• Click here to hear Wells on Apple News Today.
• Read Wells’ “Urgent Care Clinics Move To Fill Abortion Care Gaps in Rural Areas.”

KFF Health News Montana correspondent Katheryn Houghton discussed doula Medicaid reimbursements on Montana Public Radio on April 9.

• Click here to hear Houghton on Montana Public Radio.
• Read Houghton’s “This Northern Cheyenne Doula Was About To Start Getting Paid — Then Medicaid Cuts Hit.”

KFF Health News contributor Michelle Andrews discussed farm bureau health plans on The Yonder Report on April 8.

• Click here to hear Andrews on The Yonder Report.
• Read Andrews’ “Farm Bureau Health Plans Beat the ACA on Prices With an Age-Old Tactic: Rejecting Sick People.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Vince Lahey of Carefree, Arizona, embraces chatbots. From Big Tech products to “shady” ones, they offer “someone that I could share more secrets with than my therapist.”

He especially likes the apps for feedback and support, even though sometimes they berate him or lead him to fight with his ex-wife. “I feel more inclined to share more,” Lahey said. “I don’t care about their perception of me.”

There are a lot of people like Lahey.

Demand for mental health care has grown. Self-reported poor mental health days rose by 25% since the 1990s, found one study analyzing survey data. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide rates in 2022 matched a 2018 high that hadn’t been seen in nearly 80 years.

There are many patients who find a nonhuman therapist, powered by artificial intelligence, highly appealing — more appealing than a human with a reclining couch and stern manner. Social media is replete with videos begging for a therapist who’s “not on the clock,” who’s less judgmental, or who’s just less expensive.

Most people who need care don’t get it, said Tom Insel, former head of the National Institute of Mental Health, citing his former agency’s research. Of those who do, 40% receive “minimally acceptable care.”

“There’s a massive need for high-quality therapy,” he said. “We’re in a world in which the status quo is really crappy, to use a scientific term.”

Insel said engineers from OpenAI told him last fall that about 5% to 10% of the company’s then-roughly 800 million-strong user base rely on ChatGPT for mental health support.

Polling suggests these AI chatbots may be even more popular among young adults. A KFF poll found about 3 in 10 respondents ages 18 to 29 turned to AI chatbots for mental or emotional health advice in the past year. Uninsured adults were about twice as likely as insured adults to report using AI tools. And nearly 60% of adult respondents who used a chatbot for mental health didn’t follow up with a flesh-and-blood professional.

The App Will Put You on the Couch

A burgeoning industry of apps offers AI therapists with human-like, often unrealistically attractive avatars serving as a sounding board for those experiencing anxiety, depression, and other conditions.

KFF Health News identified some 45 AI therapy apps in Apple’s App Store in March. While many charge steep prices for their services — one listed an annual plan for $690 — they’re still generally cheaper than talk therapy, which can cost hundreds of dollars an hour without insurance coverage.

On the App Store, “therapy” is often used as a marketing term, with small print noting the apps cannot diagnose or treat disease. One app, branded as OhSofia! AI Therapy Chat, had downloads in the six figures, said OhSofia! founder Anton Ilin in December.

“People are looking for therapy,” Ilin said. On one hand, the product’s name promises “therapy chat”; on the other, it warns in its privacy policy that it “does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or crisis intervention and is not a substitute for professional healthcare services.” Executives don’t think that’s confusing, since there are disclaimers in the app.

The apps promise big results without backup. One promises its users “immediate help during panic attacks.” Another claims it was “proven effective by researchers” and that it offers 2.3 times faster relief for anxiety and stress. (It doesn’t say what it’s faster than.)

There are few legislative or regulatory guardrails around how developers refer to their products — or even whether the products are safe or effective, said Vaile Wright, senior director of the office of health care innovation at the American Psychological Association. Even federal patient privacy protections don’t apply, she said.

“Therapy is not a legally protected term,” Wright said. “So, basically, anybody can say that they give therapy.”

Many of the apps “overrepresent themselves,” said John Torous, a psychiatrist and clinical informaticist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “Deceiving people that they have received treatment when they really have not has many negative consequences,” including delaying actual care, he said.

States such as Nevada, Illinois, and California are trying to sort out the regulatory disarray, enacting laws forbidding apps from describing their chatbots as AI therapists.

“It’s a profession. People go to school. They get licensed to do it,” said Jovan Jackson, a Nevada legislator, who co-authored an enacted bill banning apps from referring to themselves as mental health professionals.

Underlying the hype, outside researchers and company representatives themselves have told the FDA and Congress that there’s little evidence supporting the efficacy of these products. What studies there are give contradictory answers — and some research suggests companion-focused chatbots are “consistently poor” at managing crises.

“When it comes to chatbots, we don’t have any good evidence it works,” said Charlotte Blease, a professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University who specializes in trial design for digital health products.

The lack of “good quality” clinical trials stems from the FDA’s failure to provide recommendations about how to test the products, she said. “FDA is offering no rigorous advice on what the standards should be.”

Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said, in response, that “patient safety is the FDA’s highest priority” and that AI-based products are subject to agency regulations requiring the demonstration of “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness before they can be marketed in the U.S.”

The Silver-Tongued Apps

Preston Roche, a psychiatry resident who’s active on social media, gets lots of questions about whether AI is a good therapist. After trying ChatGPT himself, he said he was “impressed” initially that it was able to use cognitive behavioral therapy techniques to help him put negative thoughts “on trial.”

But Roche said after seeing posts on social media discussing people developing psychosis or being encouraged to make harmful decisions, he became disillusioned. The bots, he concluded, are sycophantic.

“When I look globally at the responsibilities of a therapist, it just completely fell on its face,” he said.

This sycophancy — the tendency of apps based on large language models to empathize, flatter, or delude their human conversation partner — is inherent to the app design, experts in digital health say.

“The models were developed to answer a question or prompt that you ask and to give you what you’re looking for,” said Insel, the former NIMH director, “and they’re really good at basically affirming what you feel and providing psychological support, like a good friend.”

That’s not what a good therapist does, though. “The point of psychotherapy is mostly to make you address the things that you have been avoiding,” he said.

While polling suggests many users are satisfied with what they’re getting out of ChatGPT and other apps, there have been high-profile reports about the service providing advice or encouragement to self-harm.

And at least one dozen lawsuits alleging wrongful death or serious harm have been filed against OpenAI after ChatGPT users died by suicide or became hospitalized. In most of those cases, the plaintiffs allege they began using the apps for one purpose — like schoolwork — before confiding in them. These cases are being consolidated into a class-action lawsuit.

Google and the startup Character.ai — which has been funded by Google and has created “avatars” that adopt specific personas, like athletes, celebrities, study buddies, or therapists — are settling other wrongful-death lawsuits, according to media reports.

OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, has said up to 1,500 people a week may talk about suicide on ChatGPT.

“We have seen a problem where people that are in fragile psychiatric situations using a model like 4o can get into a worse one,” Altman said in a public question-and-answer session reported by The Wall Street Journal, referring to a particular model of ChatGPT introduced in 2024. “I don’t think this is the last time we’ll face challenges like this with a model.”

An OpenAI spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

The company has said it works with mental health experts on safeguards, such as referring users to 988, the national suicide hotline. However, the lawsuits against OpenAI argue existing safeguards aren’t good enough, and some research shows the problems are worsening over time. OpenAI has published its own data suggesting the opposite.

OpenAI is defending itself in court, offering, early in one case, a variety of defenses ranging from denying that its product caused self-harm to alleging that the defendant misused the product by inducing it to discuss suicide. It has also said it’s working to improve its safety features.

Smaller apps also rely on OpenAI or other AI models to power their products, executives told KFF Health News. In interviews, startup founders and other experts said they worry that if a company simply imports those models into its own service, it might duplicate whatever safety flaws exist in the original product.

Data Risks

KFF Health News’ review of the App Store found listed age protections are minimal: Fifteen of the nearly four dozen apps say they could be downloaded by 4-year-old users; an additional 11 say they could be downloaded by those 12 and up.

Privacy standards are opaque. On the App Store, several apps are described as neither tracking personally identifiable data nor sharing it with advertisers — but on their company websites, privacy policies contained contrary descriptions, discussing the use of such data and their disclosure of information to advertisers, like AdMob.

In response to a request for comment, Apple spokesperson Adam Dema sent links to the company’s App Store policies, which bar apps from using health data for advertising and require them to display information about how they use data in general. Dema did not respond to a request for further comment about how Apple enforces these policies.

Researchers and policy advocates said that sharing psychiatric data with social media firms means patients could be profiled. They could be targeted by dodgy treatment firms or charged different prices for goods based on their health.

KFF Health News contacted several app makers about these discrepancies; two that responded said their privacy policies had been put together in error and pledged to change them to reflect their stances against advertising. (A third, the team at OhSofia!, said simply that they don’t do advertising, though their app’s privacy policy notes users “may opt out of marketing communications.”)

One executive told KFF Health News there’s business pressure to maintain access to the data.

“My general feeling is a subscription model is much, much better than any sort of advertising,” said Tim Rubin, the founder of Wellness AI, adding that he’d change the description in his app’s privacy policy.

One investor advised him not to swear off advertising, he said. “They’re like, essentially, that’s the most valuable thing about having an app like this, that data.”

“I think we’re still at the beginning of what’s going to be a revolution in how people seek psychological support and, even in some cases, therapy,” Insel said. “And my concern is that there’s just no framework for any of this.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Para reducir costos, muchos cambiaron a planes de salud con deducibles altos. Estos planes ofrecen pagos mensuales más bajos, pero los pacientes pueden enfrentar gastos altos de su propio bolsillo cuando necesitan atención médica.

Estos planes son bastante comunes. En 2023, el 30% de las personas que obtenían seguro a través de su empleador tenían un plan con deducible alto, frente a solo el 4% en 2006.

Madison Burgess, una maestra de escuela primaria de San Diego, tiene seguro de salud a través de su trabajo. Pero cuando evaluó agregar a su esposo a su plan, resultó demasiado costoso, así que empezó a buscar en el mercado una opción más económica para él.

Cuanto más revisaba las opciones de planes, más abrumador le parecía. La jerga de los seguros hacía difícil entender cuánto tendría que pagar su familia si su esposo se enfermaba. (La prima es el pago mensual de tu póliza y el deducible es lo que debes pagar de tu bolsillo antes que la aseguradora comience a pagar. Generalmente los planes con primas bajas tienen deducibles altos, y viceversa).

“No sabía qué era un deducible, así que elegí lo que era barato, y ahora me arrepiento”, dijo.

A cambio de esa prima mensual más baja, la cobertura de su esposo no comenzará a pagar la mayoría de los servicios hasta que hayan gastado $5.800 en facturas médicas. Burgess no sabía que debía cumplir con el deducible antes de que el seguro cubriera parte de los gastos.

¿Cómo prepararse para pagar miles de dólares por adelantado?

Una opción es una cuenta de ahorros para la salud (HSA, por sus siglas en inglés), que permite ahorrar dinero antes de impuestos y ahora está disponible para personas inscritas en planes de menor nivel en los mercados estatales y federales, incluidos los planes bronce y de cobertura catastrófica. Estos planes suelen tener las primas más bajas en el mercado, pero los costos más altos del propio bolsillo cuando se necesita atención.

Burgess eligió un plan Bronce y no sabía que las HSA eran una opción.

“Nunca había pensado en tener que ahorrar dinero para un deducible”, dijo.

Burgess y otras personas suelen estar más preocupadas por ahorrar para gastos inesperados como reparaciones del auto, de la casa o del veterinario.

Si, como Burgess, elegiste una cobertura de salud más económica para este año y luego te diste cuenta de que debes cubrir un deducible alto, estos consejos pueden ayudar a prepararte.

1. Podrías calificar para una HSA y no saberlo.Si estás inscrito en un plan Bronce o en uno catastrófico, calificas para abrir una cuenta de ahorros para la salud. Es como una alcancía médica con beneficios fiscales. Depositas dinero antes de impuestos, lo que reduce tu ingreso gravable. El dinero crece libre de impuestos y, cuando lo usas para gastos médicos calificados, esas transacciones también están libres de impuestos. A esto se le llama una “triple ventaja fiscal”.

Estas cuentas crean un fondo para futuros gastos de salud, como visitas al doctor, medicamentos recetados e incluso productos como medicinas sin receta, tampones y protector solar.

Por lo general, el dinero no puede usarse para pagar primas mensuales, pero la cuenta es tuya y puedes usarla para gastos médicos calificados para tí, tu cónyuge o tus dependientes en cualquier momento en el futuro. El dinero sigue siendo tuyo, incluso si cambias de trabajo o de plan de salud.

Una HSA no es lo mismo que una cuenta de gastos flexibles (FSA por sus siglas en inglés). Las FSA también tienen beneficios fiscales, pero solo se ofrecen a través de empleadores. El dinero vence cada año y pierdes cualquier saldo restante cuando dejas ese trabajo.

1. ¿Te interesa una HSA? Así puedes abrir una.Puedes abrir una cuenta de ahorros para la salud a través de un banco u otra institución financiera. La institución te dará una tarjeta de débito para hacer pagos desde la HSA.

Puedes abrir una HSA en cualquier momento del año siempre que tengas un plan elegible. Puedes elegir dónde abrir la cuenta, pero revisa si hay cargos y compara opciones.

Si obtienes seguro a través de tu trabajo, tu empleador puede exigir que uses una compañía específica aprobada por el Servicio de Impuestos Internos (IRS, por sus siglas en inglés).

Muchas personas creen que no pueden aportar dinero a una HSA. Para algunos hogares, la necesidad de ahorrar para gastos médicos compite con la de pagar la renta y comprar alimentos.

Pero hay un detalle que puede hacerlo más manejable: las contribuciones no tienen que ser grandes. Incluso unos pocos dólares al mes pueden ser un comienzo.

Sin embargo, hay un límite. El IRS establece un tope anual sobre cuánto puedes aportar a una HSA. En 2026, el límite es de $4.400 para una persona, o $8.750 para un plan familiar. Dentro de ese límite, tú decides cuánto aportar.

1. Los servicios preventivos deben estar cubiertos sin costo.Todos los planes vendidos en los mercados deben cubrir ciertos servicios preventivos sin costo para el paciente, siempre que la atención sea dentro de la red. Estos servicios incluyen vacunas de rutina y pruebas de detección de cáncer.

Más allá de la atención preventiva, entender cuánto cuestan distintos servicios puede ayudarte a decidir qué tipo de consulta médica es mejor para tus necesidades y tu presupuesto. Por ejemplo, algunos planes cobran menos por una consulta de telemedicina que por ver a tu doctor en persona.

Revisa el resumen de beneficios de tu plan para más detalles.

1. Busca atención temprano en el año.La mayoría de los deducibles reinician el 1 de enero. Programar citas o cirugías temprano en el año puede ser estratégico si descubres una afección que requiere atención continua. Si puedes pagarlo, cumplir con el deducible antes puede hacer que el resto del año sea mucho más económico, dijo Caitlin Donovan, directora senior en la Patient Advocate Foundation.
2. Considera pagar en efectivo en lugar de usar el deducible.Algunos hospitales, clínicas u otros proveedores ofrecen precios más bajos si pagas en efectivo. Tienes derecho a recibir un cálculo detallado y una explicación de cuánto costaría un servicio de salud si pagas de tu bolsillo. Pide ese cálculo antes de recibir atención. Luego compáralo con lo que te dice tu aseguradora que costaría si usas tu seguro. Si decides pagar en efectivo, deberás hacerlo en el consultorio antes de que se envíen los cargos a tu aseguradora.

Pagar en efectivo puede ahorrarte dinero, pero generalmente ese monto no contará para tu deducible ni para el máximo de gastos de tu bolsillo.

“Si no crees que vas a alcanzar tu deducible —eres joven y tu deducible es de $10.000—, negocia el precio en efectivo”, aconsejó Donovan.

1. ¿Tienes un plan de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA)? Actualiza tus ingresos y usa una HSA para evitar sorpresas fiscales.Si tienes un plan de ACA y eres elegible para subsidios, ten en cuenta lo siguiente: si tus ingresos cambian y no actualizas tu solicitud en el mercado, podrías deber miles de dólares al momento de declarar impuestos. La solución es simple: reporta aumentos de salario, nuevos trabajos o ingresos adicionales cuando ocurran. Si tus ingresos aumentan, ahorrar dinero en una HSA puede ayudar, ya que ese dinero no cuenta como ingreso gravable.

Cuando reportas un aumento en tus ingresos, eso puede significar primas más altas (si ya no calificas para el mismo subsidio), pero los expertos dicen que es mejor pagar más ahora que enfrentar una gran factura después.

“Uno de los mayores problemas que veo es que alguien queda desempleado, se inscribe en un plan diciendo que no tiene ingresos, luego consigue trabajo y no lo reporta, y termina con una gran deuda de impuestos al final”, dijo Donovan.

Por eso, Donovan recomienda actualizar tu perfil en el mercado tan pronto como cambien tus ingresos, lo que también podría hacer que califiques para Medicaid o para un plan que cubra una mayor parte de tus gastos médicos.

Taylor Cook contribuyó con este artículo.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

An elementary school teacher chose a low-price health insurance plan but soon realized she wasn’t clear about what it would mean for her family’s finances.

“Once I got the insurance card, I compared our old plan to our new plan, and that’s when I really got worried, because I didn’t really understand what a deductible was. It got me thinking, how do I use this insurance?”

— Madison Burgess, 31, of San Diego

When enhanced federal subsidies expired at the end of 2025, a lot of people buying their own health insurance on the state and federal exchanges saw their expected monthly rates jump. To keep costs down, many switched to a high-deductible health plan. These plans offer lower monthly payments, but in exchange patients can face steep out-of-pocket costs when they need care.

The plans are pretty common. In 2023, 30% of people who got insurance through their employer had a high-deductible plan, up from only 4% in 2006.

Madison Burgess, a teacher in San Diego, gets health insurance through her teaching job. But when she investigated adding her husband to her plan, it was just too expensive, so she started shopping on the exchange for a cheaper option for him.

The longer she scrolled through the plan options, the more overwhelming it felt. Insurance jargon made it hard to tell what her family would owe if her husband got sick.

“I didn’t know what a deductible was, so I just went with what was cheap, and now I have regret,” she said.

In exchange for that lower monthly premium payment, her husband’s coverage won’t kick in for most care until they’ve paid $5,800 in medical bills. Burgess didn’t know that the deductible must be met before insurance picks up part of the tab.

Deductible:

The amount you as the patient have to pay before insurance picks up part of the tab

Premium:

The monthly bill for your policy, paid to the insurance company

How do you prepare for thousands of dollars in upfront costs? One option is a health savings account, or HSA, which lets you save pretax money and is now available to people enrolled in lower-tier state and federal exchange plans, including bronze and catastrophic coverage. These plans generally have the lowest premiums on the exchange but the highest out-of-pocket costs when you need care.

Burgess had chosen a bronze plan and didn’t know HSAs were an option.

“I’ve never thought about having to put money away for a deductible,” she said.

Burgess and others are often more worried about socking away money for unexpected car and house repairs or vet bills.

If, like Burgess, you chose cheaper health coverage for this year only to discover you’re on the hook for meeting a high deductible, these tips can help you prepare.

1. You might qualify for an HSA and not know it.

If you’re enrolled in a bronze or catastrophic plan, you qualify to open a health savings account. Think of it as a medical piggy bank with tax perks. You put in pretax money, which lowers your taxable income. The money grows tax-free, and when you spend it on qualified medical expenses, those transactions are also tax-free. That’s what people call a “triple tax advantage.”

These accounts build a cushion for future health costs, such as doctor visits, prescriptions, and even products like over-the-counter medicine, tampons, and sunscreen.

The money typically can’t be used for monthly premiums, but the account is yours to use for qualified medical expenses for yourself, your spouse, or your dependents anytime in the future. The money in the account is yours, even if you change jobs or health plans.

An HSA is not the same as a flexible spending account, or FSA. FSAs are tax-advantaged too but are offered only through employers. The money expires annually and you lose any remaining money when you leave that job.

2. HSA-curious? Here’s how to open one.

You open a health savings account through a bank or other financial institution. The institution will issue you a debit card so you can make purchases from the HSA.

You can open an HSA at any point during the year as long as you’re covered by an eligible plan. You can choose where to open the account, but be sure to check for any fees financial institutions charge and shop around.

If you get insurance through your job, your employer may require you to use a specific IRS-approved company.

Many people decide they can’t afford to contribute to an HSA. For some households, the desire to set aside money for medical expenses competes with the need to pay rent and buy groceries.

But there’s a detail that can make it feel more manageable. Contributions don’t have to be large. Just a few dollars a month can get you started.

There is, however, a limit. The IRS sets an annual cap on how much you’re allowed to contribute to an HSA. In 2026, an individual is limited to $4,400, or $8,750 for a family plan. Under that ceiling, the amount is up to you.

3. Preventive services should be covered at no cost to you.

All plans sold on marketplaces must cover certain preventive services at no cost to the patient as long as the care is provided in-network. Those services include routine immunizations and cancer screenings.

Beyond preventive care, understanding what different services cost can help you decide which type of medical appointment works best for your health needs and your wallet. For example, some plans charge less for a telehealth visit than to see your primary care doctor in person.

Check out your summary of benefits for more details.

4. Seek care early in the year.

Most deductibles reset on Jan. 1. Scheduling appointments or surgeries early in the year can be strategic if you discover a condition that requires ongoing care. If you can afford it, meeting your deductible sooner can make the rest of the year significantly cheaper, said Caitlin Donovan, a senior director at the Patient Advocate Foundation.

5. Consider paying cash instead of spending down your deductible.

Some hospitals, clinics, or other providers offer cheaper prices if you pay cash. You have the right to an itemized estimate and explanation of how much a health service would cost if you paid out-of-pocket. Ask for the estimate before you get care. Then, compare that price with what your insurance company tells you it would cost if you used your insurance. If you decide to go with a cash payment, you’ll need to pay while you’re still at the doctor’s office, before charges get submitted to your insurance company.

Paying cash may save you money, but the amount you pay generally won’t count toward your deductible or out-of-pocket maximum.

“If you don’t think you’re ever going to hit your deductible — you’re that young invincible, and your deductible is $10,000 — negotiate the cash price,” Donovan said.

6. On an ACA plan? Update your income and use an HSA to avoid a tax surprise.

If you’re on an ACA plan and you’re eligible for subsidies, be aware: If your earnings change and you don’t update your marketplace application, you could owe thousands of dollars at tax time. The fix is simple. Report raises, new jobs, or side gigs as they happen. If your income goes up, stashing money in an HSA can help because the money you put in the account doesn’t count toward your taxable income.

As soon as you report an increase in your income, that could mean higher premiums (if you no longer qualify for the same subsidy), but experts say it’s better to pay now than owe a big bill that you have to pay all at once.

“One of the biggest problems I see is someone is newly unemployed and they sign up for coverage, they say that they’re not making any money, and then eventually they get a job and don’t report it, and then they have this huge tax bill at the end,” Donovan said.

She advises updating your marketplace profile as soon as your income changes, which could newly qualify you for Medicaid or a plan that contributes more toward your medical bills.

Taylor Cook contributed to this report.

Health Care Helpline helps you navigate the health system hurdles between you and good care. Send us your tricky question and we may tap a policy sleuth to puzzle it out. Share your story. The crowdsourced project is a joint production of NPR and KFF Health News.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

• Click here to hear Rovner on 1A.
• Click here to hear Rovner on The Middle With Jeremy Hobson.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

At the Trump administration’s request, a federal judge in Louisiana this week agreed to delay a ruling affecting the continued availability of the abortion drug mifepristone. That angered anti-abortion groups that want the drug, if not banned, at least more strictly controlled. But the administration clearly wants to avoid big abortion fights in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

Meanwhile, the administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 calls for more than $15 billion in cuts to programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. It’s a significant number, but less drastic than cuts it proposed for fiscal 2026.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Maya Goldman of Axios.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Trump administration says it is conducting a thorough scientific review of the abortion pill mifepristone at the Food and Drug Administration. Yet advocates on both sides of the abortion debate think the administration is just trying to buy time to avoid a controversial decision about medication abortion before November’s midterm elections.
• It’s budget time on Capitol Hill. With the unveiling of the president’s spending plan for fiscal 2027, Cabinet secretaries will make their annual tour of congressional committee hearings. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose Hill appearances have been few during his tenure, is scheduled to testify before six separate House and Senate committees before the end of the month.
• Back at HHS, Kennedy appears to be trying to reconstitute the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in a way that will enable him to restock it with vaccine skeptics without running afoul of a March court ruling that he violated federal procedures with his replacements last year.
• Continuing his efforts to promote his Make America Healthy Again agenda, Kennedy announced this week that he will launch his own biweekly podcast. He also announced efforts to combat microplastics in the water supply and to get hospitals to stop serving ultraprocessed food to patients.

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

Julie Rovner: The Atlantic’s “HHS Officials’ Year in Purgatory Is Ending,” by Katherine J. Wu.

Maya Goldman: KFF Health News’ “Trump’s Personnel Agency Is Asking for Federal Workers’ Medical Records,” by Amanda Seitz and Maia Rosenfeld.

Lauren Weber: CNN’s “These Common Drug Tests Lead to Tens of Thousands of Wrongful Arrests a Year, Experts Say. One State Is Fighting Back,” by Holly Yan.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “A Slowdown in US Visa Processing Is Wreaking Havoc on Foreign Doctors’ Lives,” by Simon J. Levien.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Accuracy of Self-Selection for Medication Abortion Using a Prototype Drug Facts Label,” by Lauren J. Ralph, C. Finley Baba, Katherine Ehrenreich, et al.
• KFF Health News’ “Immigrant Seniors Lose Medicare Coverage Despite Paying for It,” by Vanessa G. Sánchez, El Tímpano.
• The New York Times’ “Idaho Cut Services for People With Schizophrenia. Then the Deaths Began,” by Ellen Barry.
• Stateline’s “Medicaid Cuts Could Add Pressure to Already-Stressed Psychiatric Units,” by Nada Hassanein.
• The Washington Post’s “CDC Delays Publishing Report Showing Covid Vaccine Benefits,” by Lena H. Sun.

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from KFF Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 9, at 9:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. 

Today, we are joined via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And my fellow Michigan Wolverine this national championship week, Maya Goldman of Axios. Go, Blue! 

Maya Goldman: Go, Blue. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but plenty of news. So let’s get right to it. We’re going to start with reproductive health. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled for the Trump administration and against anti-abortion forces in a lawsuit over the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone. Wait, what? Please explain, Alice, how the administration and anti-abortion groups ended up on opposite sides of an abortion pill lawsuit. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So this has been building for a while, and it is not the only lawsuit of its kind out there. There are several. A bunch of different state attorneys general, who are very conservative and anti-abortion, have been suing the FDA in an attempt to either completely get rid of the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone or reimpose previous restrictions on it. So right now, at least according to federal rules, not according to every state’s rules, you can get it via telehealth. You can get it delivered by mail. You can pick it up at a retail pharmacy. You don’t have to get it in person handed to you from a doctor like you used to. So these lawsuits are attempting to bring back those restrictions or get the kind of national ban that a lot of groups want. And so you have other ones pending: Florida, Texas, Missouri, you have a bunch of ones. So this is the Louisiana version. And the Trump administration, it’s important to note, they are not defending the FDA or the abortion pill on the merits. They are saying, we don’t want this lawsuit and this court to force us to do something. We want to go through our own careful process and do our own internal review of the safety of mifepristone, and then we may decide to impose restrictions. But they’re asking courts to give them the time and space to complete that process and saying, you know, This is our power we should have in the executive branch. And so, in this case, the judge, in ruling for the Trump administration, basically just hit pause. This doesn’t get rid of the case. It just puts a stay on it for now, and that’s important. In some of these other cases, the Trump administration has asked the courts to throw out the case, but that was not the situation here. So this doesn’t mean that abortion pills are going to be available forever. This doesn’t mean nothing’s going to happen, and they’re going to be banned. This just means, you know, we’re kicking the can down the road.  

Rovner: I was saying, just to be clear. I mean, we know that this FDA quote-unquote “study” — whether it is or isn’t going on — is part of, kind of, a delaying tactic by the administration, because they don’t want to really make abortion a big front-and-center issue in the midterms. So they’re trying to sort of run the clock out here. Is that not sort of the interpretation that’s going on right now?  

Ollstein: That’s what people on both sides assume is going on. It’s really been fascinating how everyone is being kept in the dark about what’s happening inside the FDA — and if this review is even happening, if it’s real, if it’s in good faith, what is it based on? And so it’s become this sort of Rorschach test, where people on the left are saying, you know, They’re laying the groundwork to do a national ban. This is just political cover. They just want to wait until after the midterms, and then they’re going to go for it. And people on the right are saying, you know, The administration is cowardly, and they aren’t really doing anything, and they’re just trying to get us to shut up and be patient. We don’t know if either of those interpretations or neither of them are true.  

Rovner: Lauren, you want to add something? 

Weber: I just think it’s pretty clear this is also just on a [Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] priority. I mean, let’s go back. The man … comes from one of the top Democratic political families originally. You know, there’s obviously been a lot of chatter around his anti-abortion beliefs. Now, obviously, he’s on a Republican ticket. I think some of that plays into this as well. And he already has his hand on the stove on so many other hot issues that, [if] I had to guess, I don’t think that they’re trying to rock the boat on this one. … I think, some background context too, to some of what’s going on.  

Rovner: We’ll get to some of those hotter issues. But, meanwhile, the Journal of the American Medical Association [Internal Medicine] has a study out this week suggesting that medication abortion is so safe that it could be provided over the counter — that’s without any consultation with a medical professional, either in person or online. This doesn’t feel like it’s going to happen anytime soon, though, right? While we’re still debating the existence of medication abortion in general. 

Ollstein: That’s right. I mean, there are a lot of people who can’t get this medication prescribed by a valid doctor right now, let alone over the counter. I will say it is common in a lot of parts of the world to get it over the counter, whereas in the United States, the most common way to have a medication abortion is with a two-pill combination, mifepristone and misoprostol. In a lot of parts of the world, people just use misoprostol alone, and it is effective and it is largely safe. It’s slightly less safe than using both pills together. And so I think there’s a lot of international data out there, and people point to that and advocate for this. And I will say there are activist groups in the United States who are setting up networks, underground networks, to get these pills to people with no doctor’s involvement. And so that is already going on. I think that a lot of people would prefer to get it from a doctor if they could. But because of bans and restrictions, they can’t. And so people are turning to these activist groups. 

Rovner: I will point out, as a person who covered the entirety of the fight to have emergency contraception — which is not the abortion pill — made over the counter, it took like, 15 years. It shortened my life covering that story. Lauren, did you want to add something?  

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say I find it really interesting. Obviously, reproductive issues end up taking 15 years, as you pointed out, to make it over the counter. But there are a lot of things that are considered potentially more dangerous that you can order up in a pretty basic telehealth visit or even just buy in not-so-sketchy ways that the administration is also even looking to deregulate. So I think the differences of access of this compared to other less studied, potentially more unsafe medication is quite striking. 

Goldman: Part of [President Donald] Trump’s “Great Healthcare Plan” is making more medications available over the counter. So this is certainly something that they have said they want to do, in general. This is a political nightmare, though, to do that for abortion. 

Ollstein: Yeah, and people have been pointing to this and a lot of other policies for a while to argue about something they call abortion exceptionalism, in which people apply a different standard to anything related to abortion, a different safety standard, a different standard of scrutiny than they do to medications for lots of other purposes. And you’ve seen that, and that comes up in lawsuits and political arguments about this. And I think, you know, people can point to this as another example. 

Rovner: So last week, we talked about the federal family planning program Title X, which finally got funded after months of delays. But Alice, you warned us that the administration was planning to make some big changes to the program, and now those have finally been announced. Tell us what the plan is for a program that’s provided birth control and other types of primary and preventive care since the early 1970s. 

Ollstein: Well, the changes have sort of been announced. They’ve more been teased. What we are still waiting for is an actual rule, like we saw in the first Trump administration, that would impose conditions on the program. And so what we saw recently, it was part of a wonky document called a “Notice of Funding Opportunity,” or NOFO, for those in the D.C. lingo. And basically it was signaling that when groups reapply — they just got this year’s money, but when they reapply for next year’s money — it sets up sort of new priorities and a new focus for the entire program. And what was really striking to me is, you know, this is a family planning program. It was created in the 1970s and it is primarily about delivering contraception to people who can’t afford it around the country, providing it to millions of people who depend on this program, and the word “contraception” did not appear in the entire 70-page document other than an assertion that it is overprescribed and has bad side effects. And instead, they signaled that they want to shift the program to focus on, quote, “family formation.” So this is really striking to me. I think we saw some signs that something like this was coming. You know, about a year ago, there was some Title X money approved to focus on helping people struggling with infertility. But that was sort of just a subset of the program, and now it looks like they want to make that, you know, an overriding focus of the program. So I think when the actual rule to this effect drops, and we don’t know when that will be — will they wait till after the midterms to, you know, avoid blowback? Who knows? I think there will certainly be lawsuits then. But I think right now, this is just sort of a sign of where they want to go in the future. And it’s important to note that it came very quickly on the heels of a big backlash from the anti-abortion movement over the approval of this year’s funding going out to all of the clinics that got it before, including Planned Parenthood clinics. The anti-abortion groups were agitating for Planned Parenthood to be cut off at once, you know, not in the future, right now. 

Rovner: Just to remind people that the ban on Planned Parenthood funding from last year was for Medicaid, not for the Title X program. 

Ollstein: Right.  

Rovner: And that’s why Planned Parenthood got money. 

Ollstein: Yes, and Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use any Medicaid or Title X money for abortions, but the anti-abortion groups say it functions like a backdoor subsidy, and so they wanted it to be cut off. So they were very pissed that this money went out to Planned Parenthood. And so very quickly after, the administration put out this document, saying, Look, we are taking things in another direction, and it is not the direction of Planned Parenthood. 

Rovner: Lauren, you want to add something? 

Weber: Oh, I just wanted to say Alice has really been owning the beat on all the Title X coverage, so … 

Rovner: Absolutely.  

Weber: … glad we are able to have her explain it to us. But just wanted to throw out a kudos for breaking all the news on that front.  

Goldman: Yeah, great coverage. 

Rovner: Yes. Very happy to have you for this. Turning to the budget, which is normally the major activity for Congress in the spring, we finally got President Trump’s spending blueprint last week. It does propose cuts to discretionary spending at the Department of Health and Human Services to the tune of about $15 billion, but those cuts are far less deep than those proposed last year. And, as we have noted, Congress didn’t actually cut the HHS budget last year by much at all. And many programs, like the National Institutes of Health, actually got small increases. Is this budget a reflection of the fact that the administration is recognizing that cuts to Health and Human Services programs aren’t actually popular with the public or with Congress, for that matter, going into a midterm election? 

Weber: I think it’s that last little piece you mentioned there, Julie. I think it’s the “going into the midterm election.” I think you hit the nail on the head there. Cuts are also not good economically for many Republicans. You know, we saw Katie Britt be one of the — the Alabama Republican senator — be one of the most outspoken senators in general about some of the cuts that were floated for the budget for HHS last year. So I think what you’re hinting at, and what we’re getting at, is that it’s not politically popular, it can be economically problematic, on top of the scientific advances that are not found. So I suspect you are right on that. 

Ollstein: The administration knows that this is “hopes and dreams” and will not become reality. It did not become reality last year. It almost never becomes reality. And I think you can see the sort of acknowledgement that this is about sending a message more than actually making policy in things like Title X, because at the same time they put out this guidance from HHS about the future of Title X, moving away from contraception, in the president’s budget he proposed completely getting rid of Title X, completely defunding it, which he has in the past as well. And so why would they put out guidance for a program that doesn’t exist? 

Goldman: I think, also, this is the second budget that they’re putting out in this administration, right? So now they are just a little more used to what’s going on, and they have more of their feet under them. 

Weber: As a preview for listeners, too, I’m sure we will have Kennedy asked about this budget when he appears in a series of so many hearings next week and the week after. And there were a lot of fireworks last year with him and various members of Congress about the budget. So I am sure that we will hear a lot more on this front in the weeks to come. 

Rovner: Yeah, I would say that’s one thing that the budget process does, is when the president finally puts out a budget, the Cabinet secretaries travel to all of the various committees on Capitol Hill to, quote, “defend the president’s budget,” which is sometimes or, I guess in the case of Kennedy, one of the few chances that they get to actually have him in person to ask him questions. But in the meantime, you know, we have the budget, then we have the president himself, who at an Easter lunch last week — that was supposed to be private, but ended up being live-streamed — said, and I quote, “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicare, Medicaid, all these individual things.” The president went on to say that states should take over all that social spending, and the only thing the federal government should fund is, quote, “military protection.” Did I just hear a thousand Democratic campaign ads bloom? 

Goldman: I think this is a prime example of when you should take Trump seriously, but not literally. I don’t think that there’s any world, at least in the foreseeable future, where the federal government isn’t funding Medicare. But, you know, you certainly have to watch at the margins. It’s like, it’s not a secret that this is something that they’re interested in cutting back spending on. It’s super politically difficult to do that, and they know that, and that’s part of why, which I’m sure we’ll talk about in a little bit, they bumped up the payment rate for 2027 to Medicare Advantage plans.  

Rovner: Which we will get to. 

Goldman: Yeah, so I mean, it’s certainly an eye-opening statement, and you should remember it. But I don’t think that we’re in immediate jeopardy here. 

Rovner: This is the president who ran in 2024, you know, saying that he was going to protect Medicare and Medicaid. I mean, it’s been, you know, against some of the recommendations of his own administration. I was just sort of shocked to see these words come out of his mouth. Lauren, you wanted to say something?  

Weber: I mean, it’s not that surprising, though. I mean, look at what the One Big Beautiful Bill [Act] did to Medicaid. He’s already pushed through massive Medicaid cuts, which are essentially being offloaded to the states. So, I mean, I think this ideology has already borne out and will continue to bear out, and obviously it’s happening amid the backdrop of a war. So that plays into, obviously, the commentary as well.  

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, Republicans are still talking about doing another budget reconciliation bill, the 2.0 version of last year’s Big Beautiful Bill, except this time it’s essentially just to fund the military and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and border control, because Democrats won’t vote for those things, at least they won’t vote for additional military spending. What are the prospects for that to actually happen? And would Republicans really be able to do it if those programs are paid for with more cuts to Medicare and/or Medicaid, as some have suggested? 

Goldman: You know, my co-worker Peter Sullivan wrote about this last week, and there was a lot of blowback from politicos, from advocates, from, you know, kind of across the spectrum of groups there. I think that it would be extremely politically unpopular, especially going into the midterms, to use health care as an offset. But I would say that Republicans are pretty good at rhetoric, right? That’s one of the things that they’re known for right now, and there’s always a way to spin it. 

Rovner: Alice and I spoke to a group earlier this week, and I went out on a limb and predicted that I didn’t think Republicans could get the votes for another big budget reconciliation this year. I mean, look at how close it was last year. The idea of cutting any deeper seems to me unlikely, just given the margins that they have. 

Goldman: And I think that is something that you do in between election years. That’s not something you do in an election year. 

Rovner: That’s true, yes … you do tend to see these bigger bills in the odd-numbered years rather than the even-numbered years, but … 

Ollstein: And I think it’s important to remember that the reason Republicans are in this bind and that they feel like they have to keep reconciliation nearly focused on funding immigration enforcement is because Democrats refuse to fund immigration enforcement. And so they feel pressured to put all their effort and political capital towards that, and don’t want to mess that up by adding a bunch of other health care things that could cause fights and lose them votes.  

Goldman: The money has got to come from somewhere. 

Rovner: And health care is where all the money is. Speaking of Medicare and Medicaid, where most of the money is, there is news on those fronts, too. Maya, as you hinted on Medicare, the administration is out with its payment rule for private Medicare Advantage plans for next year. And remember, we talked about how HHS was going to really go after overbilling in Medicare Advantage and cut reimbursement dramatically? Well, you can forget all that. The final rule will provide plans with a 2.48% pay bump next year. That’s compared to the less than 1% increase in the proposed rule. That’s a difference of about $13 billion. The final rule also eliminated many of the safeguards that were intended to prevent overbilling. What happened to the crackdown on Medicare Advantage? Are their lobbyists really that good? 

Goldman: Their lobbyists are pretty good. This was a year where there were — I think CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] said there were a record number of public comments on their proposed rate, flat rate increase, flat rate update. But I think it’s also not that surprising. Historically, the final rate announcement for Medicare Advantage is almost always a little higher than the proposed because they incorporate additional data from the end of the previous year that wasn’t available when first rate is proposed, the initial rate is proposed. But certainly they backed away from a big change to risk adjustment, or, like, the way to adjust payment based on how sick a plan’s enrollees are. You get more pay …  

Rovner: Because that’s where the overbilling was happening, that we’d seen a lot of these wonderful stories that plans were basically, you know, inventing diagnoses for patients who didn’t necessarily have them or didn’t have a severe illness, and using that to get additional payments. 

Goldman: Right. And they did move forward with a plan to prevent diagnoses that are not linked to information that’s in a patient’s medical chart from being used for risk adjustment. But a lot of plans had said, like, Yeah, this is, that’s the right thing to do, and it’s not going to be that impactful for us. You know, overall, this is a win for health insurance. I think one thing to note is that Chris Klomp, the director of Medicare, said, We’re still really focused on trying to right-size this program. That’s still a priority for us as an administration, but we also want to safeguard it. And so I think insurers are not off the hook entirely. There’s still going to be a lot of scrutiny, but their lobbyists are pretty good. And you know, no one wants to be seen as the candidate that cuts Medicare. 

Rovner: And we have seen this before, that when Congress cuts “overfunding” for Medicare Advantage, the plans, seeing that they can’t make its big profits, drop out or they cut back on those extra benefits. And the beneficiaries complain because they’re losing their plans, or they’re losing their extra benefits, and they don’t really want to do that in an election year either, because there are a lot of people, many millions of people, who vote who are on these plans. So, in some ways, the plans have the administration over a political barrel, in addition to how good their lobbyists are.  

Well, apparently, one group that HHS is still cracking down on are legal immigrants with Medicare. Most of the publicity around the health cuts in last year’s budget bill focused on the cuts to Medicaid. But we at KFF Health News have a story this week about legal immigrants who’ve paid into the Medicare system with their payroll taxes for years and are now being cut off from their Medicare coverage. This is apparently the first time an entire category of beneficiaries are having their Medicare taken away. I’m surprised there hasn’t been more attention to this, or if it’s just too much all happening at once. 

Ollstein: I mean, there’s a lot happening at once, and even just in the space of immigrants’ access to health care, there is so much happening at once. And so this is obviously having a huge impact on a lot of people, but so are 100 other things. And I think, you know, the zone has been flooded as promised. And really, state officials who are also dealing with a thousand other things, Medicaid cuts, you know, these federal changes, work requirements, are grappling with this as well. 

Rovner: Lauren, you wanted to add something? 

Weber: Yeah. I mean, I thought it was, there was a striking quote in the story from Michael Cannon, who basically said, The reason this isn’t resonating is because this won’t upset the Republican base. And I think that’s a striking quote to be considered. 

Rovner: Michael Cannon, libertarian health policy expert, just kind of an observer to this one. But yeah, I think that’s true. I mean, or at least the perception is that these are not Republican voters, although, you know, as we’ve seen, you know, Congress has tried to take aim at people they think aren’t their voters, and it’s turned out that those are their voters. So we will see how this all plays out.  

Well, at the same time that this is all going on, the folks over at the newsletter “Healthcare Dive” are reporting that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are trying to embark on all these new initiatives on fraud, and work requirements, and artificial intelligence with a diminished workforce. While CMS lost far fewer workers in the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts last year than many other of the HHS agencies — it was in the hundreds rather than the thousands — CMS has long been understaffed, given the fact that it manages programs that provide health insurance to more than 160 million Americans through not just Medicare and Medicaid, but also the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act. I know last week, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said he wants to hire more workers to replace the 3,000 who were RIF’ed or took early retirement there at the FDA. And CMS does have lots of job openings being advertised. But it’s hard to see how replacing trained and experienced workers with untrained, inexperienced ones are going to improve efficiency, right? 

Goldman: Tangentially, I was talking to a health insurance executive yesterday who was saying that his team is so much bigger than CMS, and they cover a fraction of the market, and they’re often the ones coming to CMS and proposing ideas and working with CMS on it. I don’t, I think that is a dynamic that far predates this administration, but … 

Rovner: Oh, absolutely. 

Goldman: But it’s certainly interesting. And … CMS has very ambitious plans, and not that many people to carry them out. But, you know, I think one thing that I also want to note is that when I talk to trade associations and stakeholders about this CMS, they are generally like, pretty support- … like, they say that they think they’re being heard, and they think that CMS and the career staff are doing, you know, the same kind of caliber of work that they’ve been doing, which I think is notable. 

Rovner: And as we have mentioned many times, you know, Dr. [Mehmet] Oz, the head of CMS, is very serious about his job and doing a lot of really interesting things. It’s just, it’s hard, you know, in the federal government, if you don’t have the resources that you want to … if you don’t have the resources to match your ambitions. Let’s put it that way.  

Well, meanwhile, on the Medicaid front, we’re already seeing states cutting back, and some of the results of those cutbacks. Stateline has a piece on how psychiatric units are at risk of being shut down due to the Medicaid cuts, since they often serve a disproportionate number of low-income people and also tend to lose money. And The New York Times has a heartbreaking story of an Idaho Medicaid cutback of a program that had provided home visits to people living in the community with severe mental illness, until those people who lost the services began to die or to end up back in more expensive institutional care. Now the state has resumed funding the program, but obviously will end up having to cut someplace else instead. I know when Republicans in Congress passed the cuts last year, they said that people on Medicaid who were not the able-bodied working-age populations wouldn’t see their services cut. But that’s not how this is playing out, right?  

Weber: I just think the story by Ellen Barry, who you should always read on mental health issues in The New York Times, “Idaho Cut Services for People With Schizophrenia, Then the Deaths Began,” is such an illustrative example of unintended consequences from these cuts. And the reason that they’re being reversed — by Republican legislators, no less — in Idaho, is because it’s more expensive to have cut the money from it than it is efficient. I mean, what they found was, is that after they cut the money to the schizophrenia program, they saw this massive uptick in law enforcement cases and hospitalizations, uninsured hospitalizations, that this avoided. And I think it’s a real canary in the coal mine situation, because we’re only starting to see these states cut these things off. And this was a pretty immediate multiple-death consequence. And I think we’re going to see a lot of stories like this, of a variety of programs that we all don’t even have any idea that exist in the safety net across the country that are being chipped away at.  

Rovner: Well, turning to other news from the Department of Health and Human Services, we’re getting some more competition here at What the Health? Health secretary Kennedy has announced he’ll be unveiling his own podcast, called The Secretary Kennedy Podcast, next week. He promises to, according to the trailer posted online on Wednesday, quote, “name the names of the forces that obstruct the paths to public health.” OK then, we look forward to listening.  

Meanwhile, in actual secretarial work, the secretary this week also unveiled changes to the charter of the Advisory Committee on [Immunization] Practices after a federal judge last month invalidated both the replacement members that he’d appointed last year and the changes made to the federally recommended vaccine schedule. So what’s going to happen here now? Will this get around the judge’s ruling by watering down the expertise that members of this advisory committee are supposed to have in vaccines? And why hasn’t the administration appealed the judge’s ruling yet? 

Goldman: You know, I don’t have actual answers to this, but I do wonder and speculate that this is going to end up being some kind of legal whack-a-mole situation where the secretary and HHS says, OK, you don’t like it that way? We’ll do it this way, and then they’ll do it another way, and advocates will sue, and we’ll see how this plays out going forward in the courts. I think this is not the end of the story. Even though the judge’s decision was a big win for vaccine advocates, it’s just we’re in the midpoint, if that. 

Rovner: And Lauren, speaking of vaccines, your colleague Lena H. Sun has quite the scoop on HHS and vaccine policy. 

Weber: Yeah, Lena Sun is always delivering. She found out that the acting director of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] at the time delayed publication of a report showing that the covid-19 vaccine[s] cut the likelihood of emergency department visits and hospitalizations for healthy adults last winter by about half. So even though Kennedy is not talking more about vaccines, it appears that, based on this reporting, that some of his underlings are not necessarily touting the benefits of vaccine, so to speak. And I’m very curious, going back to Kennedy’s podcast, I found the rollout of that so interesting because the teaser was very leaning into the Kennedy that got elected, you know, someone who speaks about, you know, dark truths that are hidden from the public, and so on. And then the press team had these statements of, like, Kennedy will investigate the affordability of health costs and food and nutrition. And I think this dichotomy of who Kennedy is and who the White House and the press secretary and HHS want Kennedy to be before the midterms really could come to a head in this podcast. So I think we will all be listening to hear how that goes. 

Rovner: Yeah, we keep hearing about how the secretary is being, you know, sort of put on a leash, if you will. And, you know, told to downplay some of his anti-vaccine views and things like this. And that seems quite at odds with him having his own podcast. Alice, do you want to …? 

Weber: I guess, it depends on who’s editing the podcast and who they have on. I’m just very … you could even tell from the trailer to how his press secretary presented it, there was an interesting differential in framing, and I am curious how that plays out as we see guests on it. 

Ollstein: I mean, it’s also worth noting that this is an administration of podcasters. I mean, you have Kash Patel, you have so many of these folks who have a history of podcasting, clearly have a passion for it, just can’t let it go while working a full-time, high-pressure government job.  

Rovner: We shall see. Meanwhile, HHS, together with the Environmental Protection Agency, is waging war on microplastics, those nearly too impossible to detect bits of plastic that are getting into our lungs and stomachs and body tissues through air and water and food. The plan here seems to be to find ways to detect exactly how much microplastics we are all getting in our water and what the health impacts might be, since we don’t have enough information to regulate them yet. I would think this would be one of those things that pleases both MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] and the science community, right? Or is it just, as one MAHA supporter called it, theater? 

Goldman: I think this is a great example of the, you know, part of the reason why MAHA is so interesting to such a wide swath of people. Like, there’s a lot of legitimate concern, not that other concerns aren’t necessarily legitimate, but there’s a lot of concern over, from the scientific community, over microplastics. I’m honestly surprised that we’re this far into the administration with this announcement. I would have thought that this is something they would have done sooner, but they obviously had other priorities as well. 

Rovner: Well. Finally, this week, speaking of other priorities, HHS Secretary Kennedy and CMS Administrator Dr. Oz are declaring war on junk food in hospitals. Again, this seems like a popular and fairly harmless crusade; hospitals shouldn’t be serving their patients ultraprocessed food. Except, almost as soon as the announcement came out, I saw tons of pushback online from doctors and nurses who worried about patients for whom sugary food or drinks are actually medically indicated, or who, because of medications they’re taking, or illnesses they have, can only eat, or will only eat, highly palatable, often processed food. Nothing in health care is as simple as it seems, right?  

Weber: I think what’s also interesting is one of my favorite examples in the memo they put out was they hope that every hospital, as an example, could serve quinoa and salmon. And I just am curious to see how fast that gets implemented. And it’s a very valid — a lot of people complain about hospital food. It’s a very valid thing to push for better food. But I also question, as I understand it, this seems more like a carrot than a stick when it comes to the regulation they put out. 

Rovner: As it were. 

Weber: As it were. And so I’m curious to see how it gets implemented. That said, there are hospitals that have taken it upon themselves — the Northwell [Health] example in New York is a good example — to really improve their hospital food. And frankly, it’s a money maker. If your food’s better, people come to your hospital, especially in an urban area where there is hospital competition. So you know, like most MAHA topics, there’s a lot of interesting points in there, and then there’s a lot of what’s the reality and what’ actually going to happen. And so I’ very curious to see how this continues to play. 

Rovner: I did a big story, like, 10 years ago on a hospital chain that had its own gardens, that literally grew its own healthy food. So this is not completely new but, again, interesting. 

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

Ollstein: I have a piece from my co-worker Simon [J.] Levien, and it is called “A Slowdown in US Visa Processing Is Wreaking Havoc on Foreign Doctors’ Lives.” This is about thousands of doctors around the country who are from other countries that are placed on, you know, a list by the Trump administration of places where they want to scrutinize and limit the number of immigrants coming from there. And so these are people who are already here, already practicing, have poured years into their training, have been living here, and, in some cases, are the only folks willing to work in certain areas that have a lot of medical shortages, and they just can’t practice because their paperwork isn’t getting processed in time. And so they’re sort of in this scary limbo, and that’s putting these hospitals and clinics that they work in in a really tough bind. And so they’re hammering the Trump administration to give them answers about what their fate is. You know, they’re not trying to deport them yet, but they’re not allowing them to continue working either.  

Rovner: For an administration that’s been pushing really hard to improve rural health care, this does not seem to be a way to improve rural health care. Maya. 

Goldman: My extra credit this week is called “Trump’s Personnel Agency Is Asking for Federal Workers’ Medical Records.” It’s a great KFF Health News scoop from Amanda Seitz and Maia Rosenfeld. It’s a really great example of the administration, you know, sort of moving in silence, doing these small regulatory announcements that could have big impact. Basically, the Office of Personnel Management is asking for personally identifiable medical information from health insurers, and its reasoning is to analyze costs and improve the health system, but they could get very detailed medical information from federal employees, including things like, did they get an abortion? Are they undergoing gender-affirming care? And, obviously, there is a strong concern that that could be used against them.  

Rovner: Yeah … this was quite a scoop. Really, really interesting story. Lauren. 

Weber: Mine was a pretty alarming story by Holly Yan at CNN: “These Common Drug Tests Lead to Tens of Thousands of Wrongful Arrests a Year, Experts Say. One State Is Fighting Back.” And basically there’s this type of drug test that the scientists have found is not that effective, and it’s led to things like bird poop being scraped off a man’s car appearing on a drug test as cocaine, a great-grandmother’s medication testing positive for cocaine, and a toddler’s ashes registering as meth or ecstasy, and horrible legal and other consequences of this kind of misdiagnosis in the field. And the reason these drug tests are often done is because they’re cheaper. There’s a more expensive, more accurate version, but these are cheaper. They’re done in the field. But the potential side effects and horrible, wrongly accused effects are quite large, and so Colorado has passed this law to try and move away from this. And it’s curious to see if other states will follow suit. 

Rovner: Yeah, this was something I knew nothing about until I read this story. My extra credit this week is from The Atlantic by Katherine [J.] Wu, and it’s called “HHS Officials’ Year in Purgatory Is Ending.” And it’s about how some of the very top career officials from the NIH [National Institutes of Health], the CDC, and other agencies have, after having been put on leave more than a year ago, finally been reassigned to far-flung outposts of the Indian Health Service in the western United States. They got news of their proposed reassignments with little description of their new roles and only a couple of weeks to decide whether to move across the country or face termination. Now, if these officials’ skills matched those needed by the Indian Health Service, this all might make some sense. But what the IHS most needs are active clinicians: doctors and nurses and social workers and lab technicians. And those who are now being reassigned are largely managers, including — and here I’m reading from the story, quote — “the directors of several NIH institutes, leaders of several CDC centers, a top-ranking official from the FDA tobacco-products center, a bioethicist, a human-resources manager, a communications director, and a technology-information officer.” The Native populations who are ostensibly being helped here aren’t very happy about this, either. Former Biden administration Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, a Native American who’s now running for governor in New Mexico, called the reassignment proposals, quote, “shameful” and “disrespectful.” Also, and this is my addition, not a very efficient use of human capital. 

OK, that’s this week’s show. Thanks this week to our fill-in editor, Mary-Ellen Deily, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X @jrovner, or on Bluesky @julierovner. Where do you guys hang these days? Maya. 

Goldman: I am on LinkedIn under my first and last name, Maya Goldman, and on X at @mayagoldman_. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: I’m on Bluesky @alicemiranda and on X @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: Still @LaurenWeberHP on both X and Bluesky. 

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

Credits

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From KFF Health News” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app, YouTube, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

That monthly total is $200 higher than what he paid last year, due in part to the expiration in December of covid pandemic-era premium tax credits. But the self-employed St. Louis property manager isn’t in any hurry to investigate a new type of coverage that might be cheaper than his marketplace plan: farm bureau health plans.

“Although I’m not a fan of rising costs, I’m not going to sacrifice coverage for my kids to save a buck,” Carlton said.

Carlton finds himself among a growing number of Americans who have confronted difficult choices because of rising Affordable Care Act premiums and other affordability issues. For instance, a recent KFF poll found that many returning marketplace enrollees reported higher costs this year.

In addition, most expressed worry about affording routine and unexpected medical care, as well as the cost of prescription drugs. Worries were greater among those with lower incomes and chronic health conditions. And about 5% of respondents said they had switched to some type of non-ACA coverage.

Health policy experts say such concerns are giving new legs to alternative forms of coverage — for instance, farm bureau plans.

As of this year, Missouri is one of 14 states that allow health coverage through state farm bureaus, grassroots membership organizations that advocate for the agricultural industry and rural interests. An annual membership in the bureau typically costs $30 to $50, and in many of the states anyone can join. With membership comes the option of buying into the health plan.

Plan details vary by state, but they typically share many features of marketplace plans, including coverage of a wide range of services, a broad practitioner network, and a way to file complaints.

But because states have passed laws exempting farm bureau health plans from health insurance requirements, they don’t offer many of the coverage protections provided by insurance. That means their benefits and coverage rules may be less generous or predictable than Obamacare plans.

Crucially, farm bureau plans don’t have to accept everyone who applies for coverage. People must pass underwriting first, a process in which plans evaluate applicants’ medical history and health conditions and decide whether to offer them coverage. This practice was routine before the ACA passed, and people were often rejected due to preexisting medical conditions.

Because farm bureau plans can turn down people with expensive chronic conditions or a history of cancer or other medical issues, farm bureau plans may be 30% to 50% cheaper than unsubsidized marketplace plans, plan managers say.

As people struggle to keep family farms afloat, they may face Obamacare premiums totaling thousands of dollars a month, leading some to forgo coverage, said Missouri Farm Bureau president Garrett Hawkins.

“We’re trying to present another option,” he said.

Sowing Choices

In 2026, with the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, average ACA premium payments were estimated to increase by 114% for subsidized enrollees who retained their marketplace plan, according to KFF.

Last year, Missouri was one of four states that passed laws permitting farm bureau health plans. The others were Alabama, Florida, and Ohio.

Although the number of states offering them has ticked up in recent years, farm bureau health plans aren’t new. Tennessee has been offering the coverage since 1947. Tennessee’s Farm Bureau Health Plans administers the plans in 10 of the 14 states that permit them.

In Missouri, the farm bureau offers several plans with varying deductibles, copayments, and annual limits on out-of-pocket spending. Many of the benefits and cost-sharing amounts look like the coverage someone might get on the state health insurance exchanges or through an employer. They include emergency care and hospitalization, physician office visits, prescription drugs, free preventive care, and dental and vision services. Members have access to providers through the UnitedHealthcare Choice Plus national network.

Hawkins said he’s pleased with the interest the plans are generating. People could apply for coverage through the website starting Jan. 1, and by mid-March, 520 people had submitted applications, he said.

It’s uncertain how many of those people will clear the underwriting hurdle and buy a farm bureau plan, however. Farm bureau health plans can deny coverage for any reason. Even if coverage is offered, plans in Missouri don’t cover any preexisting conditions for at least six or 12 months. In addition, plans may exclude coverage of any benefits related to a “known risk” for two to seven years, depending on the issue. So people with a range of conditions, such as diabetes, high cholesterol, heart problems, or successfully treated cancer, may be turned down or have to pay out-of-pocket for any related care for at least a year and possibly as long as seven years.

“People don’t like that we underwrite, but if we did everything like the ACA, we’d be just like an ACA plan,” said Jason Beard, general counsel and chief compliance and privacy officer at Tennessee’s Farm Bureau Health Plans. “We’re trying to be an option for folks that would otherwise not have coverage.”

Staying Rooted in Coverage

Under the Missouri law, once someone is covered by a farm bureau plan, they can’t be kicked off or charged a higher rate if they get sick. That’s also true for the nine other states where Tennessee administers the plans, Beard said.

“We do not contractually have the right to raise premiums or cancel plans based on [an individual’s] health experience,” he said.

And yet, “it can be really confusing to people” because the plans look like insurance products, but they don’t have the same protections, said Anna Howard, principal for policy development, access to, and quality of care at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

Someone with a history of cancer would be unlikely to get approved for a farm bureau plan in the first place, Howard said. If they were accepted, the services they might need would likely be excluded from coverage, she said.

“We’re just concerned that there’s going to be more people enrolled in these plans now because there’s so many more states that are allowing them,” Howard said.

Carlton, the self-employed property manager, knows firsthand how underwriting can limit coverage options. Before the Affordable Care Act required that anyone be accepted regardless of health status, Carlton, who has diabetes, had to buy coverage through his state’s high-risk pool, which was often the only option for people with preexisting conditions.

Meanwhile, policy experts share Howard’s concerns.

Insurance companies in the ACA marketplaces “have to offer maternity coverage, and they have to give you benefits on day one for a preexisting condition, and they can’t charge you more because you have that condition,” said Sarah Lueck, vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This creates an uneven playing field for insurers and drives up premiums for the people who can’t get into farm bureau plans.

Farm bureau plans “get to use, you know, the standard market as a high-risk pool, essentially, if they want to,” Lueck said.

Still, with the huge jump in premiums that many people are facing for ACA coverage, it’s easy to understand the appeal of farm bureau plans.

“I’m not saying it’s a good thing that states have abdicated their regulatory responsibility here,” said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “I’m just saying that there are a lot of people out there who are struggling, who need health care, and simply can’t afford the premiums in these ACA marketplaces anymore.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But she also wasn’t expecting the Planned Parenthood in Marquette to shut down last spring. Roughly 1,100 patients relied on that clinic each year for cancer screenings, IUD insertions, and medication abortions. Now the area has no other in-person resource for abortions. “It’s a 500-mile stretch of no access,” Brown said.

So the doctor, who describes herself as “individually pro-life,” added medication abortions to Marquette Medical Urgent Care’s already busy practice, which treats a steady flow of kids with the flu, college students with migraines, and tourists with skiing injuries.

At least 38 abortion clinics shut down last year in states where they’re still legal, according to data collected by I Need an A, a project supported by a number of nonprofits that helps people find abortion options. Even states that recently passed constitutional amendments protecting abortion rights, such as Michigan, have had clinics close since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. And as rural hospitals shutter labor and delivery units, patients are losing access to pregnancy care. “You cannot have a high-risk pregnancy up here,” Brown said. “It’s a scary place.”

Now communities are coming up with alternatives, such as Brown’s urgent care.

The idea that urgent cares “could be an untapped solution to closures for abortion clinics across the country is really exciting,” said Kimi Chernoby, the chief operating and legal officer at FemInEM, a national nonprofit that works to improve professional training and patient outcomes for women in emergency medicine.

One patient at the Marquette urgent care on a recent day was a woman whom KFF Health News agreed to identify by only her first initial, “A,” to protect her medical privacy. She drove more than an hour on snowy backroads while her kids were in day care to get to her appointment.

Her youngest is still a baby, A said, and she got pregnant again while taking the progestin-only birth control pill, which is less likely to interfere with breast milk production but slightly less effective than the regular pill.

“Financials, housing, vehicles — it’s a lot,” she said. And another baby is “just not something that we could really do even at this time.”

She said she was making the long round trip because receiving abortion care in an office felt more secure than being treated by “someone that I’ve never met, or receiving meds that were just shipped to me.”

Face-to-Face Care

In one of the urgent care’s exam rooms, A sat in a chair against the wall, waiting quietly for the doctor. Viktoria Koskenoja, an emergency medicine physician, knocked on the door and then greeted her warmly, pulling up a stool across from her.

“Are you confident in your decision that you want to go ahead? Or do you want to talk about options?” she said.

“No, I’m pretty set on it,” A said.

Koskenoja previously worked at Planned Parenthood. When she learned its Marquette clinic was closing, she started crying and making calls. She recalled asking everyone she knew in health care in Marquette: “What are we going to do?”

One of her first calls was to Brown, a friend and fellow emergency medicine doctor. Their families harvest maple syrup together each spring.

In the wake of the Planned Parenthood closure, Koskenoja convened a community meeting downtown at the Women’s Federated Clubhouse, an 1880s-era building where guests sip from gold-rimmed china teacups on lace tablecloths. The goal: brainstorm new ways to provide abortion access in the Upper Peninsula.

Planned Parenthood of Michigan officials said that growing financial challenges and the Trump administration’s cuts to funding, including for the public insurance program Medicaid, had prompted the closures of some brick-and-mortar clinics in the state.

Plus, the availability of pills by mail exploded after the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe. As abortion became illegal in many states, telehealth abortions went from 5% of all abortions provided to 25% by the end of 2024, according to #WeCount, a national reporting project that tracks shifts in abortion volume.

Planned Parenthood of Michigan’s telehealth appointments increased 13% for patients in the Upper Peninsula after the Marquette location closed, said Paula Thornton Greear, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood in the state.

All the abortion patients Koskenoja sees at the urgent care have one thing in common: They want to talk to someone in person.

“I had a patient order the pills online and then get scared to use them because they felt like they were going to screw it up, or they weren’t sure they could rely on the pills,” she said. “So they literally came in here with the pills in their hand.”

Others have medical complications or need an ultrasound to determine how far along they are with the pregnancy.

“It annoys me that telehealth is considered an acceptable thing in rural areas,” Koskenoja said. “As though we’re not the human beings that like talking to human beings and looking someone in the eye, especially when something serious is going on.”

The Urgent Care Option

The options presented at that community clubhouse meeting were limited. The few family medicine doctors and OB-GYNs in the area were either already putting patients on months-long waitlists or were too “rightward leaning,” Brown said.

But urgent cares are designed to fill gaps in the system, she said, ready to take walk-ins who aren’t already patients.

Brown knew from her years in the emergency room that medication abortions aren’t that complicated. The professional guidelines for first-trimester medication abortions and miscarriages are essentially the same: one dose of mifepristone, followed by misoprostol after 24 to 48 hours.

“Clinically, I was never worried about it,” she said.

The biggest hurdle was getting medical malpractice insurance, Brown said. At first, insurers balked, demanding “onerous and unrealistic” documentation and additional training, she said. Then they quoted a $60,000 annual premium for medication abortions — about three times the cost of insuring the entire urgent care. Ultimately, Brown said, the urgent care’s broker pushed back, providing data that medication abortions didn’t add “significant liability.”

The company agreed to a premium of about $6,000 per year, she said.

The community pitched in, too. A local donor covered an ultrasound machine. And supporters started a nonprofit to help pay for the costs of the medication and additional staffing, bringing the price for patients down from about $450 to an average of about $225, based on a sliding scale.

Word spread quickly once Marquette Medical began offering medication abortions, Brown said. Now the office provides as many as four per week, with patients traveling from as far away as Louisiana. The clinic is on track to match the volume of abortion patients treated at the local Planned Parenthood office before its closure, Brown said.

As pills by mail become the next major target for abortion opponents, Chernoby said, it will be critical to offer more care in more brick-and-mortar places. Brown said the Marquette clinic has already fielded questions from a large academic medical center that plans to start providing medication abortion at its own urgent cares later this year.

“It’s a wonderful idea, but it’s potentially got major pitfalls,” said David Cohen, a professor at the Drexel University Kline School of Law who studies abortion access.

Urgent cares that provide medication abortion would have to abide by state-specific laws — some mandate 24-hour waiting periods or facility structural requirements — and federal regulations, such as the FDA’s requirement that mifepristone prescribers be certified by the drug’s distributors and obtain signed patient agreements.

If abortion access isn’t a core part of a health organization’s mission, “do you want to be on that list? I don’t know if you do,” Cohen said. “There’s just a very particular regulatory environment” around abortion.

Making a Choice

In the exam room, Koskenoja listened as A talked about why she decided to seek an abortion. She has four kids at home, including the baby.

“You OK if we do an ultrasound, just confirm how far along you are, make sure it’s not an ectopic pregnancy?” Koskenoja asked. 

“Yeah,” A said.

Koskenoja noted A’s reaction to the question. “OK. You’re making a face?”

“Yeah, I just don’t — yeah, it’s fine. I just don’t want to see it.”

“Oh, you don’t have to see it,” Koskenoja said.

“I just don’t want to hear a heartbeat or anything like that,” A said.

“Definitely not,” Koskenoja said.

After the ultrasound, Koskenoja stepped out into the hall to give A time to call her partner.

When A said she was ready, Koskenoja stepped in and asked her how she was feeling. A had made up her mind. She said that her partner would be supportive of whatever she decided and that she didn’t want to have another baby right now.

“As much as I know this baby would be loved no matter what, it’s just not a good time,” A said quietly, her hands in her lap.

“Most people who get abortions love babies,” Koskenoja said. And you can still have more in the future, she assured A. 

This kicked off a long conversation about the mental load of parenting and the pros and cons of various birth control options. A said she wanted to get her tubes tied, but Koskenoja suggested her partner consider a vasectomy instead. It’s a much less invasive procedure, she said. “You’ve had a lot of kids. I feel like it could be his turn to take some responsibility.”

Koskenoja handed her a small, handsewn “comfort bag” that all medication abortion patients receive. It was filled with the pills, reminders about when to take them, a handwritten note of support from local community members, pain meds, comfortable socks, and a heating pad.

“Call us if you need anything,” she told A. “Any questions?”

“No,” A said.

“OK. Good luck,” Koskenoja said before A walked out past the waiting room, filled with sick babies and other patients, to drive back to her kids.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Vestida con ropa de senderismo y collares de cuentas, Carranza, de 67 años, se movía entre árboles y niños en una mañana soleada de diciembre. “Agárrate de esa rama”, dijo en español. “¡Tú puedes, mi amor!”.

Carranza, profesional especializada en desarrollo infantil que creció columpiándose entre árboles y nadando en ríos en El Salvador, dijo que se siente como en casa en el bosque del preescolar al aire libre que cofundó. Ha trabajado con niños y adolescentes como cuidadora y educadora durante más de tres décadas, el tiempo suficiente para saber cuándo intervenir y cuándo dar un paso atrás para que sus estudiantes encuentren su propio equilibrio.

Cuando pasó a trabajar medio tiempo el año pasado, Carranza contaba con recibir Medicare y cheques del Seguro Social, beneficios otorgados a trabajadores estadounidenses e inmigrantes con presencia legal cuando se retiran, si cumplen con los requisitos de historial laboral y edad, o si tienen alguna discapacidad.

Carranza ha aportado decenas de miles de dólares a Medicare y al Seguro Social durante 24 años, según su registro de ingresos de la Administración del Seguro Social, revisado por El Tímpano y KFF Health News. Pero Carranza es una de un estimado de 100.000 inmigrantes con papeles que pronto quedarán excluidos de Medicare.

La ley One Big Beautiful Bill Act del Partido Republicano, firmada en julio pasado por el presidente Donald Trump, prohíbe que ciertas categorías de inmigrantes con presencia legal — incluidos beneficiarios del estatus de protección temporal (TPS), refugiados, solicitantes de asilo, sobrevivientes de violencia doméstica, víctimas de trata y personas con visas de trabajo — accedan a Medicare.

Quienes ya están en el programa, como Carranza, serán dados de baja antes del 4 de enero, una medida de legisladores republicanos para reducir el gasto de Medicare, ya que, junto con Trump, han argumentado que el dinero de los contribuyentes no debe usarse para pagar la atención médica de inmigrantes sin autorización.

“Los demócratas quieren que los inmigrantes ilegales, muchos de ellos CRIMINALES VIOLENTOS, reciban atención médica GRATIS”, publicó Trump en Truth Social dos meses después de firmar la ley. “¡No podemos permitir que esto suceda!”

Sin embargo, las categorías de inmigrantes que ahora perderán cobertura sí tienen estatus legal. Ni la Casa Blanca ni el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) respondieron a una pregunta sobre si era justo sacar de Medicare a residentes legales.

Los inmigrantes sin estatus legal ya no eran elegibles para Medicare ni para la mayoría de los beneficios públicos financiados por el gobierno federal.

Carranza teme que también pueda perder el permiso legal para vivir en Estados Unidos si la administración Trump pone fin al TPS para salvadoreños, como intentó hacer durante su primer mandato.

Si eso ocurre, Carranza perdería su residencia legal y podría estar en riesgo de pasar tiempo en un centro de detención migratorio o ser deportada.

“Esto es como una película de terror, una pesadilla completa”, dijo Carranza. “No es así como imaginé envejecer”.

“Bajo ataque constante”

Carranza dejó El Salvador en 1991 durante una guerra civil brutal, dejando atrás a tres hijos pequeños, para ganar dinero y enviarlo a su familia. Permaneció en el país después de que venciera su visa hasta 2001, cuando calificó para el TPS, luego de dos terremotos que azotaron El Salvador, matando a más de 1.100 personas y desplazando a 1,3 millones.

El TPS fue aprobado por el Congreso y promulgado en 1990 por el presidente republicano George H.W. Bush.

Este estatus permite que personas como Carranza, provenientes de ciertos países afectados por conflictos armados, guerras civiles o desastres climáticos, vivan y trabajen en Estados Unidos, si regresar a su país representa un riesgo.

Carranza se perdió la graduación de jardín de infantes de su hija menor y su primera medalla en atletismo. Trabajó turnos nocturnos cuidando recién nacidos y luego como maestra sustituta en escuelas públicas del Área de la Bahía de San Francisco para pagar la educación de sus hijos en El Salvador, así como sus propios estudios en el City College of San Francisco, donde obtuvo un título en desarrollo infantil.

También cuidó a decenas de niños de 3, 4 y 5 años que miraban con asombro mientras descubrían pequeños tesoros en el bosque de secuoyas del parque de Oakland donde cofundó Escuelita del Bosque, un preescolar de inmersión en español que enseña al aire libre.

Se suponía que la recompensa sería una jubilación tranquila. Pero el Congreso limitó la elegibilidad de Medicare a ciudadanos, residentes permanentes legales, nacionales cubanos y haitianos, y personas amparadas por los Compacts of Free Association, acuerdos entre Estados Unidos y naciones insulares del Pacífico.

La medida siguió a los intentos de Trump de excluir a algunos inmigrantes con presencia legal de Medicaid, de los subsidios en el mercado de seguros de salud y de servicios de apoyo social, como asistencia alimentaria, ayuda para vivienda y visitas médicas en centros de salud financiados por el gobierno federal. En total, se proyectaba que 1,4 millones de inmigrantes con presencia legal perderían el seguro de salud, según KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro de información de salud que incluye a KFF Health News.

Taylor Haulsee, vocero del presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, Mike Johnson, no respondió a solicitudes de comentarios.

Michael Cannon, director de estudios de política de salud en el Cato Institute, un centro de tendencia libertaria, dijo que los republicanos querían implementar recortes de impuestos y eliminar el seguro de salud para inmigrantes porque no afectaría a su base.

“No quieren convertir a Estados Unidos en un imán de asistencia social”, opinó. “Y les molesta que el gobierno les haga pagar por un estado de bienestar”.

Aunque no hay datos sobre inmigrantes con presencia legal, los inmigrantes sin papeles aportaron $6,4 mil millones a Medicare y $25,7 mil millones al Seguro Social en 2022, según el Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

La Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso estimó que solo las restricciones a Medicare reducirían el gasto federal en $5,1 mil millones para 2034.

Expertos en salud dicen que eliminar la cobertura para inmigrantes con estatus legal no tiene precedentes.

“En realidad, esta es la primera vez que el Congreso le quita Medicare a algún grupo”, dijo Drishti Pillai, directora de políticas de salud para inmigrantes en KFF. “Este cambio está afectando a inmigrantes con presencia legal en Estados Unidos, muchos de los cuales ya han trabajado y contribuido al sistema durante décadas”.

A medida que adultos mayores como Carranza pierdan su cobertura de Medicare, los médicos anticipan que retrasarán su atención, lo que llevará a un aumento de pacientes gravemente enfermos, especialmente en salas de emergencia.

Los adultos mayores pueden enfermarse de forma repentina y rápida, y son más vulnerables a enfermedades cardiovasculares como afecciones del corazón y presión arterial alta, especialmente si posponen la atención de rutina, dijo Theresa Cheng, médica de emergencias en Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital y profesora clínica adjunta de medicina de emergencias en la Universidad de California-San Francisco.

“Es bastante fácil que sufran un deterioro crítico de su salud”, dijo Cheng.

Carranza hace senderismo y se considera saludable, pero reconoce que está envejeciendo y comenzando a tener dificultades para seguir el ritmo de los niños en el bosque.

A finales del año pasado le diagnosticaron hipertensión, y en enero despertó con una presión en el pecho y fue a un centro de urgencias porque su presión había subido a niveles peligrosos. Unas semanas después, tropezó mientras caminaba y se cayó. Al día siguiente despertó con el pie hinchado. En el hospital local, un médico le dijo que tenía artritis.

Dijo que fueron momentos preocupantes, pero estaba agradecida de pagar solo $10 por la visita a urgencias y $5 por ver a su médico de atención primaria. Sin embargo, eso cambiará cuando pierda Medicare a principios del próximo año.

El estrés de saber que perderá su seguro de salud y posiblemente su estatus legal, mientras agentes federales detienen a inmigrantes como ella en todo el país, ha afectado su salud mental, contó. Está buscando terapia y servicios de acupuntura para tratar su insomnio y ansiedad, y la sensación de estar “bajo un ataque constante”.

Sin un lugar a donde ir

En California, hogar del mayor número de adultos mayores inmigrantes, Carranza podría haberse inscrito en un seguro patrocinado por el estado, pero este año el estado congeló la inscripción para adultos de 19 años o más que tienen TPS, están en el país sin autorización o son solicitantes de asilo. Otros estados con gobernadores demócratas como Illinois y Minnesota también han reducido sus programas de salud para inmigrantes por presiones presupuestarias.

En enero, el gobernador de California, Gavin Newsom, propuso un presupuesto estatal que no compensaría los recortes federales de atención médica para unos 200.000 inmigrantes con presencia legal, señalando el costo anual de $1.1 mil millones y déficits presupuestarios estatales.

“Dadas estas presiones fiscales, la administración no puede compensar este cambio en la política federal”, dijo H.D. Palmer, vocero del Departamento de Finanzas de California.

Pero algunos legisladores demócratas y defensores de los consumidores dicen que el estado debería intervenir. La asambleísta Mia Bonta, quien preside el Comité de Salud de la Asamblea, dijo que está trabajando en una solución presupuestaria legislativa para incluir en Medi-Cal — la versión estatal de Medicaid — a los inmigrantes que perderán su cobertura, incluidos los adultos mayores.

La demócrata de East Bay está especialmente preocupada por personas como Carranza, “que han vivido aquí durante décadas y han contribuido a esta economía, que han aportado a nuestro tejido cultural y a nuestras comunidades, que han formado familias y vidas y que ahora quieren tener la posibilidad de retirarse con dignidad y vivir con dignidad y tener la atención médica que necesitan”.

Una señal del futuro

En abril pasado, Carranza vislumbró lo que podría significar perder su cobertura de salud y beneficios de jubilación, después de que la Administración del Seguro Social le enviara una carta informándole que ya no calificaba para beneficios de jubilación porque no tenía presencia legal en el país, aunque sí la tenía. Luego Medicare dejó de pagar a su plan de salud, que como resultado la dio de baja.

Como beneficiaria de TPS con permiso de trabajo, sabía que se trataba de un error. Aun así, sin su cheque, Carranza no tuvo dinero para pagar la renta durante un mes. Compensó ese pago cuidando a los hijos de sus arrendadores. En mayo pasado, la oficina de la representante federal Lateefah Simon (demócrata de Oakland) ayudó a Carranza a recuperar sus beneficios de jubilación, pero tomó meses recuperar su seguro de salud.

La experiencia la dejó afectada.

“Es como recibir una bofetada en la cara después de más de 30 años trabajando para el sistema aquí”, dijo Carranza. “Y a cambio, esto es lo que tenemos ahora”.

Por las noches permanece despierta imaginando el futuro: aquí, donde ha pasado la mitad de su vida, sin seguro de salud y posiblemente sin beneficios del Seguro Social; o en El Salvador, donde están dos de sus tres hijos. Su hija, residente permanente que vive en Texas, espera convertirse en ciudadana para poder solicitar la residencia permanente para Carranza, pero el proceso puede tardar años.

También está la posibilidad que más teme: la detención indefinida o la deportación.

En una mañana reciente en su estudio en el sótano en Oakland, Carranza sacó una caja del fondo de su clóset. Dentro había una pila alta de tarjetas de identificación que incluían licencias de conducir antiguas, su tarjeta del Seguro Social y decenas de permisos de trabajo emitidos por el gobierno federal.

“Mi vida está en esta caja”, dijo.

Este artículo fue producido en colaboración con El Tímpano, una organización cívico-mediática que sirve y cubre a las comunidades inmigrantes latinas y mayas del Área de la Bahía.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

A mom of seven, Pipe is a doula on the reservation who supports new and expectant parents. She does that work free, around her day job. That’s because in this town of about 2,000 people, the closest hospital that delivers babies is 100 miles away.

“Women need this help,” Pipe said.

Doulas ready parents for childbirth, support their deliveries, and can be a steady presence in a baby’s first months. Studies link their work with lower rates of costly birth and postpartum complications — especially in hard-to-reach places like Lame Deer.

But that help can be scarce. As Pipe put it: “Doula doesn’t pay the bills around here.”

Things were supposed to change this year. Montana was set to join at least 25 other states that reimburse doulas through their Medicaid programs to ease gaps in care. Montana lawmakers approved the payments last year, authorizing up to $1,600 per pregnancy. Pipe hoped that money would give her the chance to leave her post office job one day to help more parents.

But the state Department of Public Health and Human Services postponed adding doula services to its Medicaid program in late March, citing a budget shortfall driven in part by higher-than-expected Medicaid costs.

“DPHHS will not be moving forward with the implementation of doula services in the Montana Medicaid benefit package at this time,” department spokesperson Holly Matkin told KFF Health News.

The news caught Pipe by surprise — she hadn’t heard any updates in a while, but the state had finalized its licensing rules for doulas in January. Last year, she supported three people through their deliveries. She doesn’t have time for much more. That weighs on her. Nearly half the people on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation live in poverty, and the people she helps usually can’t afford to pay a doula.

“I was looking forward to serving more people,” Pipe said. “Now that’s not going to happen anytime soon.”

Charlie Brereton, who heads the health department, told state lawmakers in March that the agency projected a $146.3 million shortfall in federal Medicaid funds for this year. Health officials predict another deficit next year as states feel the effects of Republicans’ massive tax-and-spending law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Signed last year, that law is projected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years.

Matkin said it’s “unclear” whether the agency can authorize doula coverage this year. The deficit will lead the department to seek supplemental funding from state lawmakers. When an agency makes that kind of request for the first year of the state’s two-year budget cycle, Montana law requires it to create a plan to reduce its spending.

Around the country, optional Medicaid services — such as doula support, home health care, and dental work — are at risk of losing funding as states brace for federal Medicaid cuts to hit their bottom lines. Already, lawmakers in Idaho are considering their own reductions to Medicaid to balance the state’s budget. Missouri officials proposed cutting tens of millions of dollars in services for people with disabilities.

In Montana, doula services are unlikely to be the only Medicaid cutbacks announced. “All options are on the table,” Brereton told lawmakers in March.

Stephanie Morton, executive director of Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies-The Montana Coalition, said more than half of Montana’s counties are designated as maternity care deserts.

“Budget cuts will continue to diminish the limited services families rely upon in these counties,” said Morton, whose nonprofit had advocated for doula Medicaid reimbursement. “This decision feels like the first of many rollbacks and cuts Montanans will face.”

Laboring Alone

At the check-in just outside town, Pipe handed a waking newborn to his mother and unwrapped a new swaddle for the child. This would have to be a quick visit — she was already late for work.

The mother, Britney WolfVoice, held her newborn son as her three young daughters stood close by. Pipe has been with WolfVoice and her husband for the birth of their newborn son and youngest daughter.

She helped them create delivery plans. For the birth of WolfVoice’s youngest daughter a few years ago, Pipe brought cedar oil, a sacred plant used for prayer, and calmed WolfVoice through her contractions. For the recent birth of her son, when hospital backlogs delayed WolfVoice’s induction, Pipe encouraged her to advocate for an earlier appointment by routinely calling the hospital. Doctors had recommended the procedure to avoid complications.

“Misty is one person who I can count on to be my voice,” WolfVoice said.

If someone needs a ride to a doctor’s appointment, Pipe takes time off work to drive them. If a client goes into labor when Pipe’s at the post office, she texts two other free doulas she knows of on the reservation to see if they have time to help until her shift ends. But they also have day jobs.

Pipe herself has ridden that 100-mile stretch between home and the hospital in labor and in the back of an ambulance. Twice, she gave birth in emergency rooms along the way. In one of her pregnancies, she miscarried at home and couldn’t get a doctor appointment for days.

The long distance to receive care often meant her husband had to stay behind to tend to their other children at home.

“I labored alone so many times,” Pipe said. “I just want to make sure no one’s alone.”

Rural maternity care deserts are a national problem, especially as labor and delivery units continue to shutter. In many tribal communities, a lack of care coincides with long-standing inequities caused by centuries of systematic discrimination.

Predominantly Indigenous communities face the longest distances to obstetric facilities compared with all other racial and ethnic groups, according to a 2024 report from the March of Dimes. That’s part of the reason Indigenous women are far more likely to get sick from pregnancy and at least twice as likely to die as white women.

Indigenous patients are supposed to be guaranteed access to health care through the federal Indian Health Service. But the chronically underfunded agency has severe gaps. A small fraction of its hospitals and clinics offer labor and delivery. As of 2024, only seven states had either an IHS or tribal birth facility, the agency reported. To help fill in those shortfalls, Medicaid is the main source of health coverage for many Native Americans, according to KFF.

Even where care exists, Native women can experience a distrust of health systems, according to Pipe and other health workers. The U.S. government has a long history of removing children from tribal homes and forcing Native American women to undergo sterilization.

Emily Haozous of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation’s Southwest center has studied premature deaths among Native Americans. A member of the Fort Sill-Chiricahua-Warm Springs-Apache Tribe, Haozous said data on maternal health disparities in pregnancy and postpartum often misses a key point.

“It’s not that women are just not taking care of themselves,” Haozous said. “The system is set up for them to not have access to care.”

On top of funding cuts, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will add more frequent eligibility checks and work requirements to access Medicaid. Those changes, when they take effect later this year and next, will lead an estimated 5.3 million people to lose their coverage by 2034.

Native Americans are exempt from some of the law’s new rules, such as the work requirements. Even so, tribal patients can get tangled in administrative hurdles. That includes struggling to enroll in the first place or to prove their tribal status. A full-time college student, WolfVoice said that when she got pregnant, it took about six months to enroll in the state’s Medicaid program.

Despite Montana’s long struggle with a backlogged Medicaid system, state officials aim to implement work requirements this summer, well before the federal deadline.

‘Moccasins on the Ground’

As Pipe pulled into her driveway one day after a full shift at the post office, her kids ran to her. She was also greeted by Felicia Blindman, a 63-year-old public health nurse who used to work for the tribe. The two sat in lawn chairs into the night and brainstormed ways to connect more women to services — such as free prenatal classes.

Pipe’s four youngest children played around them. Her 14-year-old daughter is already certified as an Indigenous doula. Her 8-year-old daughter has begun helping Pipe pick up prescriptions for moms without a car who live out of town. Pipe hopes one day they could do that work full-time, if they want to.

Because of the lost Medicaid payment, Pipe said, she will continue to balance her job with her birth work, even if it means persuading more people to become doulas, such as family and respected community members, to cover more ground.

“It’s not going to stop me from training more birth workers, more young people, more aunties,” Pipe said. “For now, I guess it’s more about grassroots, moccasins on the ground, helping each other.”

She said that means telling pregnant people who walk into the post office she’s there to help if they need support. At least, as long as she’s not at her day job.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).