Medicaid Archives - �Թϲ��

A Shrinking Safety Net

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:45:00 +0000

The Host

Julie Rovner �Թϲ�� Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of �Թϲ��’ 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.

Enrollment in the federal food stamp program — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP — is down by more than 10% nationally, according to a new report, and in some states by as much as half. Those numbers are falling as states enact changes ordered by the GOP budget bill passed in 2025. The drop is much steeper than was predicted and could portend a similar fate for those on Medicaid, as states prepare to implement many of the same changes ordered for SNAP.

Meanwhile, amid a rise in reported cases of the gastrointestinal ailment caused by the parasite cyclospora, federal public health officials once again struggle to explain to a confused populace how to stay safe.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of �Թϲ��, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico

Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico

Margot Sanger-Katz The New York Times

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

Participation in the nation’s food stamp program is down, with children representing nearly half of those losing benefits, according to a recent analysis. Some states are showing much larger drops than others. The GOP-passed budget law imposes penalties for errors, leaving states spooked about the possibility of losing funding — and suggesting problems ahead for the full rollout of Medicaid work requirements next year.
President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown is increasing pressure on the health system, in particular on the availability of home-based and long-term care workers — including those who fill critical roles such as serving food and driving patients to medical appointments. Research has shown that the presence of immigrant workers has a protective effect on the health of their charges.
Responding to revelations that doctors are reaping large payouts from the surprise-billing arbitration process, the Trump administration this week released information showing a spike in such payments and noted the need for changes to the law — without specifying what kind of changes. That law, the No Surprises Act, took effect in 2022 with the primary intention of shielding patients from big bills when they unknowingly receive out-of-network medical care.
In other news, the Pentagon is imposing testosterone tests for many service members. The cyclospora outbreak continues. And the Trump administration announced plans to withhold Medicaid funding from California and Minnesota over accusations of fraud.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, as part of the “How Would You Fix It?” series.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “,” by Arijeta Lajka, Isabelle Niu, Mark Boyer, James Surdam, and Dan T. Peters.

Joanne Kenen: Stat’s “,” by Adam Feuerstein.

Margot Sanger-Katz: NPR’s “,” by Andrea Hsu.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Roll Call’s “,” by Ariel Cohen.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

�Թϲ��’ “Doctors ‘Cringe’ at Possibility of Documenting Which Medicaid Enrollees Too Sick To Work,” by Sam Whitehead.
�Թϲ��’ “A Deloitte-Run System Denied Medicaid Benefits for Michigan’s Disabled. Now Trump’s Law Piles On,” by Rachana Pradhan, Samantha Liss, and Kate Wells.
The New York Times’ “,” by Miriam Jordan.
The Wall Street Journal’s “” by Anna Wilde Mathews and Tom McGinty.

click to open the transcript Transcript: A Shrinking Safety Net

A Deloitte-Run System Denied Medicaid Benefits for Michigan’s Disabled. Now Trump’s Law Piles On.

Rachana Pradhan, Samantha Liss and Kate Wells — Tue, 21 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Marie Noon takes eight medications a day. One keeps her heart rate from spiking to avoid a stroke. One prevents debilitating headaches. Another ensures she doesn’t retain excess fluid.

More than a decade ago, Noon said, she was diagnosed with adult-onset Still’s disease, a rare type of inflammatory arthritis that can cause rashes, debilitating pain, and fevers. The disease upended her life.

She had been living a typical suburban life in Michigan, shuttling her two kids to activities like cheerleading, choir practice, and track. She was active in the PTA. She managed a bank.

She went from that to crawling to the bathroom because she was in so much pain, “just crying all day long” from being so sick.

Noon, who is disabled, said she couldn’t work for eight years — a time marked by hospital stays that stretched for weeks.

“I honestly thought I was going to die,” Noon said.

So it was a shock when Michigan denied her application for Medicaid benefits last year after she lost private insurance. Worse yet, it came down to an IT error, according to an attorney who helped Noon overturn the denial.

“I can’t afford my medical care. I have to have insurance,” said Noon, who has returned to working.

Deloitte, a multibillion-dollar global consulting firm, has operated Michigan’s Medicaid eligibility system under contracts worth roughly $768 million since 2006, according to contracts reviewed by �Թϲ��. Nationwide, Deloitte dominates this important slice of government business: At least 25 states have awarded the company contracts to build or run computer systems that control access to safety net benefits such as Medicaid.

Michigan’s system has incorrectly directed people with disabilities into skimpier benefits that cover limited care or has denied coverage completely, a �Թϲ�� investigation found. Similar problems were at the center of a class-action suit in Tennessee, , and have occurred in Texas, according to interviews and state records.

The �Թϲ�� investigations are based on statements from state officials, allegations and declarations in court documents, emails obtained through public records requests, state government information provided to Medicaid enrollees and applicants, and interviews with attorneys and patients or their caregivers.

In an emailed statement, Deloitte spokesperson Karen Walsh said it found “no system anomalies causing routine denials of Medicaid for people with disabilities.”

“There are many reasons why someone may no longer be eligible for a benefit they once received or believe they deserve,” Walsh said. “All of the eligibility systems we support are owned by the states and built to their unique specifications. We will continue to work at the direction of our state clients.”

Lynn Sutfin, a spokesperson for Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services, said it “is not aware of any widespread or systemic issues” within Bridges, Michigan’s eligibility system for Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefits, “related to disability‑based eligibility pathways.”

Since 2006, Deloitte’s contracts with the state have said the company is responsible for development, implementation, maintenance, operations, and enhancements to the Michigan system.

Computer system problems foreshadow trouble as states prepare to roll out the most significant and complicated changes to their Medicaid programs in years. Those changes, dictated by President Donald Trump’s landmark One Big Beautiful Bill Act, have states rushing to update their Medicaid computer systems.

Nationwide, on Medicaid have a disability, according to KFF.

“When these administrative systems get overloaded, everyone gets impacted,” said Pamela Herd, a University of Michigan professor who researches bureaucratic obstacles to accessing government benefits. “The systems are going to be really, really strained.”

In Michigan, Noon was eligible for Medicaid through a program that provides coverage to disabled adults who work. But the state’s computer system didn’t register that she is disabled and said she earned too much to qualify, according to documents reviewed by �Թϲ�� and interviews with Noon and Anastassia Kolosova, a disability rights attorney who helped her.

Without Medicaid coverage, Noon paid hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket for prescriptions, after scrounging for discount coupons. She takes some of the drugs twice a day.

Without them, “I’m toast,” she said. It was stressful “not knowing if my medicine’s going to be $50 or $500 this month, because it changes constantly.”

Noon said her doctor agreed to fewer visits to avoid medical bills.

“It was kind of a nightmare,” Noon said.

‘I Just Wanted To Give Up’

Medicaid, a safety net health program jointly run by the federal government and states, people with low incomes or disabilities. State governments rely on companies like Deloitte to design and operate computer systems that assess whether people qualify for Medicaid or food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

That technology has a history of errors that deprive eligible people of benefits, earlier �Թϲ�� investigations have shown. As reported previously, Kenneth Smith, a Deloitte executive who leads its national human services division, said Medicaid eligibility technology is state-owned and agencies “direct their operation” and “make decisions about the policies and processes that they implement.”

“They’re not Deloitte systems,” he said, noting Deloitte is one player among many who together administer Medicaid benefits.

States are under immense pressure to update their eligibility systems on a tight schedule to adhere to requirements in the Republicans’ sweeping 2025 tax and spending law. Companies including Deloitte, Accenture, and Optum are being paid millions in taxpayer funds to make the changes, which are projected to strip Medicaid from roughly 7.5 million people and SNAP from 2.4 million people by 2034.

Many coverage restrictions in the new federal law don’t apply to seniors, children, or people who are disabled, such as Noon. Nonetheless, the law’s demands on state agencies and the computer systems they oversee will disrupt benefits, advocates for Medicaid enrollees and other healthcare experts said in interviews.

The same systems also need to correctly classify why someone is eligible for Medicaid — and therefore which rules and restrictions apply.

The law’s SNAP restrictions began to take effect in 2025, and major Medicaid provisions begin later this year, generally after the midterm elections.

Kolosova is a supervising attorney with Disability Rights Michigan, a legal advocacy organization for people with disabilities. She said she has been unable to get a meeting with Michigan officials to understand the underlying problem that deprived Noon of health coverage.

Anastassia Kolosova, a supervising attorney with Disability Rights Michigan, helped Noon navigate the complicated process to obtain safety net health insurance through Medicaid. Kolosova says she has seen multiple wrongful coverage denials and fears problems will soon get worse because of changes required by federal law. (Kate Wells/�Թϲ��)

State records show Deloitte has held contracts for at least 14 years for Bridges, Michigan’s eligibility system for Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefits. In its attempts to secure more business, the company often cites its nationwide footprint in Medicaid operations.

“Deloitte understands Bridges,” and its history in Michigan makes the company “the ideal vendor,” the firm said in its . Given Deloitte’s work on similar systems in 31 other states, , “Michigan benefits from our technical expertise drawn from across the nation.”

But advocates who work with people with disabilities say Michigan’s computer system has failed to recognize when certain adults should receive Medicaid benefits.

Problems aren’t unique to the Great Lakes State. Medicaid beneficiaries who brought a against Tennessee in 2020 said the state’s Deloitte-built system “does not reliably test for eligibility” for several categories of people with disabilities. The firm’s is worth $1.12 billion over a decade.

A federal judge in 2024 , ruling that Tennessee violated federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit does not name Deloitte as a defendant.

In Michigan, a from the state’s Office of the Auditor General said government agencies “did not provide effective project administration” and failed to ensure that the state could “independently maintain and operate Bridges” because “the contractor did not transfer knowledge and skills” to state officials, according to the audit.

The auditor’s report said that, as a result, Deloitte’s original contract — valued at roughly $70 million — ballooned by $50 million over the initial cost, a 71% increase. State records show Michigan would go on to add millions more, bumping the cost of Deloitte’s initial contract to $124.1 million.

The audit said maintaining the contract would result “in significant additional costs.”

Sutfin said that “the state is now fully capable of operating and maintaining Bridges independently.”

Deloitte’s in Michigan — worth $197.4 million — is set to expire in 2030.

Noon applied for Medicaid in August, she and Kolosova said. In September, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services sent a notice denying her coverage, citing incorrect income information and stating she wasn’t disabled, according to Kolosova and state documents reviewed by �Թϲ��.

Noon said that when she called the state for help, state workers “didn’t know anything about” the Medicaid program she had applied to, Freedom to Work.

“I can’t tell you how many times I just wanted to give up,” she said.

For some people with disabilities, Medicaid is supposed to count only half their earnings when assessing whether they should receive benefits. That didn’t happen. Kolosova said she thinks Michigan’s eligibility system didn’t identify Noon as disabled, even though the state “already had all the information they needed” to show she was.

By failing to recognize her disability, the state used the wrong income formula and said Noon earned too much to qualify for Medicaid, she added. Deloitte and Michigan declined to respond to a detailed list of questions about Noon’s experience.

Kolosova said Disability Rights Michigan has seen a growing number of calls from people about Freedom to Work benefit denials. “Maybe two or three a month,” she said.

“There’s something wrong with the system if they’re relying on individual caseworkers to catch this,” Kolosova said. “The system needs to work.”

Noon at home with her dog, Ziggy. Despite being eligible for Medicaid, she was denied coverage in 2025 because of an error with the state’s benefits system. It took months of pushback before the state reversed its mistake. Even as a “tech-savvy” former bank manager, she says, she wanted to give up several times along the way. (Kate Wells/�Թϲ��)

Enrolled in the Wrong Coverage

Noon’s experience isn’t the first time in recent years that people with disabilities have been denied benefits by Deloitte-run eligibility systems.

In Texas in 2023, Lilly Livingston, who has Down syndrome and is now 22, was abruptly cut off from Medicaid benefits, according to Livingston’s mother, Marie. She has undergone numerous surgeries to reconstruct her severely misaligned jaw, which caused sleep apnea and impaired her speech and chewing ability. She relied on an array of Medicaid services, including speech and occupational therapy.

When Livingston lost benefits, she was wrongly enrolled in Healthy Texas Women, a limited program that provides breast and cervical cancer screenings and family planning services.

“Trying to fix that was a nightmare,” Marie Livingston said.

Terry Anstee, an attorney with Disability Rights Texas, intervened.

In a September 2023 email with the subject line “URGENT,” Anstee begged a Texas Medicaid eligibility worker for help.

Some unknown “error” had occurred and stripped Livingston of her benefits, Anstee said in an email he sent to a state Medicaid staffer. “Lilly has had 2 major surgeries, and her recovery is contingent on Medicaid.”

It was clear that Livingston qualified for Medicaid through multiple paths, Anstee said: “It never made any sense.”

Deloitte declined to respond to a detailed list of questions about Livingston’s case. Jennifer Ruffcorn, a spokesperson for Texas Health and Human Services, confirmed that Livingston was erroneously enrolled in Healthy Texas Women. However, Ruffcorn said, Livingston did not experience a lapse in Medicaid coverage in 2023.

Anstee disputed the state’s characterization: “A glance in the system by a Texas HHS press officer or other staff 3 years after the fact may not tell the full story or show the issues that Ms. Livingston endured in August and September 2023. Ms. Livingston experienced lapses in coverage.”

The problem Livingston encountered in Texas was also reported in Michigan.

In 2024, mental health services advocates in Michigan raised red flags about a similar error: People with disabilities were being enrolled in a limited Medicaid program covering sexual health and family planning services. Plan First covers only services and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. It doesn’t provide the comprehensive coverage that people with disabilities require.

But some enrollees were “being automatically enrolled in Plan First,” Malcolm Kletke, a lobbyist representing the Community Mental Health Association of Michigan and other mental health providers, wrote to a Michigan health official, according to emails obtained by �Թϲ�� through a public records request.

These enrollees had “long received Medicaid due to their disability,” and getting enrolled in the wrong plan meant losing access to “services essential to their recovery and quality of life,” Kletke wrote in September 2024 to Amy Epkey, a senior deputy director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

In fact, the state’s own records show that Medicaid enrollment for those with disabilities did decline.

Over roughly four years, enrollment in the Medicaid category that includes people with disabilities , according to the Michigan House Fiscal Agency, which provides nonpartisan analysis to lawmakers. The drop was unusual given people generally leave the program because of death or having recovered from a temporary disability, and it’s unlikely those numbers would balloon, said Robert Sheehan, who was the mental health association’s CEO at the time.

Sutfin said the state examined the decline in enrollment and found “several contributing factors, including post‑covid renewal patterns, changes in beneficiary circumstances and movement to other coverage categories.”

After inquiries from �Թϲ��, the Michigan health department acknowledged in April that it had made changes to “address concerns raised by advocates.”

Michigan’s computer system now prevents approval of Plan First benefits until all other coverage options are evaluated, Sutfin told �Թϲ��. Sutfin said the changes were implemented but “not to correct system errors.”

Sutfin said the state submitted a change request to Deloitte to address this problem. The fix was implemented in January 2025.

Until presented with Kletke’s email, the state had denied there were problems related to Plan First.

Even after the state addressed that issue, other problems persisted.

Noon’s coverage denial notice arrived in September. She fought with the state for months to reverse its decision, “paying cash for all of the medicines through these appeals over and over and over again.”

It was only in January that she was approved.

“I literally cried,” Noon said. “It was a really big deal.”

�Թϲ�� 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 �Թϲ�� and is republished here under a .

Doctors ‘Cringe’ at Possibility of Documenting Which Medicaid Enrollees Too Sick To Work

Sam Whitehead — Mon, 20 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Alice Thornton has spent more than two decades treating people living with HIV in Lexington, Kentucky.

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 — mainly adults without dependents — 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, ‘Is 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 �Թϲ��.

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 — such as medical claims and payment data — 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 — 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 — 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 — 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 — including medical professionals — 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 �Թϲ�� and is republished here under a .

States Start Their Medicaid Cuts

Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:40:00 +0000

The Host

When Republicans passed their big budget bill in 2025, they scheduled many of the Medicaid reductions to take effect in 2027, after the 2026 midterm elections. But in anticipation of getting less money from Washington come January, many states are already cutting their Medicaid programs, making the issue more relevant for voters in November.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of �Թϲ��, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law.

Panelists

Anna Edney Bloomberg News

Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico

Sandhya Raman Bloomberg Law

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

Congress has no clear path to passing its annual spending bills, with the issue of Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood again threatening to gum up the works. Meanwhile, senators this week screened President Donald Trump’s newest health nominees: Erica Schwartz to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Sean Kaufman to lead the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response. But Schwartz undermined some senators’ confidence by claiming ignorance about a number of Trump administration funding cuts, and Kaufman faced fiery questions over a deleted social media post about the hepatitis B vaccine.
The confirmation hearing for Todd Blanche as attorney general also trod into health territory, with Blanche saying he would review potentially using the 19th-century Comstock Act to block distribution of medication abortion drugs by mail. Such a move could block not only mifepristone but also misoprostol, which is the second abortion medication in the two-drug regimen — and is also used for non-abortion purposes. Trump promised on the campaign trail not to invoke the Comstock Act.
In politics, Maine Democrats are cautiously eying the abortion stances of a replacement Senate candidate, hoping to pin the rollback of abortion rights on Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican incumbent. And Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is calling for an investigation into whether Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. violated a federal law aimed at preventing electioneering by officials when he made recent calls to persuade some candidates to drop out of congressional races.
And the gastrointestinal infection cyclosporiasis is sickening more Americans and drawing attention to the Trump administration’s actions undermining food safety surveillance programs. The cyclospora parasite was once subject to mandatory reporting but has since been made voluntary, challenging efforts to track the source and contain the outbreak.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Elizabeth Mitchell of the Purchaser Business Group on Health as part of the “How Would You Fix It?” series.

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

Julie Rovner: Mississippi Today’s “,” by Sophia Paffenroth and Joanne Kenen.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “,” by Anna Edney.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “,” by Amanda Chu and Robert King.

Sandhya Raman: Bloomberg Law’s “,” by Nyah Phengsitthy and Skye Witley.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

Stat’s “,” by O. Rose Broderick.
NPR’s “,” by Selina Simmons-Duffin.
Stat’s “” by Anil Oza and J. Emory Parker.
Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Click to open the transcript Transcript: States Start Their Medicaid Cuts

A Sales Tax on Doctor Visits and Medicine? In Missouri, Some Worry

Bram Sable-Smith — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000

ST. LOUIS — Missouri healthcare advocate Leslie Ortbals and her husband want to start a family, but she worries they can’t afford it. The 27-year-old said she takes 10 medications daily to manage multiple chronic illnesses.

Now she worries the cost of those drugs could rise — not because of price increases, but because of a tax system revamp put on the ballot by the state’s Republican-dominated legislature and backed by the Republican governor.

Prescription drugs and doctor visits are currently exempt from taxes in the state. But in August, Missouri voters will weigh in on a proposed constitutional amendment to give the legislature the power to replace the state’s income tax with expanded sales taxes, including on goods and services currently exempt.

“Politicians want Missourians to trust them when they say not to worry about our medications and healthcare being up for grabs,” Ortbals said at a June press event organized by Progress MO, a progressive advocacy group.

“I have spent enough time in Jefferson City to know better,” said Ortbals, who works for a Democratic state legislator but was speaking in her personal capacity. “I have watched them speak about protecting life while making lifesaving healthcare less accessible.”

Taxes on healthcare are unusual in the United States but not unprecedented. Most states over-the-counter drugs. Illinois, Missouri’s neighbor, prescription drugs. Delaware, Hawai‘i, New Mexico, and Washington all on services by physicians, dentists, out-of-hospital nursing providers, and medical laboratories.

Critics of the amendment to eliminate income tax in Missouri say it’d be difficult to make up the lost revenue without also imposing taxes on healthcare. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s general revenue budget comes from income taxes, about $8.7 billion in 2026. Failing to make up that revenue could lead to steep cuts in state services.

The proposed tax cut comes at an already precarious time for the state budget. Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe in spending in this year’s budget over concerns of lagging revenues. The state legislature has passed a since 2022, including . Federal covid aid has propped up the budget in recent years, but the that the surplus is dwindling. And the state is projected to in federal Medicaid funding over 10 years due to cuts from President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Proponents of the Missouri income tax proposal, such as of the Show-Me Institute, a conservative think tank, say the cut would in the state, both of which have been flat in recent years. He doubts healthcare would be among the things subject to sales tax. But even if it were, he said, it could be done in ways that wouldn’t target lower-income residents. New Jersey, for example, (excluding reconstructive surgeries), which tend to be performed on wealthier people.

In a statement to �Թϲ��, Kehoe spokesperson Gabby Picard said the governor “will never support extending sales taxes on agriculture, healthcare, or real estate,” noting that the legislature would have to decide what to exempt if the ballot measure passes.

Federal law already prohibits states from imposing taxes on many healthcare services covered by government programs such as Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors, and Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, Picard wrote. More than were insured through those two programs in 2024.

But Jay Hardenbrook, advocacy director for AARP Missouri, argued that raising taxes on healthcare, real estate, and agriculture is the for the amendment, considering the legislature doesn’t need special permission to cut income taxes. He cautioned that because the amendment opens the door to new taxes on anything, it could unleash a “weird feeding frenzy” with special-interest groups lobbying for exemptions.

“Let’s say we do protect prescription drugs from a tax increase; does that mean that the cost of food goes up?” Hardenbrook said.

And if the Missouri measure passes and the legislature exempts healthcare and real estate from new taxes, Hardenbrook worries about cuts to state-funded services like home and community-based care.

“When I talk about taxes going up, and the price of every good and services going up, that’s the best-case scenario,” Hardenbrook said. “The worst-case scenario is that the income tax just goes away, and we just don’t have the money to do the things that we need to do.”

have no income tax, and Washington taxes only capital gains, but of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank, said the way Missouri is going about its elimination is nearly unprecedented. Only Alaska has repealed a broad-based personal income tax that had previously accounted for a significant portion of the state budget, Davis said.

“The situation in Alaska was they struck oil, and they had this gusher of economic activity and tax revenue that resulted from that,” Davis said. “Missouri has not struck oil.”

A 2012 tax cut in Kansas that reduced income taxes for individuals and eliminated them for some types of businesses created a large budget hole, prompting lawmakers there to the cuts five years later.

Tsapelas of the Show-Me Institute said Missouri’s income tax elimination wouldn’t happen overnight but would instead be more akin to in the state: phased in and tied to revenue targets that would shield the state from massive budget gaps.

“It’s not as doom and gloom as some people are worried about,” Tsapelas said.

But Ortbals, the healthcare advocate, said too many Missourians are already delaying medical care because of costs.

“I want a Missouri where young people can afford to stay, where families can afford to grow, where chronic illness does not become financial ruin,” Ortbals said.

This article first appeared on �Թϲ�� and is republished here under a .

Facing Funding Losses, States Call Out Big Businesses With Employees on Medicaid

Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000

As the Trump administration’s January deadline looms for states to enforce new Medicaid work requirements, some state lawmakers are turning the tables by pushing to publicly name the largest companies that have employees enrolled in the government program covering low-income and disabled people.

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 — 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 — 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 �Թϲ�� and is republished here under a .

As GOP Cries Fraud, Newsom Backs Medicaid Spending on Housing and Food

Angela Hart — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana is taking aim at California’s Medicaid program for providing housing assistance, food, and other social services to high-need, low-income patients who tend to rack up big healthcare costs and, he argued, strain taxpayer funds.

The Republican blasted California during back-to-back political attacks in May, saying the heavily Democratic state is committing “outrageous fraud” and “stealing” by spending state and federal Medicaid money meant for basic medical treatment on unconventional services such as housing and nutrition assistance, gym memberships, and even tribal prayers and, he claimed, exorcisms.

“The California Medicaid program will pay for herbal medicines, meal deliveries. They’ll pay for housing,” Kennedy said. “I don’t know what housing has to do with healthcare.”

“California, they’re just setting all kind of records,” he added. “They’re wild people.”

Despite criticism from congressional Republicans and growing scrutiny from the Trump administration, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat considering a presidential run, said he’s proud of California’s spending on social services in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. It’s a multibillion-dollar experiment to help medically frail patients meet their housing, food, and other social needs that Newsom says is not only legal but also a more cost-effective and evidence-backed approach to providing healthcare for Californians with complex health conditions. He counters that investing in services outside clinical settings can help people avoid emergency rooms and hospital admissions, improve their long-term health, and ultimately save taxpayers money.

“It’s about whole-person care,” Newsom said, adding that he hopes President Donald Trump’s administration sees California’s leadership and agrees with the “reforms we’re advancing as national best practices.”

Now one of the governor’s marquee health initiatives is at the center of an intensifying partisan battle with Republicans in Washington, D.C., who have moved to rein in billions in healthcare spending on low-income and disabled people across red and blue states. It’s a philosophical divide: Conservatives say social services are a financial strain on Medicaid and shouldn’t be considered healthcare, while liberals argue that investing in prevention ultimately saves money. While experiments proliferated across the country under President Joe Biden, the Trump administration federal policy encouraging state Medicaid programs to address health-related social needs.

The Medicaid fight is putting patients in limbo.

Lucy Rodriguez teaches Mexican folk dancing in the town of Hollister, in California’s Central Coast region. She said her life turned around this year once an intensive case manager with Titanium Healthcare, which contracts with health insurers to provide services, began helping her manage her chronic diseases and stay on top of her medical appointments and prescriptions, even picking up free food boxes for her. The 73-year-old is on Medicare and Medi-Cal, which offers more extensive benefits. The low-income health program has helped pay her utility bills, and she was recently approved for home-delivered meals.

“This has been a godsend,” said Rodriguez, who has diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney disease. “I was getting so stressed out and depressed. It’s really hard when you’re on a fixed income. Groceries are so expensive, and with summer, electricity gets even more expensive. But this is really improving my life.”

She worries the Trump administration will cut benefits to low-income older people.

Lucy Rodriguez, an enrollee in California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, has benefited from social services the program covers, including a care manager who helps her manage her diabetes and kidney disease. (Angela Hart/�Թϲ��)

Last year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services warned states that federal funding for social services would be determined on a . CMS spokesperson Christopher Krepich said the agency is not ending current agreements, known as waivers, that grant states temporary permission to provide social services, which are paid for with state and federal dollars. But future applications, for new services or to extend existing initiatives, could be at risk if they veer too far from traditional healthcare.

“Moving forward, CMS will work with states on innovative waivers that address core healthcare needs, as consistent with evidence-based approaches tied to clinical diagnoses and services, to the goal of ultimately improving health outcomes in the Medicaid population,” Krepich said in a statement.

In a further escalation, the Justice Department put out a allowing states to institutionalize people with disabilities and severe mental illness instead of providing community-based care. Republicans have also targeted states, mostly blue ones, for what they say is a failure to go after waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid. In May, CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz stood alongside JD Vance as the vice president announced the deferral of in Medicaid money to California over suspicions of fraud.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Republicans are simply trying to score political points while ignoring the healthcare needs of poor people. “The federal government wants to politicize fraud,” Bonta said, “and use it, unfortunately, as a bludgeon and a cajole to beat up on blue states.”

Social Healthcare

Health policy researchers say roughly are linked to socioeconomic, environmental, and behavioral factors, such as housing instability, homelessness, food insecurity, and exposure to violence, whereas 20% is associated with medical care delivered in hospitals and clinics. That evidence to tackle social services.

At least 24 states use their own money while drawing federal Medicaid funds for . Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Pennsylvania are among those that provide housing and nutrition assistance.

As the Trump administration pulls back on social services, states are rethinking how to fund benefits that have improved preventive care for low-income people. Some have launched new benefits under what’s known as a state plan amendment, a mechanism states use to modify their Medicaid programs that doesn’t need federal waiver approval. and , for example, use this to add recuperative care for homeless patients after hospitalization. These short-term care facilities offer people the opportunity to recover, bridging the gap between hospital discharge and independent living.

This approach “has the advantage of establishing a permanent, statewide benefit that does not require ongoing federal renewals, offering greater stability and predictability,” said Lynn Sutfin, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

Other states, meanwhile, rely on federal waivers, which require renewal to provide social services. Arizona officials said the state intends to submit a request by the end of September to continue to provide housing and other services to homeless patients, or those at risk of homelessness, with a serious mental illness and a chronic health condition or recent incarceration.

“When members have access to stable housing and supportive services, they are more likely to engage in ongoing care and less likely to experience avoidable emergency department visits and inpatient admissions,” said Roberta Harrison, interim director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.

California, which has been the most aggressive state in adopting social services, has taken a two-pronged approach to keep its vast offerings funded past this year. The state is using its authority to make most of its existing social services and benefits permanent in Medi-Cal managed-care coverage. That regulatory maneuver bypasses federal waiver approval — a move that could attract further Republican scrutiny.

But not everything the state offers can be funded without permission from the federal government. As some services are made permanent, the Newsom administration is seeking new waivers to continue other social services, while also adding more.

It’s an ambitious approach that would expand California’s social healthcare experiment. Newsom said he’s worried that the federal government will decline the . “How could you not be with this administration?” he said. “I’m always concerned.”

Rodriguez tests her blood sugar to help manage her diabetes. Conservatives say that spending healthcare funds on nontraditional services such as housing and nutrition assistance is inappropriate, but liberals say it saves money in the long run. (Angela Hart/�Թϲ��)

Through Medi-Cal, Rodriguez has received help managing medical appointments after arm surgery. State officials say social healthcare provides a more cost-effective approach for people with complex health conditions. (Angela Hart/�Թϲ��)

New Front in Healthcare

California offers most of its health-related social services under within Medi-Cal, which has a proposed budget of . Although there are more than 14 million residents on Medi-Cal, the state has been selective about who gets help from in its program, called California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal, or . Patients with complex needs can also receive help navigating their health and social needs from specialized social workers under a benefit known as .

Since 2022, California has been offering social services, spending nearly $12 billion in joint state and federal money, long-term Medi-Cal spending by keeping enrollees out of costly institutions including emergency rooms, jails, nursing homes, and mental health crisis centers.

CalAIM had provided social services to more than patients as of September 2025, the most recent state data available. And nearly low-income Californians have received intensive . Some patients receive both services.

Among the services California is making permanent: Homeless patients can get help finding an apartment, with Medi-Cal paying rental and six months of rent. Patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease are eligible for home-delivered meals. Asthmatic patients can get mold removed from their homes to control flare-ups. Low-income seniors with disabilities can get a wheelchair ramp installed free of charge. And inmates leaving jail or prison can be connected immediately with primary care, mental health, and substance use treatment.

The social services — especially housing, food assistance, and home modifications — are success in stabilizing the health of the most complex patients, while achieving savings for Medi-Cal through reductions in emergency room visits and hospitalizations and less reliance on institutional care such as nursing homes, the state Department of Health Care Services.

In the Central Valley, for instance, Health Plan of San Joaquin CEO Lizeth Granados said CalAIM has helped place homeless patients who were routinely hospitalized into housing. And patients with uncontrolled diabetes saw their blood sugar drop after receiving nutrition counseling and home-delivered meals.

Overall, Granados said, the health plan has seen major improvements in chronic disease management and reductions in hospital stays, dropping to 44 inpatient hospitalizations per 1,000 members since it launched in 2022, down from 61 per 1,000 before CalAIM.

In Orange County, officials with CalOptima Health credited CalAIM housing services for contributing to a nearly . “We’ve been able to expand our street medicine programs, too,” said Yunkyung Kim, the insurer’s chief operating officer.

Around the state, Medi-Cal health insurers said they’re optimistic that CalAIM will continue to save money and improve patient health. Yet, the fate of some services will be decided by the Trump administration.

California has asked CMS to continue enrolling jail and prison inmates in Medi-Cal 90 days before their release to maintain consistent treatment for substance use, mental disorders, or physical conditions, a .

The state has also proposed a new job assistance benefit that counties could opt into to help patients find and retain work in response to upcoming federal work requirements imposed by congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by Trump last summer.

And the state wants to continue its array of traditional healers and natural helpers for Californians with tribal affiliations, including music therapy, dancing, drumming, and referrals to sweat lodges for mental health treatment and substance use recovery. While it covers spiritual services, such as ceremonies, rituals, and herbal remedies, state officials said Medi-Cal does not cover exorcisms.

Already, the Trump administration’s positioning has forced the state to eliminate room-and-board benefits, which is threatening local efforts to provide recovery beds.

The state is cutting short-term post-hospitalization housing, which was meant to prevent hospitals from or those at risk of homelessness onto the streets. The CalAIM service providing up to six months of temporary housing and ongoing care is ending at the close of this year. And the state is cutting recuperative care benefits, no longer paying for beds for patients to recover from illness or injury, instead offering only wraparound services.

In San Francisco, these beds have been crucial in reducing overdose deaths, helping transition homeless people off the streets and into housing, and reducing hospital bed usage, said Neal Sheran, a medical director with the city’s Department of Public Health. The city’s health plan operates a sobering center, and recuperative care facilities where patients can recover from hospitalizations.

“We’re concerned,” Sheran said. “Funding for the overnight piece of these programs is really crucial to their success.”

Cuts on the Horizon

Even without federal threats, state budget pressures have strained CalAIM financing. Newsom has proposed for social services by $68.3 million this fiscal year. The cut will deepen next year and remain at $150.2 million per year beginning in 2028.

Providers worry that Medi-Cal patients will lose access. And services, such as home-delivered meals and housing assistance, will be further restricted.

“It’s moving us back to the old days where our healthcare system is more expensive and reactive, instead of investing in prevention,” said Anwar Zoueihid, a vice president and the chief strategy officer at the Los Angeles-based Partners in Care Foundation, a CalAIM provider. “It’s contradictory to Make America Healthy Again.”

To save money, the state is tightening eligibility to limit services and . For instance, Medi-Cal patients with food insecurity would no longer be eligible for home-delivered healthy meals without a qualifying condition like diabetes. And a homeless patient would get capped at six months for help finding an apartment.

Some of the biggest providers of CalAIM say services should be continuously evaluated and curtailed if health plans were too permissive. In some cases, food and housing services were given to low-income patients who didn’t necessarily qualify as the highest-need.

“It’s important everybody takes a look with a very sober view at whether we’re truly benefiting people so we’re spending money in the right places,” said Charlie Robinson, the chief health equity officer at L.A. Care, one of the state’s largest Medi-Cal health insurers.

Dorothy Seleski, the Medi-Cal president for Health Net, said the health insurer isn’t deterred by state and federal cuts.

“Regardless of what happens at the federal level, we are committed,” she said. “This is a significant transformation of the healthcare system, and we are already seeing major reductions in avoidable emergency room trips, avoidable hospital admissions, and we’ve closed gaps in preventive care.”

This article first appeared on �Թϲ�� and is republished here under a .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Requirements, Additional Hurdles

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

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

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

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

Immigration Anxieties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronic Illness

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

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

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

A Loss for Families and Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on �Թϲ�� and is republished here under a .

My �Թϲ�� for a Psychiatric Bed in an Overburdened Health System

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Oona Zenda/�Թϲ��)

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

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

A Fractured System

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

She died by suicide after we had separated.

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

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

(Oona Zenda/�Թϲ��)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Oona Zenda/�Թϲ��)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Oona Zenda/�Թϲ��)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on �Թϲ�� and is republished here under a .

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

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

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

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

Both frame the choice as an economic one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on �Թϲ�� and is republished here under a .

Medicaid Archives - �Թϲ�����

A Shrinking Safety Net

Panelists

A Deloitte-Run System Denied Medicaid Benefits for Michigan’s Disabled. Now Trump’s Law Piles On.

Doctors ‘Cringe’ at Possibility of Documenting Which Medicaid Enrollees Too Sick To Work

States Start Their Medicaid Cuts

Panelists

A Sales Tax on Doctor Visits and Medicine? In Missouri, Some Worry

Facing Funding Losses, States Call Out Big Businesses With Employees on Medicaid

As GOP Cries Fraud, Newsom Backs Medicaid Spending on Housing and Food

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

My �Թϲ����� for a Psychiatric Bed in an Overburdened Health System

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

Medicaid Archives - �Թϲ��

My �Թϲ�� for a Psychiatric Bed in an Overburdened Health System