you had the “Republican Revolution” led by [who] was to be Speaker [Newt] Gingrich in the House, and you had the Senate — which had changed hands before, but the House, which had not changed hands and had been in Democratic control for 40 years — switch, and Republicans were ascendant. Bill Clinton was still president. I think probably some of the fact that there was such a gain of seats had something to do with the failure of health reform. And Republicans were getting ready to move a very aggressive deregulatory agenda. And Ted Kennedy, who was a liberal lion of the Senate, who you know was a champion of universal coverage and other liberal causes, moved from the majority side of the dais and having the gavel at the Senate Labor Committee, now the HELP Committee, to the minority side. And Sen. Kassebaum, who had hired me just a few months before that, all of a sudden became the first woman to chair a major committee in the Senate, a standing committee in the Senate. And really, what started it, was that Sen. Kennedy and his team came over and met with us, and somewhat surprisingly, said, “Hey, I know I’m for universal coverage, but I’m willing to do something that’s much more modest,” and shared with Sen. Kassebaum and me and the team a chart that they had put together showing where, not had there been disagreement, but where actually there had been agreement among the major plans, ranging from the most liberal, the Clinton plan, to some of the most conservative plans. And the heart of that, Julie, was health insurance portability, preexisting condition protections at access, and that was the bill that started off in the Senate, and that’s the one that gained traction and passed until we got to the House. 

Rovner: So, Sen. Kassebaum was one of those legislators who actually believed in passing laws, even if it meant compromising — so you only achieved a few of your goals at a time. Why are there so few people like that on either side anymore? 

Rosen: Yeah, well, you know, I think I would say also about HIPAA that it … she was an incrementalist. I think she was one of the reasons … she was considered a moderate Republican in the day, and I think now even more moderate. But she was at her heart a conservative in the sense of she believed that the best legislating was done sort of inch by inch, step by step, as opposed to in one bill. And you sort of saw that proof come to be when the Clinton plan failed, because it tried to really do everything in the healthcare system; it was huge. I think to your question: Today, it’s harder because there’s just less overlap, and the incentives are such that, you know, as one current member of Congress, very senior, told me a couple years ago, if you’re a Republican, you’re looking over your right shoulder. If you’re a Democrat, you’re looking over your left shoulder. And I think that the venerable, you know, Cook Political Report says that in this election, there are only truly 18 toss-up seats in the House out of 435. And so, what it means is that, you know, 5% of the country is going to decide who controls the House ultimately, and the incentives are not to put together bipartisan bills, big or small, healthcare or not healthcare. But the incentive is, frankly, to play to your base, particularly in a midterm election. Now, that’s not always the case. You do have examples of bipartisanship, but I think it’s harder because of those incentives, which we’ve seen become more and more true as politics has changed, and, frankly, as the country’s changed. 

Rovner: You wrote a really lovely tribute to the senator about going to the White House for the signing of HIPAA by Bill Clinton, which I think just showed sort of the generosity of spirit of Sen. Kassebaum. Tell us about it? 

Rosen: Yeah, so, you know, after Nancy passed away, there’s a group of us who’ve been keeping up through chat over the years, and her family, actually granddaughter and stepdaughter, had informed us all before they informed the press over the weekend that she had passed away. And I suddenly was sitting there over the weekend and realizing, Julie, that it had been — she had died 30 years to the day since HIPAA was signed by Bill Clinton. And, you know, to your point of bipartisanship, that bill passed the House with only two dissenting votes and the Senate unanimously. So not only was it bipartisan, but it passed unanimously. 

So we went over to the White House — to kind of tell a little bit of the story — I’d never been to the White House before. This was, like, my first job on Capitol Hill. I was much younger then, and — obviously — and the senator made sure I was on the invitation list. And this was, you know, Sen. Kassebaum was not really known as a legislator who was someone who passed, you know, tons of major bills. This was really, if you read all the obituaries, the health insurance portability law is one of the two bills they mention — the other one being a general aviation bill, and her work internationally, which was significant around apartheid. But they mention this health insurance bill as her signature achievement. So we go to the White House. It’s a hot August day, and as I said, I realized that she died 30 years to the day after this bill was signed. And I was reflecting on the fact of something that I never really shared publicly before, that at the signing ceremony, it’s traditional — as you know, you’ve probably been to many, many, many of these — that the presidents will sign these bills, they’ll use multiple pens, as Bill Clinton did, and he handed one of the pens to Sen. Kennedy, and he handed another one to Sen. Kassebaum — we’re standing over each of his shoulders. And we’re walking out of the Rose Garden, and Sen. Kassebaum came over to me, and it was just the two of us, and she said, “Here, I want you to have the pen. You wrote the bill.” And, you know, I guess as a staff person you do, but I didn’t think of it that way. I thought of the fact that she was giving away to me really one of the most tangible symbols of her signature bill, and I said, “I can’t take this. This is your bill. This is one of your crowning achievements. You worked so hard to get this done.” And she insisted that I keep it.  

And as I said in the piece that I wrote, you know, it struck me that that was just essential Nancy Kassebaum, that not only in the legislation could she find ways to work with Ted Kennedy, who, she said, in subsequent interviews, coming from Kansas — and folks will appreciate this with Wicked being out — that I think a lot of Kansans thought that Ted Kennedy was the Wicked Witch of the East. But working with Ted Kennedy to get something passed into law, and then coming over to me with no ceremony, with no one around, with no political advantage, and just saying, “Here, I’d like to give you credit, as opposed to taking credit for myself,” I think said a lot about her character, and I shared that story with her family, and they gave me permission to share it publicly. I think it just goes to her character and who she was, which, as I said, I think is, much more important than the legislative achievement, was just the kind of person that it takes to get things like that done in Washington today, and, frankly, in Washington then. 

Rovner: Any chance we’re going to get back to seeing those kinds of legislators on Capitol Hill? We’re both in this for the long run. 

Rosen: Yeah, you know, I have to say, you know, I prefer to be somebody, Julie, who looks forward. I mean, you know, you can look back and wring your hands and be pessimistic. But, you know, I came to Washington as a [Ronald] Reagan Republican, and Reagan always said that he felt like American optimism was the heart of the country, and that our best days were ahead. And I really do feel optimistic about the country. We’ve survived a lot over the last 250 years, and you’ve got examples of bipartisan legislation. You’ve got, you know, Dr. [John] Joyce and [Rep. Greg] Murphy, and [Rep. Kim] Schrier, a bipartisan bill in the House that takes on the difficult and expensive issue of Medicare physician reform. You’ve got a bill by Sen. [Chuck] Grassley and [Catherine] Cortez Masto and others in the Senate that got introduced a couple weeks ago on fraud and abuse at a time when that issue could be really political. 

So to me, I do see people of goodwill in both parties who want to get things done. I think we’ve got to recognize, as we talked about a moment ago, that the broader incentives in our country and in our political environment and in our institutions are pulling people apart. And I think it is going to take people of goodwill to find things to do where they can compromise without losing their principles and find ways to make progress. And I do see hopeful signs of that. You know, I’m not sure we’re going to get back to the day where there’s tremendous overlap and a huge number of moderates in either party, but I think it makes it even more important that people of goodwill who come to Washington as citizen legislators and want to solve things find ways to do that. And in this divided government, where we’ve seen 12 change elections of the last 14 and extremely narrow historic margins, it’s going to take both sides to get things done. 

Rovner: We will keep watching, Dean Rosen. Thank you so much. 

Rosen: Thanks, Julie. Thanks for having me. 

OK, we are 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. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week? 

Roubein: My extra credit is from The New York Times. The headline is “,” by Noah Daly and Andrew Jacobs. And the story is about how Americans are traveling abroad, often to Latin America, for psychedelics, a form of medical tourism, and the authors write that this could carry substantial risks. There’s no official tally of injuries, deaths, or adverse events at the overseas psychedelic clinics. But The New York Times interviewed more than two dozen patients and researchers, who cited just a litany of troubling episodes. Basically, the field of psychedelics is in its infancy, so researchers have found this sort of patchwork of standards and rules. And, just for context, here in the United States, the FDA hasn’t approved a psychedelic as of yet, but the idea has really gained traction in recent years for mental health conditions, but particularly, this spring, when President Trump signed an executive order that was aimed at accelerating research into the drugs and also fast-tracking federal reviews of psychedelic medicines. But advocates for these drugs do have concerns about adverse events at overseas clinics because they don’t want it to, you know, kind of spark a backlash that could hamper this trajectory. The Times did speak to a practitioner who said that his prescribing practices were informed by a patient’s self-reported medical history. But I thought this was a really interesting look at what’s happening overbroad given there’s been so much chatter about psychedelics in the United States. 

Rovner: Something else to worry about. Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to recommend an article in Stat from Anil Oza. Headline is “.” And this story outlines that a number of people who had submitted comments on a rule about science funding suddenly found their comments removed from the public record. And it appears that the reason is because they were making reference to Russell Vought, the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] head, who, you know, was behind this rule. He has a child with cystic fibrosis who has benefited from a [National Institutes of Health] NIH-funded drug, and I think a lot of them were making reference to that as part of a personal plea for him not to implement this policy. But it’s a little bit puzzling why OMB removed them, on what basis. They haven’t been transparent about it, and there have been basically no explanations. And I think, you know, Secretary Kennedy, during his confirmation hearings, talked about radical transparency in the HHS process and policymaking. And I think this is one of many examples where that really hasn’t happened. There has been a reluctance, I think, by HHS to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking in situations where it is not necessary. There has been a reluctance sometimes to answer questions from the public, from reporters, and I do think that the kind of deletion without explanation of these comments is part of that broader pattern. There is obviously this personal sensitivity here that is part of it, and there may be some valid reason why this public official’s child should not be in the federal record. But it would be nice if someone would explain. 

Rovner: Yeah, and also props not just to Stat, but to the people who actually have been tracking these comments and noticed that they were taken down. Shefali. 

Luthra: All right. My story is from LJ Dawson. It is a collaboration between Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and The Washington Post. The headline is “.” This story combines many of my interests, like European vacations, Greece, and fertility treatment. And I think it’s a really, really, like, interesting and useful look into just how expensive this can be for Americans, especially if insurance doesn’t cover it, and the lengths to which people go to become pregnant. And the family that the story follows, they live in Florida. They could only get pregnant through IVF [in vitro fertilization]. They were quoted close to $40,000 for a round, and they were like, This is nowhere near what we can afford. They realized it was much cheaper to travel to Greece, to literally go on vacation in Greece and get IVF done there. And this is a thing that people genuinely do. Like, I know many people who have looked into the costs of IVF in different European countries, including Scandinavian ones. And I think it’s just a really helpful, dramatic look at what happens when people really, really would benefit from a medical treatment for achieving their fertility goals, their reproductive goals, etc., but it is simply not affordable. And I think this is also interesting because there has been so much chatter about making IVF more affordable, but, in fact, it is more expensive than ever and more in demand than ever because people are having children later, more likely to need fertility treatment, and we don’t really have a good solution yet in sight. 

Rovner: No, except that our system is way too expensive. Well, you may have noticed that in my themes of the summer, I left out the unusual spate of foodborne illnesses. Well, fear not. My extra credit this week is also from The Washington Post. It’s by Tamar Haspel. It’s called “.” And it makes a pretty good case that lettuce and its leafy green cousins are not only the foods most likely to result in foodborne illness, but it’s also not got much to offer nutritionally. It doesn’t store very well, and the land that we use to cultivate it could be better used for, well, better food. I have to say, I stopped buying lettuce a long time ago, mostly because it doesn’t keep very well, and I live by myself. And while I do eat plenty of salad, it’s mostly cucumbers, peppers, and tomatoes. Now, you guys all do you, but I can just say that I haven’t contracted cyclospora this summer. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer this week, 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? Shefali. 

Luthra: I’m on Bluesky . 

Rovner: Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I am all the places , and on Signal at sangerkatz.01. 

Rovner: Rachel. 

Roubein: Several places: on X, ; Bluesky, ; ; Signal; etc. 

Rovner: As I mentioned at the top, we’re taking next week off. You should too, if you can. It’s going to be a busy fall. We will be back in your feed on Sept. 10. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Taylor Cook Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman 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 article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2279917
A State Gave Sheriffs 20% of Its Opioid Settlement Cash. We Followed the Money. /public-health/louisiana-sheriffs-opioid-settlement-spending-addiction-law-enforcement/ Thu, 27 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2277190

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

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

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

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

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

The findings include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A man in a beige brimmed hat and patterned blue short-sleeve shirt stands in a park near a lake and looks at the camera.
Danny Bolner Jr. is a Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, resident who has been in recovery from addiction for more than two decades. Bolner lost his 28-year-old son to a fentanyl overdose in 2016. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

A Safe, a Scanner, and Surveillance Cameras

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office declined to comment.

Where Public Health Meets Public Safety

Not all sheriffs spent the money on enforcement.

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

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

Research shows for opioid use disorder behind bars and .

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

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

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

A view from above of a plaque in the ground just in front of a bench that reads "Spread your wings and look down upon us, Daniel. Maw maw & Papa Dan," with images of two praying angles, a tractor, and a pig. Two people sit on the bench to either side of the plaque and their feet are in the frame.
Bolner and his granddaughter sit on a bench dedicated to his son and her father, Daniel, at Lafreniere Park in Metairie, Louisiana. Daniel died of a fentanyl overdose in 2016 on his 28th birthday. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stepping Up Oversight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology

Reporters from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News worked together to contact all 64 sheriffs’ offices in Louisiana and ask how they’d spent opioid settlement funds. The outreach involved dozens of emails and phone calls from March to July.

If a sheriff’s office did not respond or did not provide specific dollar amounts spent on programs or services, it was labeled “Did not provide expenditures.” All other responses were summarized in a data table.

The amount of settlement money each sheriff’s office received through 2025 was obtained from the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Task Force’s . Allocations for years 1 through 5 were summed, representing 2021 through 2025.

In the few cases in which a sheriff’s office reported spending more money than the task force said it had been allocated, it was often because the sheriff’s office had combined its share of opioid settlement dollars with the share received by the parish government or another funding source. Some sheriffs may have also reported money spent from their 2026 allocation.

Once all the data was collected, the reporters used two methods to analyze the results.

For the first, the reporters created an unduplicated list of expenditures and de-identified them by removing the sheriffs’ offices names. That list was shared with three reviewers: , a public health policy expert who has been tracking opioid settlement spending since 2022; , an addiction medicine doctor and a person in recovery who previously served as chair of Tennessee’s Opioid Abatement Council and is currently West Virginia’s drug czar; and Danny Bolner Jr., a person in recovery from addiction who lost his son to a fentanyl overdose and is raising his son’s daughter in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

Each reviewer voted on each expenditure description as an appropriate or inappropriate use of opioid settlement money. The majority vote determined the final designation.

Reporters calculated how much of the money spent by each sheriff’s office went to expenditures the review panel deemed inappropriate. This value was divided by the total spent to determine the percentage of expenditures deemed inappropriate by the panel. The second approach to analyzing the sheriffs’ spending was as follows: Six states (, , , , , and ) have created lists of items and services that they say opioid settlement funds should not be spent on, often known as “unallowable lists.” Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News calculated how much money spent by each Louisiana sheriff’s office went to expenditures on one of these lists. This value was divided by the total spent to determine the percentage of expenditures that would have been unallowable or not recommended in one or more of these states.


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

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

]]>
2277190
Violence Against Healthcare Workers and Staffing Shortages Fuel Hospital Strikes /health-industry/workplace-violence-healthcare-nurses-hospitals-strikes/ Thu, 20 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2270389 Nurse Crystal Dhooghe is used to dealing with blood and broken bones in the emergency room. But she didn’t expect to witness so much violence against her own colleagues.

“I’ve seen nurses get shoved, pushed, scratched. The biggest one is bitten,” said Dhooghe, who works at in Grand Blanc, Michigan.

The in healthcare has in states such as , , , , and , where Dhooghe and many of her co-workers have been on the picket line since Labor Day last year.

“People will question me and be like, ‘Why are you still working in a place if you’re treated like this?’” said Dhooghe, who gets by on strike benefits and working extra shifts at another hospital. The problem, she said, is that other hospitals aren’t any better. “It’s the same everywhere I go.”

In a statement, spokesperson Dana Jay acknowledged violence against healthcare workers is a “national epidemic” and said the health system’s efforts to address the problem include metal detectors, armed security officers trained to make “misdemeanor arrests,” and de-escalation training.

“We have zero tolerance for violence of any kind,” said Jay, asserting the strike is not about safety but is instead “simply an economic strike.”

Nationwide, hospital workers are seven times as likely to be injured on the job due to violent acts as members of the general working population, according to the available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The outcry over workplace violence in healthcare is pitting workers’ demands for better compensation and staffing against hospital operators pressured to cut costs.

‘A Powder Keg’

Violent outbursts are so common that they’ve been dramatized on the popular medical TV series . “Emergency rooms right now are like a powder keg,” said Rachel Odes, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing.

In hospitals, a combative or violent patient is known as a “.” Outbursts can be spontaneous and unpredictable, making some almost impossible to prevent. But research shows the increases when hospitals are understaffed or employees are insufficiently trained or experienced.

Mental health worker Andrew Kimball-Mirzaie said he got hurt in February 2024 at Butler Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island.

A man wearing a purple T-shirt that reads, "Butler Hospital 1199 United" stands for a photograph.
Andrew Kimball-Mirzaie, a mental health worker at Butler Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island, who says he was assaulted by a patient, participated in a three-month strike in spring and summer 2025. (Lynn Arditi)

He’d been working at the private psychiatric hospital for about six weeks and said he hadn’t yet worked in the ER. He said he was sent there to “monitor” a man in his 20s who was waiting for an inpatient bed.

The patient was alone in a back room watching a Knicks basketball game on TV, he recalled. Kimball-Mirzaie said he got the patient a drink and a snack. They were watching the game when, suddenly, he said, the patient stood up and punched him in the face. He said the assault left him with a concussion and broken nose. His injuries were documented in the hospital’s.

“I understand that there is an inherent danger with the job,” Kimball-Mirzaie said. He doesn’t blame the patient, who was very ill at the time. “We should have had at least another staff member with us,” he said, “and I should have been adequately trained on the unit.”

The attack emboldened Kimball-Mirzaie to join some 700 other unionized Butler workers last spring and summer in a months-long strike, which forced the hospital to close . Service Employees International Union 1199 New England declared the strike a win.

Employees received wage increases that union leaders said would enable the hospital to attract and retain more staff. The hospital also agreed to provide financial support for workers violently injured on the job. And the hospital and union agreed to jointly fund a “time bank” to supplement workers’ compensation for injured workers who need more time to recover.

But five months later, a nurse supervisor at Butler had to call 911 because an unarmed patient in the hospital’s ER was assaulting staff. According to the police report, by the time police arrested the patient, he’d injured two nurses, a security guard, and a police officer.

“Butler recognizes the importance of being proactive in protecting those who provide care,” Mary Marran, Butler’s president and chief operating officer, said in a statement. She added that hospital leadership meets regularly with staff to review safety measures and “identify opportunities to strengthen protection for everyone.”

The patient was charged with four counts of , including against the two nurses.

The American Hospital Association has said punishment is key to preventing violence. It has been to make assaulting healthcare workers a that would carry in prison. At least , including and , have enacted similar laws. But workplace safety experts say there is no evidence that such laws have reduced the incidence of violence against healthcare workers.

A woman wearing a purple T-shirt speaks at a podium on the steps of a state building. Behind her, supporters hold large pictures of injuries they've suffered on the job.
Catherine Maynard, a nurse at Butler Hospital, speaks at a union rally at the State House in Providence, Rhode Island, on May 23, 2025. (Steve Ahlquist)

Calls for ‘Safe Staffing’

Striking healthcare workers around the country often have demanded “safe staffing” instead of stronger punishments for patients who cause injuries.

The against healthcare workers has caught the attention of the , the accreditation organization for more than 80% of U.S. hospitals and health systems. The commission released national performance goals that and require hospitals to be and that staff be trained “to provide safe, quality care.”

But no federal law limits the number of patients in a nurse’s care across healthcare settings, despite the nation’s largest nurses union, National Nurses United, having pressed for a national standard . Hospitals must “safely staff all units” to enable nurses to “provide the care that patients need before they get agitated or disoriented,” said , lead industrial hygienist for .

Some states have passed their own staffing laws. Only has enacted broad mandatory nurse staffing ratios, which were associated with lower mortality rates and likely higher retention. Oregon enacted a staffing law, . Legislators in and have introduced similar bills, but they have failed to advance to floor votes.

The American Hospital Association opposes mandatory minimum nurse staffing ratios in hospitals, saying they would “remove real-time clinical judgment and flexibility,” , and potentially force some hospitals to turn away patients or delay care, spokesperson Colleen Kincaid said. And she pointed to California, whose for psychiatric hospitals reportedly in at least four counties.

“There are a lot of other things you can do to prevent workplace violence than just increasing staffing levels,” said , who was a deputy assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration during the Obama administration and helped develop OSHA’s for healthcare and social service workers.

Barab said hospitals can, for example, train employees in de-escalation, install metal detectors, or have specially trained security guards on-site so staff don’t have to wait for police to arrive when an incident happens.

, a worker safety and health policy expert at Georgetown University, said the in congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act will in the next few years.

When funding dries up, she said, “protecting workers is going to be the first thing that gets cut.”

This article is from a partnership that includes and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

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

]]>
2270389
Medicaid Work Rule Leaves Homeless People in the Cold /medicaid/medicaid-work-requirements-rules-montana-homeless-people-exemption/ Thu, 06 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2266625 MISSOULA, Mont. — Tywon Pugh has seizures that make it hard to find and keep a job.

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

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

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

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

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

Early Embrace of New Rules

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

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

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

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

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

“My Medicaid is still active, but when are they gonna cut that off from me? I can’t get employed,” says Tywon Pugh, who been homeless in Missoula since his wife’s death in 2025. The federal government does not exempt people who are homeless from Medicaid work requirements. (Katheryn Houghton/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

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

“It took everyone by surprise,” Tolbert said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flyers at Partnership Health Center locations in Montana announce eligibility changes to Medicaid. (Katheryn Houghton/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)
Partnership Health Center is one of roughly 1,400 health centers nationwide that receive federal funding to serve patients based on what they can afford. (Katheryn Houghton/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

A Possible Exemption for Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaitlyn Bosshardt, a social worker at Partnership Health Center in Missoula, counts letters about Medicaid that the state’s health department sent to clinic patients who don’t have a steady address. (Katheryn Houghton/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]]>
2266625
Baltimore Is Rethinking What It Means To Call 911 — And Who Responds /public-health/baltimore-911-mental-health-calls-police-social-services-mobile-crisis-teams/ Wed, 05 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2259783

BALTIMORE — In March in a McDonald’s parking lot off a busy street, mental health clinician Michala Williams met a 38-year-old woman in a car.

“So, you called the police for help?” Williams asked the woman, who was sobbing uncontrollably and said she sometimes thinks about harming herself.

She told Williams she has children ranging from age 2 to 22, she was dealing with health issues, and that her fiancé had recently been jailed. She felt so overwhelmed she couldn’t eat.

The woman, who asked not to be named so that she could freely discuss her mental health, explained she’d tried to get help the previous month by driving to the hospital but got pulled over on the way because her car registration had expired.

“I don’t care if I get pulled over,” she said. “But I was saying, ‘I don’t know what to do. I just want to go to the hospital.’”

The officer arrested her for acting erratically, so instead of going to the hospital she went to jail.

“I had to sit inside of a cold cell. I couldn’t use the bathroom or anything,” the woman said.

On the day she met Williams, she’d decided to call 911. The dispatcher recognized the woman didn’t need a police response but instead needed one of Baltimore’s mobile crisis teams, which send a clinician and a peer counselor to meet people in mental health distress.

By the end of an hourlong conversation, Williams set the woman up with referrals to a psychiatrist, a therapist, legal help, and a case manager to determine if her child with autism was eligible for government services.

“She’s been through a lot of trauma, and no one is going to deny that,” Williams said. “But I now have to take all of that and decide, ‘OK, here’s steps 1, 2, and 3,’ because we got to find a little bit of sliver of something to give her some hope that there’s help out here.”

For years, the mobile crisis teams, which are overseen by , a nonprofit that acts as the city’s mental health department, have diverted calls from police to mental health professionals. However, the units have a limited scope, focused on people in mental health crises.

Now Baltimore is tapping into some of the roughly $400 million from opioid-related legal settlements to build out a broader service to operate around the clock and respond to other kinds of crises when police aren’t needed.

Baltimore logged to 911 in 2024, but tens of thousands of them didn’t require traditional emergency services, like police, firefighters, or EMTs, according to , an expert in community safety at Georgetown Law.

Instead, the calls were about, for example, a homeless person who fell asleep in a store, a person who seemed confused in a public park, and someone who was yelling at passersby on the street.

Such calls “don’t require a badge, a gun, and handcuffs to resolve,” Duckett said.

Often those people end up in jail instead of getting the help they need, he said. A study that when a non-law enforcement team responded to 911 calls in Durham, North Carolina, it resulted in fewer arrests than when police responded — especially for callers who were Black, men, or ages 25-39. Police responses can also lead to trauma for that person or a less satisfactory outcome than another community service response would produce, Duckett said. The idea behind the Baltimore mobile crisis teams — and the new service — is to find out what people in crisis may need and how to connect them to those resources instead of arresting them.

From 2021 to 2025, Baltimore’s homicide rate decreased by 60%, setting records for the drop in violence. But at the same time, drug overdoses made national records, as about 1,000 people here each year from 2020 to 2023.

In 2018, Baltimore opted out of a global settlement that other jurisdictions made with opioid makers and distributors and instead sued them independently. As the opioid-related lawsuits were settled, city officials decided that the settlement awards it receives must be spent on drug-related harms — or on services that help prevent addiction, such as housing support, healthcare, and education.

One seeks to directly address overdoses by placing boxes of the overdose reversal drug naloxone at every subway stop. Expanding 911 services is part of a larger strategy to beef up city services, with $15 million in settlement funds allocated so far, according to Sara Whaley, Baltimore’s director of overdose response. Whaley hopes the expansion will help the city think differently about how it responds to residents in crisis — regardless of why they’re calling 911.

She views the calls as an opportunity to help solve a problem rather than be punitive. “What are the wraparound services and support that can help prevent them from being involved in this, in that emergency system?” she said.

For example, the person falling asleep in a store may need connection to community housing. The goal is to reduce violence, get people proper resources, and avoid the cycle of incarcerating people dealing with poverty, addiction, and mental health.

, executive director of the Health Lab at the University of Chicago, of services like these. She said they offer peace of mind for callers that “they’re going to be met with the right response at the right time.”

“We also see responders themselves feeling like they have a better toolbox in their ability to pursue actual resolution to these calls,” she said.

To expand its system, Baltimore looked to cities — including Durham — that have adopted similar models to reroute callers who don’t need emergency responders.

Durham’s diversion program is called the , or HEART. The program estimates it has diverted more than 12,000 calls in four years. It said police backup was needed for only 0.02% of those calls and that response times have improved for all types of 911 calls.

Durham has of the HEART calls, showing that nonpolice responders in Durham have helped with everything from finding housing for a woman fleeing domestic violence to setting up medical appointments for a homeless veteran.

In one case, a hotel manager called 911 asking for help finding a blind man housing for the night, since the hotel didn’t have accessible rooms available. The HEART responders booked him a room and the next day provided a ride to meet with an organization that could help secure housing.

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

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

]]>
2259783
Leadership Vacuum: Agencies in New York and Beyond Pass the Buck on Opioid Cash Oversight /public-health/opioid-settlement-funds-leadership-vacuum-disbursement-oversight-new-york/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2258516 Companies accused of recklessly marketing and distributing prescription opioid painkillers are paying to settle lawsuits over their role in fueling the addiction crisis. It’s a pot of gold eyed by addiction treatment providers, companies creating the latest opioid-related products, and government officials struggling to balance budgets.

Nearly half of that money is , to be distributed by county commissioners and city councilors. The idea is that local leaders know their communities best and can do justice to these payouts, often described as “blood money” by people who’ve lost loved ones to an overdose.

But many local leaders have little to no training in addiction policy and may lack robust local health departments and policy guardrails to assist them.

That has resulted in spending decisions that many clinicians, researchers, and addiction recovery advocates say are unlikely to save lives or treat substance use disorders.

In New York, where is directly controlled by local governments, counties have spent tens of thousands of dollars on surveillance cameras, technology to help police access data on locked cellphones, and goggles that simulate being drunk, according to public records obtained by the nonprofit advocacy group and shared exclusively with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. Though the purchases were likely legal, many people consider them a slap in the face because they don’t directly help people struggling with addiction or their families.

Without oversight, counties have the chance “to go rogue” with this money, said , director of drug policy at VOCAL-NY, an advocacy organization that is tracking settlement money as part of its mission to serve people affected by the war on drugs.

When advocates and families of overdose victims raise concerns to the various state agencies that could hold localities accountable, those agencies often punt to one another, Budnella and other local advocates said.

It feels “like the where it’s like everybody’s pointing at each other,” Budnella said. “Somebody needs to be able to have the stick and slam their hand on the table and be like, ‘You’re doing this wrong and this is the consequence.’”

The experience in New York provides a microcosm of regulators evading oversight responsibility nationwide while varied interests vie for the financial windfall.

Years of data collected by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the addiction nonprofit Shatterproof have found that settlement money was spent on law enforcement gear, such as night-vision goggles and bulletproof vests; unproven prevention initiatives, such as a drug-awareness magician for kids; and budget stopgaps.

It’s unclear who should — or will — take action on such expenditures that many people harmed by the crisis consider questionable.

In each state, control of the money is split among various entities, creating a leadership vacuum. The federal government . Advocates and families who’ve lost loved ones have pushed for accountability but have limited power. A few states have passed new laws, but change is slow and uneven.

The require the majority of the money to be spent on “opioid remediation,” with . But the list is broad and open to interpretation. Further complicating the issue, many states — including New York — designate some portion of the settlement dollars as unrestricted, which allows for general spending.

Meanwhile, federal budget cuts have threatened addiction-related services and created more demand for funding. And though overdose deaths have decreased since , they still claim about 186 lives per day.

“We really are wasting this opportunity to use these funds to turn the epidemic around,” said , a Binghamton, New York, resident, whose 28-year-old son, Jeff Dugon, died of a heroin overdose in 2014.

Three men and a woman stand outside an pose for a photo together.
Jeff Dugon (right) spent Easter with his mother, Alexis Pleus, and brothers in 2014. He died four months later of a heroin overdose. Now, Pleus is fighting to ensure opioid settlement money is spent in ways that can spare other families such heartache. (Mitchell Sosnicki)

He was a chef who loved to rib Pleus about her bad knife skills. She thinks of him and smiles every time she peels garlic the way he taught her. If the money could spare other families such heartache, that would give her solace.

“We need oversight,” said Pleus, who runs a nonprofit that is receiving opioid settlement cash from her county to serve people who use drugs and provide support groups for families.

In New York, there are three prime watchdog contenders: the Office of Addiction Services and Supports, the attorney general, and the comptroller.

The Lead State Agency

New York’s opioid settlement documents designate the as the “.”

It distributes a portion of settlement dollars via grants, according to recommendations from the state’s . It also has the power to “engage in oversight and audits of projects and programs” funded by settlement cash and “may withhold future funds” from local governments that do not comply with certain requirements, according to the agreement.

Agency spokesperson Jerry Gretzinger told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News the office has not yet exercised its power to withhold funds but understands its oversight role.

“OASAS has a duty to ensure these funds are used responsibly and strategically to build programs that will have a lasting impact in reversing this crisis,” Gretzinger wrote in a statement.

The office is currently auditing 19 local governments’ use of the money to ensure compliance with “reporting and recordkeeping requirements,” he said. However, that may not encompass the broader question of whether money was spent on appropriate uses, which many advocates want addressed.

Some people are frustrated with the narrow role OASAS has carved out.

For example, required local governments for the first time to publicly report how they spent settlement money. OASAS on its site. But it does not review the accuracy or detail of that data, instead relying on “the information as it is provided” by localities, Gretzinger said.

“That doesn’t feel like oversight,” said , a deputy director at the Legal Action Center, which obtained public records about local spending in New York.

Members of the state’s Opioid Settlement Fund Advisory Board have also to provide more data and evaluation of how dollars are being used. But at a , OASAS Commissioner Chinazo Cunningham deflected.

“OASAS has no oversight over these portions of dollars,” she said of the 46% of settlement money that goes directly to counties and cities. “In terms of what kind of data each county collects,” she added, “we cannot dictate exactly what that information is.”

Click for Examples of spending decisions Local Spending That’s Fueling Calls for Oversight in New York

To uncover how opioid settlement cash is being spent, the nonprofit advocacy group filed public records requests with 56 New York counties and New York City, all of which are to disburse as they see fit.

Many of the responses showed spending on addiction treatment, recovery, and prevention initiatives that researchers and clinicians agree are a good use of money. Others surfaced questionable expenditures.

, for example, showed $150,000 in settlement cash directed to “Sheriff Jail” with no further description. The county did not respond to repeated inquiries for more details.

Sullivan County spent more than $30,000 on Cellebrite technology, used to extract data from cellphones, and more than $37,000 on Tasers. Though county officials didn’t respond to requests for comment, explained that those purchases came from unrestricted funds.

Such justifications rankle some families affected by the crisis, who say even if there aren’t legal restrictions on those dollars, there should be moral ones.

“Anything that is not directly tied to people who are struggling with opioid addiction or the loss of someone is a poor use of funds,” said , who lost a son to an overdose and now runs a nonprofit aimed at helping families dealing with addiction. Her organization has received settlement funds from Broome County, New York.

A woman in a pink dress and a teenage boy in a white polo shirt dance together under a blue and white striped awning. They both look at the camera and smile.
Alexis Pleus is pictured with her son Jeff Dugon in 2003, when he was 17. She thinks of him every time she sees a sunrise or sunset. He loved them and would often send her photos, she says. (Jason Dugon)

Records also revealed that many jurisdictions have yet to spend a significant portion of their money — a other .

Local officials say thoughtful planning takes time. But some advocates suspect ulterior motives. Millions of settlement dollars in bank accounts can generate sizable interest.

In March, it came to light that Nassau County had in interest accrued from unused opioid settlement funds to the county’s general fund, where it could be used for any purpose. County officials didn’t respond to requests for comment. The money was following public backlash.

Advocates suspect such attempts are happening elsewhere but are difficult to identify within complex budgeting documents.

It feels like “it’s up to us all — the organizers, the advocates, the service providers” — to be constantly watching, said , director of drug policy at the advocacy organization VOCAL-NY. “It’s frustrating.”

That’s why state agencies are being called on to step into an oversight role.

The Top Law Enforcement Officer

New York has been one of the leading national voices on prosecuting pharmaceutical companies that fueled the overdose crisis. Her office has issued on the topic, touting her role in securing billions of opioid settlement dollars for the state.

But when asked about the attorney general’s role in ensuring this windfall is spent appropriately, her office passed the buck to other agencies.

“While our partners in state and local governments distribute and oversee these funds, we will continue our work to hold accountable the companies responsible for fueling the spread of addictions and overdoses,” spokesperson Grant Fox wrote in a statement.

That stance contrasts starkly with many people’s views of the office’s responsibility.

A state senator, a member of the opioid settlement advisory board, and several advocates named the attorney general’s office as a key enforcement entity.

“The money is here because of their efforts,” said Democratic state , who chairs the committee on alcoholism and substance use disorders and has introduced of related to settlement funds. “I believe it is under the Office of the Attorney General to enforce.”

Budnella, the advocate with VOCAL-NY, agreed, saying, “It would be a shame for all of their work that they have done to secure all this funding for it to be misspent.”

A man speaks in the middle of a group of people protesting. Behind him, several people hold a banner that is had to read because words are obscured. Another person to the left of the man holds a cardboard sign that reads, "Mourn the dead, fight for the living."
VOCAL-NY is a statewide advocacy organization that tracks opioid settlement money as part of its mission to serve people affected by the war on drugs. The group is calling on state agencies to hold city and county officials accountable to ensure the money is spent on services that help people with substance use disorders and their families. (VOCAL-NY)

Attorneys general in and have taken more active roles, issuing lists of ways opioid settlement money cannot be spent. The lists include many law enforcement expenditures that have raised concerns for advocates in New York.

James’ office did not respond to a specific question about whether she’d consider creating a similar list.

The Fiscal Watchdog

Some people have suggested that the state comptroller, as a steward of New York’s finances, could play an oversight role, perhaps by conducting or requiring audits.

Early this year, the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, that would create audit requirements for organizations receiving settlement cash. The blueprint suggests recipients of more than $1 million in opioid settlements be required to undergo an independent review of financial statements and transaction testing to determine whether funds were used for their intended purpose. Smaller grantees, receiving less than $1 million, could simply provide an unaudited accounting of the funds.

It’s “not telling states what is and what isn’t an appropriate use,” said , a co-author of the Reason Foundation plan. “We’re simply trying to ensure recipients follow through with their promises.”

No state has adopted the model law yet. But the office of New York told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News it is already conducting an audit.

The process, which began in February, “is looking at OASAS’ oversight” of the opioid settlement money, said spokesperson Mary Mueller. It includes settlement money controlled by the state and local governments.

Mueller said any future enforcement action “will depend on the results of our current work and our ongoing monitoring.”

The office is following in the footsteps of comptrollers and auditors in , , and , Tennessee, who have taken action on settlement cash.

These initial steps have given some advocates and researchers hope for the future of opioid settlement dollars, which are expected to flow for more than a decade.

“We’re already years in and we’ve seen the craziest stories” of this money and a , said , a co-author of the Reason Foundation’s model law. “If we can prevent that at least a little and have these funds be a bit more focused, I don’t think it’s too late.”

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

]]>
2258516