“I want to stay here,” she vowed. “And die here.”

She might pull that off. In relatively good health, Jennett still drives to lunch with friends, does her own housekeeping and grocery shopping, and plows through a book a day, usually a mystery. But her children worry about her living alone at 89, especially after she has had a couple of falls.

Enter her new housemate, Susan Beese. Despite working four days a week in retail, Beese could no longer afford her nearby one-bedroom apartment as the rent topped $1,500 a month. She moved out, first staying with friends and then in what she delicately called “a senior women’s facility.”

Now Beese, who is 79, pays Jennett $800 monthly for a bright two-bedroom space, with a bath and a kitchen, on the lower level of her house. As part of the agreement the housemates worked out, she helps plant and water Jennett’s garden, takes out the trash, and cooks occasional meals.

“It’s been a lifesaver,” Beese said. Jennett even welcomed her dog.

Meet the real-life Golden Girls. In the  1980s sitcom, still in perpetual reruns, the four wisecracking women who share a house in Miami met through an ad on a supermarket bulletin board.

In Denver, the housing matchmaker was Sunshine Home Share Colorado, a local nonprofit that Alison Joucovsky, a senior services administrator, founded in 2016 when the problem became urgent. “My phone was ringing off the hook,” she said, recalling anxious pleas from older residents spending most of their Social Security checks on rising rent or facing years-long waiting lists for subsidized senior housing.

Home sharing “is a really efficient way to create affordable housing and to support older people ,” Joucovsky said. Carefully vetting both “home providers,” who may be rattling around in family houses now too big and too empty, and “home sharers” seeking reasonable rents, Sunshine facilitated 31 shares last year, a record for the nonprofit.

“The cost of developing and building new housing is astronomical, and so is the length of time it takes,” said Laura Fanucchi, president of the National Shared Housing Resource Center and an administrator with HIP Housing, a home-share organization in San Mateo County, California. “Why not make use of existing housing stock?”

About  offer these services 鈥� and demand is growing, driven by housing shortages, rising rents, and sales prices that affect both the old and the young. Legislators in several states are working to promote home sharing as an option. (Personal care is not part of these arrangements.)

The need is acute. About a third of households headed by someone 65 or older were “cost-burdened” in 2024, according to  by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. That means they spent more than 30% of their income on housing.

Although nearly 80% of those people were homeowners, the center found, an increasing proportion are still paying off mortgages or home equity loans, and most contend with higher taxes, utility and maintenance costs, and insurance premiums.

“A lot of the people calling me to complain about property taxes and inflation are senior citizens on fixed incomes whose children have left, and maybe their spouse has died,” said Pennsylvania state Rep. Abby Major, a Republican co-sponsor of a bill that would facilitate home sharing. “They’re a single older adult living in a four-bedroom house.”

Yet most don’t want to relocate. Even if they do, many older adults will find that downsizing has also  as home prices rise and very low interest rates become a memory.

Younger people are similarly cost-burdened, including 37% of those age 25 to 34 and 31% of those 35 to 44, the Joint Center has reported.  both older homeowners who need income and people of any age in search of lower-cost housing.

To help increase their reach, some home-share programs now supplement or replace the traditionally labor-intensive matching process with online platforms. (For-profit companies like Nesterly or roommates.com also facilitate shared housing.)

“It’s like online dating, except that people who have rooms can meet people who need rooms,” said Candice Smith, executive director of HomeShare Oregon. “And it’s a lot more secure.” HomeShare’s online platform has drawn close to 7,000 providers and seekers over five years.

Further support has come from the city of Portland, which this year announced  to pay $1,000 to homeowners who make a spare room available (or $1,500 for two rooms) through qualified home-share programs.

In addition, legislators in several states have introduced or passed bills that prohibit municipalities from unduly restricting homeowners who want to rent spare rooms to nonfamily members. Sponsors in Pennsylvania and Connecticut actually call them Golden Girls bills, and they’ve drawn bipartisan support.

“So many young people have basically given up on buying a home,” said Colorado state Rep. Manny Rutinel. The Democrat helped pass  prohibiting cities and counties from limiting the number of unrelated people who could live together in a single dwelling.

In Pennsylvania, state Rep. Tarik Khan steered  through the House in June; it awaits a Senate vote. “It doesn’t make sense that your cousin can move in but someone unrelated to you can’t,” said Khan, a Democrat.

The Pennsylvania bill caps the number of nonfamily occupants in a home at five; Connecticut’s limit would be three.  passed the Senate in April and then died without a vote in the House. But the bill sponsors plan to reintroduce it next session.

Home sharing can’t solve the housing crisis, its fans acknowledge. But it could make a dent, potentially unlocking thousands of spare bedrooms across the country without requiring new construction that would change the character of neighborhoods.

Admittedly, matching homeowners with those who want to rent a room becomes a delicate process. Home-share staff members typically interview the individual parties, run background checks, verify incomes, coordinate initial phone calls and meetings, and mediate if problems later arise.

They also help applicants sift through the myriad lifestyle preferences that can torpedo a match. “Living together isn’t easy,” Fanucchi said. Will the home provider accept smokers, pets, visitors? Does the sharer work from home? Or need to park a car? Who sets the thermostat?

Sometimes the agreement includes a “service exchange,” in which the newcomer does a few hours of chores like snow shoveling, shopping, or some meal preparation in return for reduced rent.

Jenlyn and Larry Boyer, for instance, have lived in their ranch house in suburban Broomfield, Colorado, for 31 years and never want to leave. But Jenlyn, who is 80, has “gotten unsteady” and uses a walker. Her husband, 70, suffers chronic fibromyalgia pain and needs a wheelchair.

Because they now pay for tasks that they used to undertake themselves, and because inflation has undermined their finances, “I had an epiphany,” Jenlyn said. “We need more help and we need more money.”

Six months ago, through Sunshine Home Share, they met a 46-year-old graduate student whose monthly rent had doubled to an unmanageable $2,000.

The student moved into their furnished downstairs bedroom/family room with a bathroom, a small refrigerator, and a microwave. In exchange for about 10 hours of dishwashing a month, she pays a reduced rent of $600.

The additional income has helped the Boyers cover expenses like van repairs and wheelchair batteries. But they also enjoy chatting with their new housemate.

“She turns out to be just a gem,” Jenlyn said. “We laugh together a lot.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

The Office of Personnel Management posted last month that it will begin routinely collecting identifiable, personal health information on more than 8 million people 鈥� despite concerns from privacy advocates and Democrats, who have demanded the agency drop the plan. The notice will go into effect July 24, allowing OPM to begin its collection at any point afterward.

In reaction to privacy concerns raised by insurers and others, OPM now says the identities of enrollees will be “pseudonymized” 鈥� meaning names, addresses, and Social Security numbers will be removed 鈥� before the agency’s analysts review the massive new health datasets it will soon begin receiving.

Birth years of enrollees will be retained, and the agency’s “technical staff” will receive member IDs that it will scramble into different, unique numbers before releasing them to other staffers, according to the notice.

But the notice also specifies that OPM retains the right to reidentify the records.

Sixty-five insurance companies will be required to routinely send OPM detailed data 鈥� including names, addresses, doctor information, diagnoses, prescriptions filled, and payment details 鈥� on health care services paid through the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs.

In a change to its original proposal, first reported by 吃瓜不打烊, the agency says it also wants to peek at records kept by Medicare, the federally funded health insurance for older and disabled Americans, to examine claims from federal employees and retirees, and their families, who depend on both programs.

In its latest notice, OPM argues that the vast trove of data is necessary to ferret out fraud and overpayments in the FEHB and PSHB programs. Those programs cost roughly , with about $50 billion covered by the federal government and $30 billion funded by enrollees. The Trump administration has ramped up efforts, led by Vice President JD Vance, to curtail what it says is rampant fraud and misuse of publicly funded health benefits.

The effort still faces criticism that it doesn’t go far enough to protect the privacy of federal workers and their families.

“Clearly, this administration has not earned our trust with Americans’ sensitive data,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said in an emailed statement to 吃瓜不打烊. “If OPM wants to work in good faith to reduce fraud, they should come to Congress, including to folks like me who are engaged on this issue and represent many federal workers and retirees and their families, and work to build consensus and trust before implementing these sweeping changes.”

The , posted in December, sparked concerns in part because it did not specify what the Trump administration planned to do with the sensitive health information it receives 鈥� and did not instruct insurers to redact identifying information.

OPM General Counsel Kurt Dykstra said the detailed records are critical to the administration’s mission of rooting out fraud and could help identify fraud perpetrated not only by medical providers but also by enrollees.

But when pressed for instances of workers, retirees, or their relatives committing such fraud, Dykstra only noted generally that healthcare fraud does occur.

The information could demonstrate “potential anomalies in usage patterns that could be related to the individual, but really also could be related to the provider, the treater, the clinic 鈥� whoever it is that’s actually providing the care,” Dykstra told 吃瓜不打烊 in an interview.

Records deemed suspicious by OPM’s data analysts could then be referred to the agency’s Office of the Inspector General for further investigation, which could include “determining who’s involved and what the potential issues are, what the ramifications look like,” Dykstra said.

OPM’s plan to collect and analyze medical records has prompted unease among unions and federal workers, to mass firings and layoffs 鈥� in some cases, they say, driven by political retribution 鈥� since President Donald Trump took office.

Health privacy lawyers say, too, that while pseudonymizing workers’ details is a step in the right direction, it might not go far enough to protect their privacy.

OPM’s notice mostly complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the federal law commonly called HIPAA that protects sensitive health data from being shared, said Matt Fisher, a health privacy lawyer. But he noted one exception: The member ID that insurers provide enrollees can be used to identify them.

“The described process arguably comes down to trusting internal controls in OPM to ensure that data is walled off as proposed,” Fisher said in an email. “The ideal would be for only truly de-identified information to be shared in the first place.”

Insurers regularly share information about claims with employers who offer health plans to employees, in efforts to control costs. But since employers themselves are not covered by HIPAA, large datasets are typically de-identified, meaning the insurers remove identifying information such as employees’ names or addresses, to comply with the law.

Employers, too, have been accused of using health information to target employees for dismissals. Most recently, a group of Meta employees filed a lawsuit of using artificial intelligence to target for layoffs those who had taken medical or family leave.

Pseudonymizing details such as names or addresses would go only so far to protect privacy, since medical conditions in particular can make it very easy to identify certain employees, said Joseph Lorenzo Hall, a technologist at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for data privacy.

“The richer the data, the more likely it is going to be identifying,” Hall said.

“In this case, you may be the only person in a region that has that particular kind of medical procedure, condition, or even prescription,” he said. “All of those things can be extremely identifying, even when you remove or obfuscate or pseudonymize direct identifiers.”

Most federal retirees decide to continue with FEHB plans and enroll in Medicare once they turn 65, which provides more comprehensive coverage and allows family members to remain enrolled in FEHB plans, said John Hatton, the staff vice president for policy and programs at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.

OPM wants to analyze medical records for those dual enrollees as well. The agency is asking for all of their cost and service use records from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Still, Hatton said, OPM’s latest notice provides more details about how the agency says it will use the sensitive health information it receives and safeguard it.

“It’s a big improvement over the last notice, which was very lacking in detail and explanation for why they wanted all the medical claims data and how they’re going to protect the privacy of the data,” Hatton said.

“We’d be open to seeing even more security around the privacy of the data so there really is a clear wall,” he added.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Her team tends to “cringe” anytime they hear about patients having to fill out lots of paperwork, like when applying for Social Security Disability payments, because it can be a difficult, burdensome process.

Thornton tries to support her patients, she said, but understands the limits of her training.

“A lot of times the forms are so complex that I don’t really know what’s the true definition of what this form is asking me,” she said. “We refer them to a disability provider.”

Doctors including Thornton worry they’ll see more of those kinds of requests because of coming changes to Medicaid, the government health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities. Starting Jan. 1 in most of the country, some enrollees 鈥� mainly adults without dependents 鈥� must prove they’re working or performing other qualifying activities 80 hours a month.

issued in June say people can obtain an exemption if they’re “medically frail,” or too sick or disabled to work, which may require them to submit documentation from a medical professional. That standard prompted a lawsuit at the end of June from dozens of mostly Democratic-led states and has Thornton worried it could force her and her staff to assess things like how much a patient can lift or how far they can walk.

“If I’m asked, 鈥業s this person medically frail?’ What does that even mean?” Thornton said. “I don’t know, and I’ve been doing this for 25 years.”

Last year’s GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act established the work rule, which will affect an estimated when more states start enforcing it. The mandate is expected to cause a larger increase in the number of people without health insurance than any other part of the law, a health information nonprofit that includes 吃瓜不打烊.

Doctors say they aren’t trained to accurately assess whether someone’s health keeps them from working. Many don’t have time to handle another administrative task that takes them away from patient care. And being involved in whether someone gains access to a public benefit undermines the doctor-patient relationship, several doctor groups and physicians said.

“When you introduce unnecessary, non-evidence-based, confusing, and bureaucratic policies like this into clinical care, it just raises the level of moral distress for providers,” said Christopher Chen, a senior healthcare adviser at the consulting firm Manatt.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declined to respond on the record about doctors’ concerns. But the agency confirmed that enrollees may need to get documentation from a clinician to prove they’re too sick to work and said states would make final determinations.

The Trump administration has previously said states should use available data sources 鈥� such as medical claims and payment data 鈥� before making patients submit proof of medical frailty from a provider.

“Documentation should be relatively easy to provide,” Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said during a June 1 press call.

But deciding whether a patient is too sick to work is a subjective, high-stakes decision, said Chen, who also practices as a hospitalist at Valley Medical Center in Renton, Washington.

“We’re trained to take care of people,” he said. “We’re trained to learn about someone’s symptoms, make diagnoses, treat them. We’re not trained to make these kinds of work determinations.”

When they apply and every six months after, Medicaid enrollees subject to the rule will have to prove that they’re performing the minimum monthly hours of qualifying activities 鈥� or will likely have to prove as frequently that they qualify for an exemption.

If states can’t find sufficient evidence that someone is too sick to work, that person will be able to self-attest to it under penalty of perjury 鈥� but only for a short time. States may take someone’s word that they’re medically frail twice in 2027 and only once in 2028.

Last month, 25 mostly Democratic-led states over the final regulations, arguing the medical frailty standard would be too hard for enrollees to meet 鈥� and for states to assess.

The standard, they argue, requires state Medicaid agencies to “take on the role of occupational medicine experts” or adds that burden to physicians who are not necessarily trained in occupational medicine.

CMS declined to comment on the litigation.

The Trump administration has crusaded against fraud in government health programs including Medicaid. It recently 鈥� including medical professionals 鈥� over more than $6.5 billion in alleged fraud schemes.

CMS has said it will keep a close watch on how states administer the work requirements and may take corrective action if states step out of line.

That has doctors concerned about the potential repercussions if they incorrectly assess whether someone is too sick to work, as farfetched as those worries might be, said Rahul Vanjani, a primary care and addiction medicine physician and researcher at Brown University.

“We, using our imaginations, wonder if someone is auditing these forms in the background and if they’re going to reach out to the licensing board.”

The country is short of primary care providers, and it could be hard for people seeking an exemption to find a clinician to help them document that they’re too sick to work, doctors said.

It will be even more challenging for someone without insurance, said Jennifer Wagner, who researches Medicaid eligibility at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“How could an applicant who doesn’t have health coverage get a doctor’s note?” she asked.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest professional association of doctors and medical students, lobbied federal officials to change the standard for documenting medical frailty in the days before the final regulations were made public.

In May, the AMA sent to Oz, the CMS administrator, arguing that forcing doctors to attest to their patients’ ability to work wouldn’t just be an administrative headache but would affect the way they interact with those in their care.

In a statement, the association’s president, Willie Underwood III, said the work rule “transforms the clinical encounter into an eligibility gatekeeping process.”

“Patients will likely sense that shift,” he said. “And if they begin to suspect that what they share with their physician could affect their coverage, the conditions for open and honest communication will start to break down.”

Doctors have a fixed amount of time to spend with patients and would rather focus on treating medical conditions than filling out forms, especially ones that put them in a position to “represent the state,” said John Ayanian, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Michigan.

“Their first obligation is to serve the best interest of their patients,” Ayanian said.

Lauren Davis, an attorney with Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, helps clients navigate other public benefit programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which has a similar work rule. Enrollees can get an exemption from it if they’re too sick to work.

She recalled a client with a cognitive condition that affected her memory. The client’s doctor wasn’t comfortable filling out an exemption form without seeing her in person, but she kept forgetting to make an appointment and eventually gave up, said Davis, who worries Medicaid enrollees could face similar barriers to getting exemptions.

“This person is eligible,” Davis said. “The reason that they’re not able to get what they need to show that they’re eligible is because of their medical condition.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Meanwhile, patients, their advocates, and clinicians say little has improved.

“It has never been this bad for patients,” said U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.), a physician who co-chairs the GOP Doctors Caucus.

The overarching intent of the June 2025 pledge was to improve a controversial process called prior authorization, which regularly requires patients or someone on their medical team to seek approval from insurers before proceeding with treatment.

According to AHIP, the health insurance industry trade group, health plans have eliminated 6.5 million prior authorizations for patients 鈥� equal to an 11% reduction 鈥� since the announcement.

But critics remain skeptical. Sally Nix, a patient advocate who has a chronic disease, described the voluntary pledge as “performative.” And Murphy, who participated in the news conference with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announcing the pledge last year, said it has “no teeth.”

Voluntary insurer pledges rarely make things better for patients, said , a research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

“In the absence of clear rules, policies, standards, and mandates,” she said, insurance companies are “going to do what makes sense for them to do financially.”

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions for this report. It isn’t clear how, or whether, the Trump administration is holding insurers accountable.

鈥榋ero Faith’

Prior authorization 鈥� sometimes called preauthorization or precertification 鈥� has been around for decades. The insurance industry has long argued that the practice, which varies by company, helps control costs, reduces waste and fraud, and prevents potential harm to patients. It’s regularly invoked for a huge swath of services, ranging from low-cost urgent care to expensive cancer treatment.

“Prior authorization is a vital patient safeguard,” said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP.

The 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson sparked a national groundswell of anger about insurance denials, with patients and doctors becoming increasingly vocal about the tactics they say insurance companies use to boost profits at the expense of care.

Prior authorization reform is one of the rare healthcare issues Democrats and Republicans tend to agree on. On July 15, the House Ways and Means Committee unanimously that would force Medicare Advantage plans to provide to the federal government a list of all items and services that are subject to prior authorization, and to report data about denials and grievances, among other requirements.

Last year’s industry pledge was organized as a direct response to public anger, Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said when it was announced. “There’s violence in the streets over these issues,” he said.

“Americans are upset about it,” Oz said, later adding, “I’m looking forward to seeing the results.”

Mike Gartner, founder of Health Access Innovation, an organization that helps patients overturn insurance denials, said he doubts that insurance companies are changing their policies in meaningful ways. The 11% reduction in prior authorization cited by AHIP “hides a lot of nuance,” Gartner said.

Patients who need the costliest services, such as cancer treatment, are still being disproportionately denied access to doctor-recommended care, he said.

AHIP said its data included reductions in prior authorization for medical services, not prescription medicines. The trade group didn’t provide details explaining which services have been dropped from prior authorization or how those reductions differ across individual insurers.

Last year, Oz said the federal government would be “evaluating progress” toward the pledge and “driving accountability,” and he foreshadowed “public dashboards.” But no such dashboards exist, and federal officials did not respond to questions about how they’re holding companies accountable.

Murphy, the North Carolina congressman, said he has “zero faith” in the industry policing itself.

He didn’t believe insurance companies then, he said, “and I don’t believe them now.”

鈥楢t War’ With an Insurer

In February, days after Betsy Adler and Justin Young’s daughter Coco was born with a serious heart defect, the Stillwater, Minnesota, family received paperwork showing they were racking up out-of-network costs.

During Adler’s pregnancy, the family had switched insurers, , which is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, and one of that initially signed the industry pledge. Adler said she’d checked with her employer’s human resources department and on Medica’s website to make sure her maternal-fetal specialists and hospital were in-network before their new health plan went into effect earlier this year.

But then, the insurance company started processing some claims as out-of-network. By mid-March, the family had accrued more than $4,000 in out-of-network charges, on top of more than $3,000 for in-network bills. And the bills kept coming.

When Adler, a psychotherapist, called to figure out what was going on, she said, an insurance company representative said she hadn’t submitted a referral from her primary care provider beforehand. Attempts to fix the problem went nowhere. At one point, Adler said, Medica required her to visit a clinic she’d never been to before to obtain a referral. But she said a Medica representative told her the referral was never received, because the insurer’s fax machine was down.

“I have a critically ill child,” Adler remembered thinking shortly after Coco was discharged from the cardiovascular intensive care unit. “I can either spend my emotional energy at war with Medica, or I can let it go and just enjoy my time with my daughter.”

Medica spokesperson Greg Bury said he wouldn’t discuss the case, citing patient privacy rules. In an emailed statement, he wrote the company is “committed to working with her to ensure she understands what is covered under her benefits and our responsibilities.”

One of six specific promises all insurers made when they signed the pledge was to honor a 90-day grace period when patients switch insurance plans, starting Jan. 1 of this year. Often called “continuity of care,” this grace period allows patients to temporarily continue receiving services and medications that were authorized under a previous insurer.

But that applies only in some circumstances, Georgetown’s Corlette said. The wording of the pledge suggests that insurance companies aren’t obligated to honor another company’s network parameters. When Adler and Young switched insurers, for example, Medica was not obligated to cover the cost of out-of-network providers as if they were in-network, even though they were in-network under the family’s old plan.

Adler and Young switched insurance companies again when Coco was a month old, to avoid accruing more out-of-network costs.

Denial After Approval

The percentages cited by AHIP don’t tell the whole story, said Nix, the patient advocate. Insurers are “not including the data for the loopholes they create,” she said.

For example, nothing in the pledge prevents insurance companies from retroactively denying payment, even when care is preapproved. “Patients are going to see a lot more retroactive denials,” said Nix, who recently had her insurer process, then later deny, a claim for injections to relieve her nerve pain.

Something similar recently happened to Jocelyn Austin, 49, of Amherst, New York. Over the course of nearly 20 years, she developed an addiction to sleeping and anxiety pills prescribed to her by a doctor. Last year, she spent weeks at an inpatient treatment center for substance abuse. Her insurer, Independent Health, had approved the admission. Austin said she has been substance-free since her discharge.

But the facility sent her a bill for more than $12,000 in December showing her insurer had not paid for the treatment she received, according to documents Austin shared with 吃瓜不打烊. This was in addition to the $10,000 she paid at the beginning of her treatment to satisfy her out-of-network deductible. The approval letters from Independent Health had specified that “authorization is not a guarantee of claim payment.”

Frank Sava, a spokesperson for Independent Health, said a denial was issued and upheld in this case because the services provided “were inconsistent with the care that was authorized” and “the medical record did not sufficiently support what was billed.” He said those findings were reviewed and confirmed by an outside consultant.

An explanation of benefits issued by the insurer last summer indicated the “provider,” not the patient, was responsible for the cost of her treatment. And yet the treatment facility has continued to pressure her for payment, she said.

Austin, who has not paid her outstanding bill, said insurance companies “should be held accountable.”

鈥楽ignificant Work Ahead’

Another one of the six commitments insurers made last year was to adopt new technology that would standardize the electronic submission of prior authorization requests. During the news conference announcing the pledge last summer, Chris Klomp, the director of Medicare and a deputy CMS administrator, said more than 50% of prior authorizations are still paper-based and processed by phone or fax machine.

In April, AHIP related to that technology initiative, explaining that participating insurers would adopt the new standards on a rolling basis. Health insurers agreed to implement the pledge’s various commitments by predetermined deadlines, and this initiative is scheduled to be operational by Jan. 1, 2027. But eight insurers that initially signed the pledge last year didn’t sign the technology update when it was announced in April, AHIP told 吃瓜不打烊.

Those insurers are Alignment Health Plan, EmblemHealth, HealthFirst, Independent Health, Medica, MVP Health Care, Point32Health, and SummaCare. Their beneficiaries span the country, from California to New York. None of those eight insurers agreed to interviews for this report, but most sent 吃瓜不打烊 emailed statements indicating that they remain committed to prior authorization reform.

AHIP’s approach to continuity of care “would have required the transfer of confidential member health information through a non-standardized process involving third-party participation,” wrote Jerry Slowey, a spokesperson for , which offers Medicare Advantage policies in Arizona, California, Nevada, North Carolina, and Texas. “We do not believe that level of data sharing was contemplated in the original commitment.”

Bury, the spokesperson for Medica, which covers beneficiaries in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, said the company “supports the goal of these standardization efforts.” But the April update “raised a significant technical and operational hurdle that we are not able to commit to at this time,” he said.

Alex Gomez, a spokesperson for EmblemHealth, said in late June the company “will sign onto the commitment” after 吃瓜不打烊 posed questions about why it had not endorsed the April update.

“We anticipate more plans will be added over the coming months,” said Bond, the AHIP spokesperson. Health plans are “working continuously to implement their commitments to simplify and improve the experience.” He acknowledged that “there is still significant work ahead.”

The original pledge also included a promise that insurance companies would enhance transparency and use “clear, easy-to-understand explanations” when communicating to patients 鈥� something they were already supposed to be doing under the Affordable Care Act.

Yet companies still regularly neglect to explain why care has been denied, and their communications often contain “inconsistent and contradictory information,” said Gartner, of Health Access Innovation. He and Murphy also said they suspect insurance companies are increasingly using artificial intelligence to generate denials.

“They craft the pathways to basically deny things immediately with the hope that people will give up,” Murphy said.

The congressman said he wishes President Donald Trump would sign executive orders addressing some of these issues. “The problem is the insurance industry is the strongest lobby in this town.”

Do you have an experience with prior authorization you’d like to share?  to tell 吃瓜不打烊 your story.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

California lawmakers an expired law that would require the state to identify companies that employ 100 or more people and have employees enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. Nevada has had a similar law in place since 2017, though a proposal for one in Oregon stalled when its legislative session ended in March.

The California bill author, Democratic state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, said she is deeply troubled by what is going to happen when work requirements kick in. According to the state, out of more than on Medi-Cal will be subject to the rule.

“We think this is a bill that’s about fairness,” Smallwood-Cuevas said. “It’s a basic principle that taxpayers deserve transparency about which large employers are shifting their healthcare costs onto the public.”

Large employers that regularly top Nevada’s list, such as Walmart and Amazon, have said that the state included part-time and seasonal workers in their counts and that their full-time hourly employees to qualify for Medicaid.

Walmart spokesperson Katrina Proffitt said that the company offers affordable medical coverage to most employees, including eligible part-time workers, and that most of its plans include no-cost virtual care options.

“Healthcare affordability and access to quality care remain real barriers for many Americans, and Walmart continues to be committed to being part of the solution,” Proffitt said.

The push to name and shame companies reflects dueling narratives about the biggest abusers of the joint state-federal Medicaid program, which reached nearly in government spending in 2024. The Trump administration, led by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, has called out blue states for not doing enough to fight insurer fraud and abuse. State Democratic leaders, meanwhile, are pushing back by calling attention to big employers that don’t offer affordable health benefits, which leaves taxpayers subsidizing healthcare costs for the low-wage workforce.

Some states have considered financial penalties. Democratic New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a bill in June that have at least 50 Medicaid-enrolled employees. Companies with 50 to 249 workers on Medicaid per person, and those with at least 500 will pay $725.

Bills that would have penalized companies with workers enrolled in Medicaid failed in this year.

In Sacramento, California, Democrats want to figure out a way to make large businesses pay for their employees’ health coverage. State lawmakers struck a deal with Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is contemplating a presidential bid as he wraps up his final year in the governor’s office, to explore tax options. Any tax hike would be up to the new governor.

States face of dollars under HR 1, the GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, notably through that requires nondisabled Medicaid enrollees ages 19 to 64 in most states to prove they are working, volunteering, or going to school at least 80 hours a month to keep their coverage.

Yet federal work requirements are projected to increase the number of uninsured people nationwide by more than 5 million by 2034, according to the . Nebraska and Montana have begun enforcing the rule.

One health policy researcher said employer Medicaid reports highlight the lack of affordable healthcare options available to low-wage workers. More than half of adults enrolled in Medicaid who don’t have dependent children already meet the 80-hour-a-month requirement or face challenges that would likely qualify them for an exemption, .

“There’s a whole set of people who are working 鈥� they may not satisfy the work requirement provisions, they may not get the exemption that they’re qualified for, and they don’t have access to that employer-sponsored insurance either,” said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University.

Employers Push Back

While employer lists haven’t succeeded in bringing down Medicaid costs, supporters say measuring the burden can be the first step and help lawmakers make the case for further action.

In Nevada, Amazon has employed more Medicaid enrollees than any other company since 2020, according to the state’s report . For state fiscal year 2025, Walmart, the Clark County School District, the state government, and Tesla rounded out the top five.

Employers that the reports are misleading because they have included part-time and seasonal employees. The state’s includes only full-time employees, plus those who could not be confirmed as either full- or part-time employees.

That came to 4,914 Amazon employees and 3,503 Walmart workers in Nevada on Medicaid in 2025.

There are no penalties for companies on the list.

Amazon said it pays its workers more than double the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage and noted that Medicaid eligibility is based on household income and size rather than an individual’s wage. That means two employees who earn the same pay may have different eligibility depending on whether they have children or live with parents.

“Pointing fingers at Amazon over Medicaid is a red herring,” said spokesperson Alisa Carroll. “What really needs to happen is a significant and large increase in the federal minimum wage 鈥� that would be a big boost for American families.”

Nevada Medicaid spent nearly $950 million on healthcare for more than 133,000 full-time employees and more than 140,000 of their dependents. While the total amount spent dipped in fiscal year 2025, the average cost per member per year increased by nearly 17%.

Yvanna Cancela, a former Nevada lawmaker who sponsored the legislation on Medicaid work reports, said the annual reports force an important conversation “about whether or not this is the kind of economy we want and whether or not it is right or just that people who work full-time don’t make enough to have health insurance.”

A Fraying Safety Net

Health researchers say that uninsured people delay or skip and that their children may end up losing coverage, too.

One analysis found that more than were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program this April than in January 2025. California is among the states with the among children.

The loss in healthcare coverage among residents will be compounded by the loss of public food assistance benefits, Smallwood-Cuevas said. is pending in the legislature.

She compared Medi-Cal to a trampoline that has become a “very tattered kind of fishnet” overwhelmed by people falling into it. President Donald Trump’s spending-and-tax law pulls and rips at the safety net, she said.

When people lose food assistance and health benefits, they must choose between paying for medicine and paying for rent, Smallwood-Cuevas said.

“We’re going to see more people in their cars, more people on the street, and a lot more people in the emergency room,” she said. “That is dangerous for all of California.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

“On a scale of 1 to 10 of my annoyance with taxes in general, this one is about a 2,” she said. “I see the benefits.”

The small surcharge on wages provides the funding for Washington Cares, the nation’s . It was set to begin distributing benefits July 1.

If Haggett, 67, a systems administrator who lives in Auburn, Washington, needs help with daily activities as she ages 鈥� bathing, dressing, grocery shopping, managing medications 鈥� she’ll be able to use the benefit she has accrued through WA Cares, as the program is known.

About 3.7 million workers participated last year, paying an additional 0.58% in payroll taxes. Those who contribute for 10 years will qualify for a lifetime benefit of $36,500. The amount will rise with inflation: A 36-year-old now earning about $50,000 a year who contributes $291 a year for a decade will have if she needs assistance at age 75.

Both the WA Cares mandatory premiums and eventual benefits are modest. But for older adults and people with disabilities, they can help pay for a variety of services: home care, transportation, adult day programs, home modifications like ramps and grab bars, compensation for family members who assist them, or assisted living facilities and nursing homes.

Haggett had looked into private long-term care insurance to cover those needs, but she balked. “It’s crazy expensive,” she said. And since premiums can rise, and frequently have, “you’re basically saying, I’ll pay whatever, whenever.”

Haggett knows that WA Cares can’t cover all her long-term care costs. In fact, because she was already in her 60s when payroll deductions began in 2023, and because she is planning to retire in two years, she’ll receive only half the lifetime benefit.

But “if I required care and it would protect my wife from having to spend our savings, $18,250 is not meaningless,” she said.

Washington has been working toward implementing WA Cares for a decade; the program has survived two statewide votes aimed at overturning or weakening it. Now, other states will be paying attention.

鈥楳ost People Have Nothing’

An estimated 70% of Americans will need long-term care at some point in their lives, but “they haven’t planned for it or saved for it,” said Cathleen MacCaul, advocacy director for AARP Washington State, which supported the legislation that created WA Cares.

“People are under the misconception that Medicare will pay for this,” MacCaul said. In fact, while Medicare pays for healthcare, it rarely covers long-term care, either at home or in facilities.

Medicaid does cover long-term care, but it involves such strict limits on income and assets that “most middle-class people are left out, or they have to impoverish themselves” by spending nearly all their assets to qualify, said Richard Frank, director of the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution. Those who are eligible often face lengthy waiting lists for care at home.

“Long-term care is the largest area of unprotected health risk in the United States,” Frank said. “Most people have nothing.”

Previous efforts to establish public long-term care protections have foundered. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act included , a legacy of Sen. Ted Kennedy that would have created a voluntary long-term care insurance program. The Obama administration eventually deemed it unworkable, and “it never saw the light of day,” Frank said.

The private market has also contracted. Most of the largest companies selling long-term care insurance 鈥� Genworth, John Hancock, MetLife 鈥� have exited the market. The return on their investments plummeted when interest rates fell after the Great Recession, and the number of insured people who abandoned their policies 鈥� a profitable development for insurers 鈥� was far below projections.

“The psychology of the industry was: Holy smokes, we’re losing money! We’re getting out,” said Claude Thau, who directs the annual Milliman Long-Term Care Insurance Survey. As the losses mounted and premiums spiked, consumers such as Haggett stopped buying policies. Moreover, Thau estimated, 1 in 6 applicants are unable to get coverage for health reasons.

Thus, fewer than 35,000 Americans bought stand-alone policies in 2024, compared with about 235,000 in 2010, according to a , a trade association. The average 60-year-old purchaser would, at age 80, receive a projected maximum benefit of $369 a day, Milliman reported. But the average annual premium on new stand-alone policies in 2024 鈥� $3,265 鈥� can seem daunting to someone close to retirement.

As the purchase of stand-alone policies has dropped, insurance companies have turned to policies bundling some long-term care benefits with life insurance or annuities. Those sales figures are climbing. Still, the association notes, only 3% of Americans age 50 or older have any long-term care insurance.

鈥楢 Five-Alarm Fire’

That has prompted a recent spate of proposals to find public ways to protect Americans from ruinous costs that can continue for years. “This is a five-alarm fire,” said sent in May by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and 16 fellow Senate Democrats to their colleagues.

The letter, more a statement of purpose than a specific legislative plan, proposed a “home care guarantee” for Medicare beneficiaries, among other efforts. Proponents expect to issue a more detailed report in the fall and to introduce a bill early next year.

A also proposed providing subsidized long-term care at home through Medicare, with beneficiaries making contributions according to their ability to pay. Like most of these programs, it would kick in when people need help with activities related to daily living or require supervision because of cognitive decline. The authors estimate that 8.2 million Americans will be eligible, far more than those who qualify for home-based care under Medicaid.

In the House, Rep. Tom Suozzi, a Democrat from New York, and Rep. John Moolenaar, a Republican from Michigan, have to create a catastrophic-insurance program for older people with disabilities. It would require them to pay for care out-of-pocket or with private insurance for the first several years before they would receive a monthly federal benefit.

Enacting federal initiatives in the current political climate seems unlikely, proponents acknowledge. The Trump administration’s plan to cut billions of dollars from Medicaid “has moved the needle backward on the accessibility of long-term care,” said Taylor Harvey, a spokesperson for the Senate Finance Committee.

So “are looking at what Washington is doing with a lot of interest,” said Norma Coe, who is an economist at the University of Pennsylvania and is tracking long-term care programs. Legislators have introduced bills in Illinois, Hawai鈥榠, and West Virginia; other states have task forces studying the issue.

“Long-term care is one of those conversations around every dinner table,” said Bea Rector, assistant secretary for the Department of Social and Health Services’ Home and Community Living Administration.

“Families step in,” she explained. Sometimes they can continue providing care, “but sometimes more formal care has to be put in place. That’s when people see the value of programs like this.”

Steven Russakoff knows the challenges of elder care, having provided years of support for his father, who died two years ago, and for his mother, who is now living in a nursing facility. “It’s brutal, it’s exhausting, and it’s extraordinarily expensive,” he said. The family has liquidated virtually all his parents’ assets to pay for their care.

Russakoff, who is 56 and lives in Shoreline, Washington, initially disliked WA Cares. He could handle the additional deductions (about $250 a year) from his paycheck as a director of university dining services, but he felt forced into a program he couldn’t use if he left the state to retire.

But WA Cares has already been amended several times and for many participants who move away, making him a convert. “It’s a good idea,” Russakoff concluded. “A necessary evil.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

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

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

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

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

New Requirements, Additional Hurdles

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

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

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

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

Immigration Anxieties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronic Illness

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

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

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

A Loss for Families and Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Julie Rovner 吃瓜不打烊 Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 吃瓜不打烊’ 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.

As health costs rise and insurance coverage falls, Democrats appear to be doubling down on the healthcare issue as they press their case to take control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans 鈥� and some Democrats 鈥� are taking aim at nonprofit hospitals and whether they are delivering enough “community benefit” to justify not having to pay taxes.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 吃瓜不打烊, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Victoria Knight of Bloomberg Government, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Shefali Luthra The 19th

Victoria Knight Bloomberg Government

Rachel Roubein The Washington Post

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Insurers say they’re expecting to hike premiums even more next year as Affordable Care Act plan enrollment continues to drop. The current decline comes after Congress allowed enhanced ACA subsidies to expire, with many Americans publicly saying they can no longer afford coverage 鈥� even as the Trump administration attributes the enrollment drop to a crackdown on fraud.
• Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has seized on the idea that medical providers should have end-of-life conversations with patients, even suggesting penalizing hospitals for not doing so. In 2009, a similar proposal in the ACA debate prompted the GOP to coin the term “death panels.”
• As the midterms approach, a top Senate Democrat has teed up a proposal to cap out-of-pocket costs in traditional Medicare, an idea that could gain even more traction should Democrats reclaim the Senate. Plus, lawmakers are proposing closer scrutiny of nonprofit hospitals, with a new bill proposing the collection of more information on their finances.
• Also, the GOP’s one-year ban on Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood ended over the weekend, with little appetite in Congress for renewal. And separate pilot programs in Utah and traditional Medicare are testing the use of artificial intelligence in meting out healthcare.

Also this week, Rovner interviews 吃瓜不打烊’ Samantha Liss, who wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” report, about a Medicare Advantage patient who changed plans and got a lot of trouble in return. If you have a medical bill that’s confusing, infuriating, or inscrutable, you can share it with us here.

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

Julie Rovner: Axios’ “,” by Tina Reed.  

Shefali Luthra: Stat’s “,” by Katie Palmer.  

Rachel Roubein: The New York Times’ “,” by Chistina Jewett.  

Victoria Knight: Stat’s “,” by Isabella Cueto and Lev Facher.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Stat’s “,” by Bob Herman.
• 吃瓜不打烊’ “Medicare’s AI Push Snarls Patients and Doctors in Errors and Delays,” by Darius Tahir.  

Credits

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From 吃瓜不打烊” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fractured System

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

She died by suicide after we had separated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

鈥楴o One Wants To Pay for Any of This Care’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

In preliminary filings with state regulators, insurers are seeking a median rate increase of 14% for 2027, according to in 16 states and the District of Columbia by the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker.

If those rates are ultimately approved, it would be the second-highest increase since 2018.

That would be a “triple whammy” for consumers, said Cynthia Cox, a senior vice president and the director of the Program on the ACA at KFF, because they have already had to pay higher premiums in 2026 and saw the expiration of more generous tax credits to offset their premiums at the end of last year.

President Joe Biden sought to bolster the program known as Obamacare by enacting more generous tax subsidies, driving down out-of-pocket costs for consumers and increasing enrollment to more than 20 million Americans. But under President Donald Trump, Republicans have sought to scale back taxpayer support for ACA coverage, allowing the Biden-era enhanced subsidies to expire.

As of February, ACA enrollment had fallen by about 3 million people compared with the same time last year. While Cox and other policy experts say that’s because increased costs for the plans drove out people who feel they can get by without insurance, the Trump administration asserts that much of the enrollment growth under Biden .

The main factor driving proposed premium increases for 2027, as in most years, is the rising cost and use of medical care.

There’s growing demand for costly specialty medications and for the weight loss drugs known as GLP-1s, the Peterson-KFF report notes.

But the report also said that about 4 percentage points’ worth of the premium increases insurers proposed are due to lasting effects of the expiration of enhanced subsidies. Insurers expect that with young and healthy people leaving the program rather than paying higher premiums, their remaining customers will be older, sicker, and therefore costlier on average.

鈥�“It’s likely that the people who dropped their coverage were also the healthier people, because sicker people were probably going to try to make it work however they could, to stretch their budget to keep their health insurance,” said Cox, of KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes 吃瓜不打烊.

In their rate filings, some insurers also said they had to raise premiums partly because of policy changes by the Trump administration that are expected to make it harder for some people to enroll.

Together with the expiration of the larger subsidies, the new rules “account for 12.7% of the requested rate change,” the insurer UnitedHealthcare wrote in its rate filing with New York state, according to the Peterson-KFF report.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .