Health and Fitness Tips

RFK Jr. to Testify Before Congress for First Time This Year

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expected to defend staff and funding cuts at the Health and Human Services Department he oversees.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/EZiW1Vf

As US Birth Rate Falls, Feds’ Response May Make Pregnancy More Dangerous

The number of babies born in the United States fell again last year.

According to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 3.6 million births in 2025, a 1% decline from 2024. The fertility rate dropped to 53.1 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, down 23% since 2007.

The Trump administration has said it wants to reverse this trend. President Donald Trump has called for “a new baby boom,” and aides have solicited proposals from outside advocates and policy groups ranging from baby bonuses to expanded fertility planning. The administration is also proposing to reshape the federal government’s only dedicated family planning program: Title X.

For more than five decades, Title X has been geared — with bipartisan support — toward giving low-income women access to contraception, screening for sexually transmitted infections, and reproductive health care regardless of ability to pay. At its peak, the safety net program served more than 5 million patients a year. Six in 10 Title X clients have reported the program as their sole source of health care in a given year.

In early April, the Department of Health and Human Services invited nonprofit organizations to apply for Title X grants for fiscal year 2027, which begins in October. The 67-page Notice of Funding Opportunity included only one mention of contraception — describing it as overprescribed, associated with negative side effects, and part of a broader “overreliance on pharmaceutical and surgical treatments.”

The grant notification reshapes the program from its traditional public health intervention efforts to focus on fertility, family formation, and reproductive health conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, low testosterone, and erectile dysfunction.

While Title X will continue to help women “achieve healthy pregnancies,” the grant document does not explicitly reference preventing unintended pregnancies — a long-standing goal of the program.

Jessica Marcella, who oversaw the Title X program as a senior official in the Biden administration, said the new funding notice amounts to a wholesale redefinition of family planning.

“What we’re seeing is trying to use our nation’s family planning as a Trojan horse for an entirely different agenda,” Marcella said, noting that Trump has proposed eliminating Title X altogether.

Birth Rates and Fertility Trends

The administration is overhauling Title X in the context of declining birth rates. But researchers who study fertility trends say the decline is driven by forces that have little to do with contraception access and that restricting it is unlikely to produce more births.

The most important factors, according to demographer Alison Gemmill of UCLA, are timing-related. “Childbearing is increasingly delayed as part of a broader shift toward later adult milestones, including stable employment, leaving the parental home, and marriage,” she said.

Most American women, she said, still complete their childbearing years with an average of two children, suggesting a shift toward smaller families rather than an increase in childlessness.

“Having children has become more contingent and more planned,” she said.

Much of the decline since 2007 reflects women postponing births rather than forgoing them.

“The average number of babies women are having in their whole lives has not fallen. It’s still more than 2.0 for women aged 45,” said Philip Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland.

Phillip Levine, an economist at Wellesley College, said the birth rate has declined due to shifts in how women approach work, leisure, and parenting. “Efforts to reverse those patterns would be more successful if they can make childbearing more desirable, not make it harder to prevent a pregnancy,” he said.

Asked about the role of contraception in reducing maternal mortality and how the new funding notice advances that goal, HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard said in a statement: “Applicants for the 2027 Title X funding cycle will be expected to align with the administration’s stated priorities in the released Notice of Funding Opportunity. HHS, under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy and President Trump, will continue to support policies that support life, family well-being, maternal health, and address the chronic disease epidemic. HHS remains focused on improving maternal outcomes and ensuring programs are administered consistent with applicable law.”

Marcella said the new funding notice is the product of two converging forces: the Make America Healthy Again movement, with its skepticism of conventional medicine and emphasis on lifestyle and behavioral interventions, and a pronatalist agenda that seeks to boost birth rates by steering policy toward family formation.

The document’s language reflects both: It repeatedly invokes “optimal health” and “chronic disease” while sidelining the contraceptive services that have defined Title X for half a century.

Clare Coleman, president and CEO of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, which represents health professionals focused on family planning, said tying Title X to birth-rate goals replaces individual decision-making with a government objective. The program “is designed to facilitate access to family planning services, including services to achieve and prevent pregnancy,” she said.

Title X’s New Focus

The administration’s changes have been welcomed on the right.

Emma Waters, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, who has advocated for what she calls “restorative reproductive medicine,” said the new funding notice reflects overdue attention to neglected aspects of women’s health.

“I was particularly encouraged to see language that spoke to the delays in diagnosis for conditions like endometriosis, the need for women to practically understand how their cycle and fertility works, and to ensure that real root-cause was promoted through Title X,” Waters said.

She described the notice as an expansion, not a narrowing, of the program’s mission: “I see this iteration of Title X as the fulfillment of its purpose. The goal was never just ‘more contraception’ but a wholesale empowerment of women to govern their own fertility.”

Waters also argued that untreated reproductive health problems may contribute to lower birth rates.

“One of the interesting aspects of this debate, and one that is often overlooked, is the degree to which painful and unaddressed reproductive health problems may suppress or create ambivalence around a woman’s desire to have kids,” she said, pointing to endometriosis.

An estimated 5% to 10% of women of reproductive age have endometriosis, and of those, 30%-50% experience infertility. Scientifically speaking, the relationship is an association, not a proven cause. Women aren’t screened for endometriosis if they don’t have symptoms, and the condition may be more prevalent than is recognized. Researchers still do not fully understand why some women with endometriosis struggle to conceive while others do not, and treating the disease does not reliably restore fertility.

Infertility rates in the U.S., meanwhile, have not risen. An analysis of federal survey data found them essentially flat between 1995 and 2019, even as the national birth rate fell sharply — a divergence that points away from untreated reproductive disease as an explanation.

Meanwhile, in February, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued new clinical guidelines enabling earlier diagnosis of endometriosis without surgery, a step toward addressing the delays Waters described. But the first-line treatment ACOG recommends is hormonal therapy, part of the same category of care the funding notice dismisses as part of an “overreliance on pharmaceutical and surgical treatments.” The effect, reproductive health experts say, is a contradiction: Title X is now prioritizing diagnosis of endometriosis while deemphasizing the drugs clinicians use to treat it.

Treatments that have been shown to improve fertility in women with endometriosis, such as laparoscopic surgery and in vitro fertilization, are not covered by Title X. When President Richard Nixon signed Title X into law in 1970, he described it as a way to expand access to family planning services — helping women determine the number and spacing of their children by making contraception and related preventive care more widely available, particularly for those who could not afford it. Medicaid, not Title X, is the primary government health insurance program covering health care for low-income women, but, like many commercial insurance plans, it does not cover IVF.

Many of the conditions prioritized in the funding notice deserve attention, said Liz Romer, a former chief clinical adviser for the HHS Office of Population Affairs who helped write updated guidelines for the family planning program. But they fall outside the scope of what Title X can realistically provide.

“There’s not even enough funding to support the core premise of contraception,” Romer said. “And so, if you want to expand Title X funding, you can expand the scope, but you can’t move away from the foundation.”

The emergence of an anticontraception ideology within federal health policy is striking, she said, given how broadly the public supports access to birth control. Eight in 10 women of childbearing age surveyed by KFF in 2024 reported having used some form of contraception in the previous 12 months.

Laura Lindberg, director of the Concentration in Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice at Rutgers School of Public Health, said, “If contraception is sidelined in Title X, it won’t just change language on paper but will show up as fewer options and more barriers for patients.” Funding could move away from providers who offer a full range of contraceptive care, she added, “toward organizations that are ideologically opposed to contraception and don’t deliver the same standard of health care services.”

The Stakes Are High

The United States already has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among wealthy nations — 17.9 deaths per 100,000 live births as of 2024. According to the CDC, 4 in 5 pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. may be preventable. Medical research shows that pregnancy carries substantially higher risks of blood clots, stroke, and cardiovascular complications than hormonal contraception.

And since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade, access to abortion has been significantly curtailed across much of the country. While national abortion numbers have risen, driven largely by telehealth and interstate access, research shows births have increased in states with bans, with an estimated 32,000 additional births annually, disproportionately among young women and women of color.

Dr. Christine Dehlendorf, who directs the Person-Centered Reproductive Health Program at the University of California-San Francisco, said “there is absolutely no evidence for any positive outcome of restricting access to contraception.” Restrictions would instead increase demand for abortion care and make it harder for women to prevent high-risk pregnancies.

Since Trump returned to office, more than a dozen Title X grantees have had their grants frozen, forcing some health centers to stop delivering services, lay off staff, or close. During the first Trump administration, regulatory changes led to a decline in Title X participation from more than 4 million patients to 1.5 million. The program grew slowly under the Biden administration, reaching about 3 million clients, before the current round of disruptions began.

The second Trump administration’s overhaul of the program, Marcella said, “directly undermines the public health intent of our nation’s family planning program and will potentially exclude millions of individuals from getting the care they have relied on for decades. It’s bad policy.”

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).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/ajmc8tT

Nature Is Still Molding Human Genes, Study Finds

Some researchers hold that evolution hasn’t much altered humans in the past 10,000 years. A new analysis of ancient DNA indicates that natural selection continued to shape hundreds of genes.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/HkRrzmp

In Defense of Dumb Dogs

Your pet is (probably) not a genius, and that’s OK.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/RLrjcO8

Medi-Cal Immigrant Enrollment Is Dropping. Researchers Point to Trump’s Policies.

For months, a cloud of fear has hovered over the immigrant community in San Bernardino, California, making it hard for María González to do her job as a community health worker in this city where almost a quarter of residents are foreign-born.

It started building over the summer, fed by news of immigration raids across Southern California, Trump administration plans to share Medicaid data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the passage of state and federal restrictions on immigrant Medicaid eligibility. Then in November, the federal government released a new “public charge” proposal that, if enacted, could block certain immigrants from obtaining permanent legal residency if they or family members have used public benefits, including Medicaid.

Many of González’ clients and their children, often U.S. citizens, still qualify for California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, which provides health coverage to over 14 million residents with low incomes or disabilities. But increasingly, they don’t want to enroll or renew their coverage, she said.

“Many people don’t want to apply,” she said. “There are people who say they don’t even want to go outside and water their plants.”

An analysis by KFF Health News found that, from June to December, the latest month for which figures are available, almost 100,000 immigrants without legal status left Medi-Cal, representing about a quarter of all disenrollments in that time frame, even though this group makes up only about 11% of Medi-Cal enrollees.

It marks a reversal in a steady rise in enrollment among immigrants without legal status in California. Until July, sign-ups among this group had risen every month since the state opened Medi-Cal to all low-income residents regardless of immigration status in January 2024.

Tessa Outhyse, a spokesperson for the California Department of Health Care Services, which oversees Medi-Cal, said the enrollment declines can be mostly attributed to the fact that the government restarted eligibility checks that were suspended during the covid-19 pandemic. Indeed, overall Medi-Cal enrollment peaked in May 2023, and has since declined by about 1.6 million.

But two researchers, Leonardo Cuello at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families and Susan Babey at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, pointed out that California and most other states had fully resumed eligibility checks by mid-2024. In other words, that wouldn’t explain why enrollment has fallen precipitously in the last 12 months or so.

What has changed, Cuello said, is that the federal government passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and executive orders added more changes that are propelling disenrollment.

Surveys Offer Clues

A KFF/New York Times survey found immigrant adults nationally, especially parents, to be increasingly avoiding government programs that help pay for food, housing, or health care, to avoid drawing attention to their or a family member’s immigration status. That included lawfully present residents and naturalized citizens. Parental avoidance of these programs is particularly concerning, Cuello said, because about 1 in 4 children in the U.S. have an immigrant parent, even though most of those children were born in the U.S.

Cuello suspects that may help explain a nationwide enrollment drop of almost 3% in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program during the first 10 months of last year, including a 5.6% drop in enrollment among California children, according to data compiled by Georgetown colleagues.

During the first Trump administration, the president broadened public charge criteria to allow consideration of Medicaid use and food and housing assistance. That led many citizen children and other household members to forgo Medicaid and other programs they were eligible for. Some continued to avoid the programs even after several courts blocked implementation and Democratic President Joe Biden rescinded the rule.

“It caused a high level of confusion,” said Louise McCarthy, president and CEO of the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County, which represents about 70 health centers in the Los Angeles area. “Community health center staff are still working to undo the effects of the first rule.”

Projected Savings

Currently, only people reliant on cash assistance programs or long-term, government-funded institutionalized care may be considered a public charge risk when applying for a visa to enter the country or to become a legal permanent resident. But under the Trump administration’s proposed rule, Medicaid and other noncash programs could be used to determine whether an immigrant is likely to become dependent on the government. Immigration officers would also have more discretion to label people a public charge.

The Department of Homeland Security’s proposal says the changes are needed because the existing rules hamper the agency’s ability to make decisions about an immigrant’s risk of becoming reliant on government resources. A public comment period for the proposal ended in December.

DHS did not respond to a request about when it plans to make a final decision on the rule. The change would “align with long-standing policy that aliens in the United States should be self-reliant and government benefits should not incentivize immigration,” the proposal states.

The agency projected the change could save federal and state governments almost $9 billion annually from people disenrolling from or forgoing enrollment in public benefit programs.

A KFF analysis of the proposed rule estimated it could result in 1.3 to 4 million people disenrolling from Medicaid or CHIP, including as many as 1.8 million citizen children.

“It’s clearly being weaponized to create fear and anxiety,” said Benyamin Chao, supervising health and public benefits policy manager at the California Immigrant Policy Center. He called the proposal part of an “assault on lawfully present immigrants and U.S. citizens who are family members, and just the general community.”

Public charge fears are expected to decrease enrollment also in anti-hunger programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known in California as CalFresh. Mark Lowry, who heads the Orange County Food Bank, said that that — along with disenrollment related to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — could overwhelm food pantries, since federal nutrition programs account for the vast majority of food aid.

“There’s no way that the emergency food system has the capacity or resources to address those needs,” he said.

Health Care Needs

Fear of Medi-Cal enrollment doesn’t extend to all immigrants. Juana Zaragoza manages a program in Oxnard that helps mostly Indigenous Mexican farmworkers sign up for Medi-Cal. Overall enrollment and reenrollment has remained steady over the past few months, she said. Neither she nor the community members she serves know much about the public charge proposal, she added.

Often, any concerns they have are outweighed by an immediate need for health care.

“We encounter a lot of people who are balancing: what benefits me now and what benefits me later,” she said. “Some just want to cover their needs in the moment.”

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/GkgCfLM

Cómo hacer que un plan de salud con deducible alto funcione para tí

Cuando los subsidios federales mejorados expiraron a fines de 2025, muchas personas que compraban su propio seguro de salud en los mercados estatales y federales vieron aumentar sus primas mensuales.

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.

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.

¿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.

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.

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.
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.

¿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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/hP6MGoj

Global Wildlife Trade Fuels Spread of Disease from Animals to People

Live animal markets and the illegal sale of wildlife pose particular dangers, but any sale of wild animals or animal products poses spillover risks, a new study suggests.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/jLrX1OG

New Orleans Takes Steps To Assess and Clean Lead in Playgrounds After Investigation

New Orleans plans to revamp the commission that oversees city parks and playgrounds and is seeking $5 million in federal aid after an investigation published by Verite News and KFF Health News found high levels of lead contamination in playgrounds throughout the city.

Mayor Helena Moreno signed an executive order on April 7 that creates a task force to improve the New Orleans Recreation Development Commission. One of the task force’s duties will be to “consider and make recommendations regarding the costs and practicalities of implementing a program to assess and remediate safety and environmental concerns at NORDC facilities and playgrounds, including the existence of lead in soil” and other environmental issues, according to the order.

About a week before Moreno signed that order, Deputy Mayor of Health and Human Services Jennifer Avegno announced that city officials were working with the state’s congressional delegation to request $5 million in federal funds for the federal fiscal year that starts in October. That money would go toward testing and the possible cleanup of playgrounds with elevated levels of lead. She said her office is also reviewing past city records, working with the city’s in-house experts in its Planning Commission’s Brownfield Program, and reviewing Verite’s soil test results.

“We’re trying to figure out, with whatever pots of money we can get, how can we make a more sustained and meaningful impact than we have been able to in the past?” Avegno said during an April 1 panel discussion of Verite’s lead contamination investigation.

In the investigation published in February, Verite reporters tested more than 80 playgrounds for lead and documented unsafe levels of the toxic metal at just over half of them. Since then, parents across the city have called the New Orleans Recreation Development Commission, their elected officials, and other city offices seeking action.

But with the city in the midst of a budget crisis, parents and community groups in one neighborhood are taking action themselves. They are trying to raise $8,000 to hire a contractor to do extensive testing in the Bywater neighborhood’s Mickey Markey Playground, where Verite recorded lead samples that exceeded the federal hazard level of 200 parts per million — one sample registered at 403 parts per million.

“I’m aware of the city budget issues right now, and I’m also aware that fixing one playground in one neighborhood might not be a giant priority,” said Devin DeWulf, a father of two who lives in Bywater and founded the Krewe of Red Beans, a community organization helping with the fundraising.

Lead contamination persists in New Orleans soil, older buildings, and drinking water, posing a significant public health threat to children. Children under 6 can absorb the toxic metal more easily than adults, contaminating their blood and harming the long-term development of their brains and nervous systems.

There is no known safe exposure level for children or adults. In children, even trace amounts can result in behavioral problems and lower cognitive abilities. Chronic lead exposure for adults can increase the risk of heart problems and other health issues.

Beyond the effects on a single child or family, Avegno said, lead exposure has long-term implications, including its potential link to increases in violent crime, which makes the issue even more critical.

“We knew we had to exhaust every avenue,” she said.

Due to low rates of testing, it’s unclear how many children across New Orleans are exposed to lead. In 2023, just 17% of children were tested for lead poisoning in New Orleans, despite a state law that requires medical providers to test all children by age 1 and again by 2. Currently, the state Department of Health doesn’t have a mechanism for enforcing the law.

Public health researchers recommend parents avoid playgrounds with lead contamination because it can be difficult to prevent young children from placing dirt in their mouths or breathing in dust kicked up during play.

Vann Joines, a Bywater neighborhood resident who often takes his 2-year-old daughter to Mickey Markey Playground, is part of the group raising money to independently test the playground.

“It’s really important for us to be exceedingly mindful at public playgrounds and at public parks,” Joines said.

DeWulf and Joines said they anticipate the work will take a few years and hope to create a playbook that other neighborhoods can follow for their own playgrounds.

“We could create a how-to guide on how we could effectively do this in partnerships in the city,” Joines said.

On top of the $5 million the city is requesting for soil testing and possible remediation, Avegno said the city planned to apply for a grant to help address lead at early childhood education centers.

“Your story was amazing timing,” she told a Verite reporter.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/bUOHudt

Pennsylvania Town Faces Fallout From Trump’s Environmental Rule Rollback

North America’s largest coke plant hugs the west bank of Pennsylvania’s Monongahela River, belching out emissions from turning superheated coal into a carbon-rich fuel.

Researchers say the children at Clairton Elementary School about a mile away pay the price. They discovered the students there and at other elementary schools near major pollution sites in Pennsylvania had higher asthma rates than other children in the state.

Residents and environmental advocates saw reason for hope and relief in the form of a Biden administration rule designed to tamp down on coke oven plant pollution. But even before it took effect, President Donald Trump granted all 11 coke plants in the U.S. — including the one in Clairton — a two-year exemption from the standards.

Trump and Republicans have sought to align themselves with the Make America Healthy Again movement’s populist ideals, such as improving Americans’ food choices and reducing corporate harm to the environment. But the administration is ratcheting up its attacks on the very environmental protections that MAHA followers hold dear.

Taken together, these anti-environmental initiatives will lead to more pollution-related illnesses and higher health care spending, health researchers say. They could also have political ramifications, eroding MAHA’s support for GOP candidates in the November midterm elections if followers believe the party is more beholden to industry than to the movement’s agenda.

Only 1 in 5 American adults, including about a quarter of Republicans, support rolling back environmental regulations, according to a poll by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Some MAHA supporters believe voters will support Republicans because the Trump administration is delivering on other goals important to the movement.

“MAHA has a pretty diverse set of policy goals, ranging from medical freedom to food and the environment,” said David Mansdoerfer, who served in Health and Human Services leadership during Trump’s first term. “In totality, the Trump administration has strongly delivered on much of the MAHA agenda.”

While MAHA voters have been upset at some of the administration’s actions that promote industry, it’s hard to know how that may play out in the midterms, said Christopher Bosso, a professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University. Many were disillusioned by a Trump executive order they viewed as promoting glyphosate, which HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called poison.

“The glyphosate thing really ticks off a lot of them; they’re really upset,” Bosso said. “Kennedy said it was poison. If it is a poison, why aren’t we regulating it? That’s where the tension plays out.”

The situation with the Clairton coke plant and the others granted exemptions from regulations underscores the potential public health risks. Six of the 11 factories had “high priority” violations of the Clean Air Act as of last May, according to a KFF Health News analysis. Five coke oven plants logged major violations every quarter for at least three years straight.

“Poisoning continues to some of the most vulnerable residents of Allegheny County,” David Meckel, who had lived in nearby Glassport, Pennsylvania, said at a March 2025 county meeting about the coke plant.

Environmental Protection Agency spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said the president gave companies extra time because the technology needed to meet a new standard isn't ready yet.

“Forcing plants to comply before the tools exist doesn't make the air cleaner, it just shuts down facilities and kills jobs with nothing to show for it,” Hirsch said.

But environmental groups disagree that the plants were unable to comply at a reasonable cost, and they say the exemption from the EPA requirements shows the Trump administration is prioritizing the coal industry at the expense of public health.

“The Trump administration’s relentless actions to dismantle lifesaving environmental protections are a gut punch to the administration’s own promise to Make America Healthy Again,” said Cathleen Kelly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Hard Times in Clairton

Sprawled across nearly 400 acres, the Clairton plant operates ovens in which coal is heated to as much as 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit to make up to 4.3 million tons annually of the carbon-rich fuel known as coke. The product is used in blast furnaces to produce iron.

It’s a dirty operation. The process leads to hazardous emissions of benzene, a carcinogen that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says can lead to anemia and leukemia, as well as sulfur dioxide, which can trigger severe asthma.

The Clairton operation has had repeated problems with its emissions and operations, including fatal explosions and excess releases of toxic chemicals. The plant has received more than $56 million in fines from the Allegheny County Health Department since 2022, stemming largely from a fire in 2018 that led to high emissions, and violated the Clean Air Act in each of the last 12 quarters, with the last compliance monitoring in July 2025, according to the EPA.

Nippon Steel Corp. last year acquired U.S. Steel, which now operates as a subsidiary. The company didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. U.S. Steel said it spends $100 million annually on environmental compliance at Clairton.

“Environmental stewardship is a core value at U. S. Steel, and we remain committed to the safety of our communities,” spokesperson Andrew Fulton said in a written statement.

Clairton was once bustling with movie theaters, a mix of grocery stores, and riverside parks, with a dance pavilion and a performing hot-air balloonist. But the decline of steel hit hard. The town’s population dwindled from more than 19,000 people in the mid-20th century to fewer than 6,000 as of 2024. Dozens of homes stood abandoned until they were razed and replaced with signs saying to keep out. The 1978 movie The Deer Hunter, which depicts a hardscrabble industrial town, is partly set there. Today, about 33% of residents live in poverty.

While the plant brings jobs and revenue, residents of the town and the surrounding areas have long complained about health problems they attribute to its emissions.

“My parents are gone. My mom had cancer, my dad,” Carla Beard-Owens, a Clairton resident, said at a 2025 County Council meeting. “I lost a lot of loved ones and seen other ones pass because of this mill.”

Pediatric allergist Deborah Gentile looked into asthma rates among 1,200 children who attended school near major pollution sites in the area — including students at Clairton Elementary School. They had nearly triple the national rate of asthma, with the highest rate among African American youth, according to the study she led.

“We were shocked,” she said. “It was double or triple what we expected. The people are proud of their industrial background. We need steel, but they’re not running a good enough operation.”

A follow-up study found children with asthma living near the coke plant had an 80% higher chance of missing school when sulfur dioxide pollution was elevated.

Allegheny County, which includes Clairton and Pittsburgh, is home to a number of industrial plants, and researchers have linked its air pollution to increased deaths, chronic heart disease, and adverse birth outcomes. It was ranked in the top 1% of counties in the nation for cancer risk from stationary industrial air pollutants in a 2018 EPA report.

Clairton has an age-adjusted cancer death rate of 170 per 100,000 people, higher than the broader county’s rate of 150 deaths per 100,000 people, based on a KFF Health News analysis of state and federal data.

The American Lung Association in 2025 gave the county an F rating for its particle pollution levels. PennEnvironment, an environmental group that was party to a settlement with U.S. Steel involving the Clairton plant, says the coke operation caused 1.1 million pounds of toxic releases in 2021, which amounted to 60% of all such releases in the county that year.

From 2020 through 2025, the Clairton plant racked up more in fines from Clean Air Act penalties than any other coke oven facility nationwide, costing U.S. Steel over $10 million, according to EPA facility reports.

“We are deeply concerned with exemptions, which allow air toxics to affect public health,” Allegheny County Health Department spokesperson Ronnie Das said in a statement.

The Clairton plant provides 1,200 manufacturing jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to the area. The jobs help generate nearly $3 billion in annual economic output, according to estimates from the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association.

Some community members and advocacy groups hoped air quality would improve after the coke plant was sold. Nippon Steel has pledged to upgrade facilities in the Monongahela River Valley.

Politics, Waivers, and Environmental Concerns

Under the Biden-era rule, coke plants were supposed to start meeting new limits on leaks from the lids and doors of ovens that heat coal. They would also have had to monitor for benzene at their property lines and take steps to lower emissions of the carcinogen if they exceeded certain levels. Compliance deadlines were set for July 2025.

The Trump administration, which has sought to revive the coal industry, intervened. Last year, it invited hundreds of industrial plants, including coke plants such as Clairton’s, to seek presidential waivers from nine separate rules issued in 2024 by the EPA.

Then Trump in November went further, granting all coke plants a two-year compliance break.

The reprieve was necessary, the EPA spokesperson Hirsch said, because the requirements would have meant extra costs for the industry when standards already in effect work “extremely well” at reducing pollution.

Hirsch also said the agency under Trump is protecting the environment, pointing to action the administration has taken to reduce long-lasting chemicals called PFAS, prevent lead poisoning, strengthen chemical safety, and protect Americans’ food and water supply.

“We are building a future where the next generation of Americans is the healthiest in our nation's history, and they inherit the cleanest air, land and water in the world,” Hirsch said.

However, the administration has taken several steps that environmental advocates say weaken health protections.

The president's executive order on glyphosate, an herbicide the World Health Organization has linked to cancer, which touched off a furor among MAHA enthusiasts who said they felt betrayed. The EPA has decided to stop considering the health-related economic benefits of reducing pollution when making policy decisions, instead focusing on the cost to industry of complying with rules. The agency also rescinded the legal and scientific basis that had long established greenhouse gases as dangerous to public health.

The actions have rankled some MAHA enthusiasts who counted on the administration to tackle chronic disease, especially among children. A petition to Trump on Change.org with more than 15,000 signatures called for the removal of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, citing deregulatory actions it said supported corporations over MAHA goals.

Some MAHA enthusiasts have sounded off on social media.

“No one should believe that MAHA is being upheld at the EPA at this point,” Kelly Ryerson, a leader of American Regeneration, which focuses on a conservation approach to farming, said Feb. 8 on X.

Alex Clark, host of a health and wellness podcast, also aired her concerns on X, saying “there is something really freaking spooky going on at the EPA and I refuse to let the American people be gaslit into thinking they’re upholding the MAHA agenda.”

“A significant number of people who supported Trump are worried these rollbacks are going to hurt their health,” said Max Burns, a Democratic strategist and the founder of the communications firm Third Degree Strategies. “The MAHA voters, especially women, are very sensitive to this. Republicans have put themselves in a bind.”

MAHA supporters shouldn’t be surprised by a Trump administration that doesn’t prioritize environmental protections over industry, because the president has always championed fossil fuels, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a nonpartisan election forecasting newsletter published by the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

The coke plant exemptions have disappointed some community members, environmental groups, and regulators concerned about public health and emissions.

Nearly 300,000 people live within 3 miles of the 11 active coke plants across the U.S., according to EPA data compiled by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Weakening environmental rules has helped boost Trump with the $91 billion U.S. coal industry. In February, mining industry executives and lobbyists gathered at the White House, greeting Trump with applause.

Coal miners, including some in white hard hats bedecked with American flags, presented him with a bronze-colored trophy emblazoned “The Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal.”

At the event, Trump praised their work. “We love clean, beautiful coal,” he said.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/P9ECHR8

Edna Foa, Who Pioneered Exposure Therapy to Treat PTSD, Dies at 88

A psychologist, she urged patients to confront the things that frightened them, revolutionizing her field’s approach to post-traumatic stress disorder.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/Qbs5irS

Rovner Recaps Medicaid Cuts’ Impact on Hospitals and Fields Caller Questions on Affordability

KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed Medicaid cuts on WAMU’s 1A on April 7. She also discussed health care affordability on The Middle With Jeremy Hobson on April 3.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/yZb5UK8

The Trump Administration Is Seeking Federal Workers’ Sensitive Medical Data. That’s Raising Alarms.

About a year ago, I was stationed in downtown D.C. on an especially chilly spring day, watching hundreds of federal employees line up outside their office buildings.

In a humbling exercise, employees were waiting to test whether their entry badges still worked at the Department of Health and Human Services — or whether they’d be walked back out by security because they were among the 10,000 unlucky ones whose jobs had suddenly been eliminated.

I thought back to that day recently as I researched and reported on a significant, under-the-radar proposal from the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees federal workers.

According to a notice posted in December, OPM is seeking personally identifiable medical and pharmaceutical claims information on federal employees and retirees, as well as their family members, who are enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits or Postal Service Health Benefits programs. Just over 8 million Americans get coverage through such plans.

Right now, 65 insurance companies maintain data the agency wants, including information on prescriptions, diagnoses, and treatments. That would put a tremendous amount of personal information about federal employees in the hands of an administration that has earned a reputation for taking retaliatory action against some workers and sharing sensitive data across agencies as part of its immigration and fraud crackdowns.

My colleague Maia Rosenfeld and I wanted to know what lawyers and ethicists who work on health policy issues think about this proposal.

On the one hand, sources told us, this sort of detailed data could be used by the federal government to improve the largest employer-sponsored health insurance system in the country.

But doubts about the Trump administration’s motives percolated through every conversation we had.

“The concern here is the more information they have, they could use it to discipline or target people who are not cooperating politically,” Sharona Hoffman, a health law ethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told me.

And, though the notice states that insurers are legally permitted to disclose “protected health information” to the agency for “oversight,” Hoffman and others raised questions about OPM’s access to such a sweeping database of medical records under federal health privacy laws.

Insurance companies — several of which declined to comment — would have to provide monthly reports to OPM with data on their members. One insurer, CVS Health, said in a public comment that insurers would be breaking the law by providing the information for OPM’s “vague and broad general purposes.” The association that represents many of those companies also has voiced objections to the proposal, which has not yet been finalized.

OPM spokespeople did not respond to our repeated requests for comment.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/nh6pieV

Have You Used A.I. Chatbots for Nutrition Advice?

Whether you’re looking to manage a health condition, lose weight or simply eat better, we want to hear from you.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/O6aJZ98

Watch: As AI Makes More Health Coverage Decisions, the Risks to Patients Grow

This year, executives from nearly every major health insurance company made the same declaration in calls with Wall Street analysts: Using artificial intelligence to make coverage decisions would help save them money.

Even the Trump administration is testing AI’s usefulness in managing the prior authorization process for the Medicare program, as well as seeking to override AI regulation by states.

But class action lawsuits have accused insurers of using AI to wrongfully withhold treatment. And new research from Stanford University outlines the risks of training AI on a current system rife with wrongful denials.

“There is a world in which using AI could make that worse, or at least replicate a bad human system, because the data that it would be training on is from that bad human system,” said Michelle Mello, a co-author of the study.

Although, Mello said, the research team found “real positives alongside the risks.”

In this video produced by KFF Health News’ Hannah Norman, Darius Tahir, a correspondent covering health technology, explains.

You can read Tahir’s recent coverage of AI’s use by health insurers below:

“Red and Blue States Alike Want To Limit AI in Insurance. Trump Wants To Limit the States,” by Darius Tahir and Lauren Sausser.
“AI Will Soon Have a Say in Approving or Denying Medicare Treatments,” by Lauren Sausser and Darius Tahir.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/0Fsxm5i

Top C.D.C. Official Delays Report on Covid Shot’s Effectiveness

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya objected to the study’s methodology, saying it gave an inaccurate picture of the vaccine’s benefits.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/2xUgysf

Farm Bureau Plans Are a Less Pricey Alternative to ACA Coverage — With Trade-Offs

Robin Carlton pays about $650 a month for a plan on the Missouri health insurance exchange that covers him and his two teenage kids.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/EiGhj76

States Face Another Challenge With Medicaid Work Rules: Staffing Shortages

Katie Crouch says calling her state’s Medicaid agency to get information about her benefits can feel like a series of dead ends.

“The first time, it’ll ring interminably. Next time, it’ll go to a voice mail that just hangs up on you,” said the 48-year-old, who lives in Delaware. “Sometimes you’ll get a person who says they’re not the right one. They transfer you, and it hangs up. Sometimes, it picks up and there’s just nobody on the line.”

She spent months trying to figure out whether her Medicaid coverage had been renewed. As of late March, she hadn’t been reapproved for the year for the state-federal program, which provides health insurance for people with low incomes and disabilities.

Crouch, who suffered a debilitating brain aneurysm a decade ago, also has Medicare, which covers people who are 65 or older or have disabilities. Medicaid had been paying her monthly Medicare deductibles of $200, but she’d been on the hook for them for the past three months, straining her family’s fixed income, she said.

Crouch’s challenges with Delaware’s Medicaid call center aren’t unique. State Medicaid agencies can struggle to keep enough staff to help people sign up for benefits and field calls from enrollees with questions. A shortage of such workers can keep people from fully using their benefits, health policy researchers said.

Now, congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, will soon demand more from staff at state agencies in places where lawmakers expanded Medicaid to more low-income adults — nearly all states and the District of Columbia.

Under the law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by almost $1 trillion over the next eight years, these staffers will have to not only determine whether millions of enrollees meet the program’s new work requirements but also verify more frequently that they qualify for the program — every six months instead of yearly.

KFF Health News reached out to agencies that will need to stand up the work rules, and many said they’ll need additional staff.

The mandates will put extra strain on an already-stressed workforce, potentially making it harder for enrollees like Crouch to get basic customer service. And many could lose access to benefits they’re legally entitled to, said consumer advocates and health policy researchers, some of them with direct experience working at state agencies.

States are already “struggling significantly,” said Jennifer Wagner, the director of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a former associate director of the Illinois Department of Human Services. “There will be significant additional challenges caused by these changes.”

Long Wait Times for Help

Republicans argue the Medicaid changes, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2027, in most states, will encourage enrollees to find jobs. Research on other Medicaid work requirement programs has found little evidence they increase employment.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the rules would cause more people to lose health coverage by 2034 than any other part of the GOP budget law. It said last year more than 5 million people could be affected.

Many states don’t have the staff to process Medicaid applications or renewals quickly, said consumer advocates and researchers.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services tracks whether states can handle the most common type of benefit application within a 45-day window.

In December, about 30% of all Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, applications in Washington, D.C., and Georgia took more than 45 days to process. More than a quarter took that long in Wyoming. In Maine, 1 in 5 applications missed that deadline.

CMS began publicly sharing state Medicaid call center data in 2023, revealing a taxed system, researchers and consumer advocates said.

In Hawaii, people waited on the phone for more than three hours in December. They waited for nearly an hour in Oklahoma, and more than an hour in Nevada.

In 2023, state Medicaid agencies began making sure enrollees who were protected from being dropped from the program during the covid pandemic still qualified for coverage. That Medicaid unwinding process didn’t go well in many states, and more than 25 million lost their benefits.

Health policy researchers and consumer advocates say rolling out the new Medicaid rules will be a bigger challenge. The Medicaid work rules will require extensive IT system changes and training for workers verifying eligibility on a tight timeline.

“It is a much larger scale of administrative complexity,” said Sophia Tripoli, senior director of policy at Families USA, a health care consumer advocacy organization.

After months of trying to get someone on the phone, Crouch said, she finally got answers to questions about her Medicaid benefits after writing to the office of U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.). McBride’s office contacted the state’s Medicaid agency, which eventually called with an update, Crouch said.

Crouch didn’t qualify for Medicaid after all. She said that had never come up in two years of interactions with the state.

“It makes absolutely no sense” that the state never realized she shouldn’t have been on the program, Crouch said.

Delaware’s Medicaid agency didn’t respond to requests for comment on Crouch’s situation.

States Short-Staffed for Medicaid

Some states told KFF Health News in late March that they’ll need more staff to roll out the work rules effectively.

Idaho said it has 40 eligibility worker vacancies. New York estimated it will need 80 new employees to handle the additional administrative work, at a cost of $6.2 million. Pennsylvania said it has nearly 400 open positions in county human services offices in the state. Indiana’s Medicaid agency has 94 open positions. Maine wants to hire 90 additional staffers, and Massachusetts wants to hire 70 more.

As of early March, Montana had filled 39 of 59 positions state officials projected it would need. The state still plans to roll out the rules early, starting July 1, despite its long struggle with system backlogs that applicants said have delayed benefits.

Missouri’s social services agency has been cutting staff and has 1,000 fewer front-line workers than it did roughly a decade ago — with more than double the number of enrollees in Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, according to comments Jessica Bax, the agency director, made during a public meeting in November.

“The department thought that there would be a gain in efficiency due to eligibility system upgrades,” Bax said. “Many of those did not come to fruition.”

States could have a hard time finding people interested in taking those jobs, which require months-long training, can be emotionally challenging, and generally offer low pay, said Tricia Brooks, a researcher at the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

“They get yelled at a lot,” said Brooks, who formerly ran New Hampshire’s Medicaid and CHIP customer service program. “People are frustrated. They’re crying. They’re concerned. They’re losing access to health care, and so sometimes it’s not an easy job to take if it’s hard to help someone.”

States are paying government contractors millions of dollars to help them comply with the new federal law.

Maximus, a government services contractor, provides eligibility support, such as running call centers, in 17 states that expanded Medicaid and interacts with nearly 3 in 5 people enrolled in the program nationally, according to the company.

During a February earnings call, company leadership said Maximus can charge based on the number of transactions it completes for enrollees, independent of how many people are enrolled in a state’s Medicaid program.

Maximus has “no one-size-fits-all approach” to the services it offers or the way it charges for those services, spokesperson Marci Goldstein told KFF Health News.

The company, which reported bringing in $1.76 billion in 2025 from the part of its business that includes Medicaid work, expects that revenue to continue to grow, even as people fall off the Medicaid rolls, “because of the additional transactions that will need to take place,” David Mutryn, Maximus’ chief financial officer and treasurer, said during the earnings call.

Losing Medicaid health coverage isn’t just an inconvenience, since many people enrolled in the program probably don’t make enough money to pay for health care on their own and may not qualify for financial help for Affordable Care Act coverage, said Elizabeth Edwards, a senior attorney with the National Health Law Program.

People could be unable to afford medications or get essential care, which could lead to “devastating” health impacts, she said.

“The human stakes of this are people’s lives,” she said.

KFF Health News correspondents Katheryn Houghton and Samantha Liss contributed to this report.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/J4SYf9s

Vegetative Patients May Be More Aware Than We Knew

New research is upending what we thought about the consciousness of patients, leaving families with agonizing choices.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/vA8nExw

Inside a One-Man Workshop for Ultrapotent Drugs

Times reporters were given access to a small operation on the frontier of illicit drugs.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/iU7XLr1

Patients Are Using Chatbots to Fight Medical Bills, With Mixed Results

While chatbots like Claude and ChatGPT can help narrow the information divide between patients and providers, they can also dispense flawed advice.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/HZ4mC6V

Trump’s Personnel Agency Is Asking for Federal Workers’ Medical Records

The Trump administration is quietly seeking unprecedented access to medical records for millions of federal workers and retirees, and their families.

A brief notice from the Office of Personnel Management could dramatically change which personally identifiable medical information the agency obtains, giving it the power to see prescriptions employees had filled or what treatment they sought from doctors. The regulation would require 65 insurance companies that cover more than 8 million Americans — including federal workers, retired members of Congress, mail carriers, and their immediate family members — to provide monthly reports to OPM with identifiable health data on their members.

The proposal is prompting unease from insurers as well as health policy and legal experts, who are concerned about the legality of OPM acquiring such a sweeping database of sensitive health information, and the agency’s ability to safeguard it.

OPM could use the data to analyze costs and improve the system, said Sharona Hoffman, a health law ethicist at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.

“But,” she said, “they are going to get very, very detailed and granular data about everything that happens. The concern here is the more information they have, they could use it to discipline or target people who are not cooperating politically.”

OPM spokespeople did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The agency’s notice asks insurers that offer Federal Employees Health Benefits or Postal Service Health Benefits plans to furnish “service use and cost data,” including “medical claims, pharmacy claims, encounter data, and provider data.” It says the data will “ensure they provide competitive, quality, and affordable plans.”

The notice, posted and sent to insurers in December, does not instruct them to redact identifying information — a burdensome process that they would need federal guidance to complete.

Instead, it states that insurers are legally permitted to disclose “protected health information” to OPM. Several experts in health policy and law consulted by KFF Health News said they interpreted the request to mean the Trump administration was seeking identifiable data.

The ask comes a year into a Republican administration that has been defined by haphazard mass layoffs and firings of thousands of federal workers, including dozens who say they were targeted in acts of political retaliation or for not embracing the White House’s agenda. Under President Donald Trump, the government has also routinely tested the legal bounds of sharing sensitive and personally identifiable tax or health information across government agencies in its efforts to carry out mass immigration arrests or pursue identify fraud.

“You can anticipate a scenario where this information on 8 million Americans is now in the hands of OPM and there’s a real concern of how they use it,” said Michael Martinez, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, an advocacy organization that filed a public comment opposing OPM’s proposal in February. Martinez previously worked at OPM.

“They’ve given no information about how they would treat that information once they have it,” he said.

Among Martinez’s concerns is how the administration might use information about employees who have sought abortions — 41 states have some type of abortion ban — or transgender treatment, medical care that the Trump administration has tried to curb.

The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union representing federal workers, did not respond to requests for comment.

Martinez and others who reviewed the notice for KFF Health News said the proposal was so vague that they were uncertain, exactly, what medical records OPM wants to access.

At the very least, they said, the proposal would allow the agency to access the medical and pharmaceutical claims of patients with their identifying information, such as names and birth dates. Claims data also includes diagnoses, treatments, visit length, and provider information.

OPM’s request to view “encounter data” could allow the agency to look at “anything and everything,” Hoffman noted.

That could include detailed medical records, such as a doctor’s notes or after-visit summaries.

Jonathan Foley, who worked at OPM advising on the Federal Employees Health Benefits program during the Obama and Biden administrations, said he doubts the agency has the capability to ingest such minutiae.

The agency, however, could easily begin collection of personally identifiable medical and pharmaceutical claims information from insurers, he said.

Foley said he sees a benefit to OPM having broader access to de-identified claims data. In recent years, OPM has ramped up its analysis of claims data, which has allowed it to examine prescription drug costs and encourage plans to offer federal workers cheaper alternatives. He’s worried, though, that the Trump administration’s proposal goes too far, because it appears to seek identifiable data.

“It’s kind of shocking to think of them having protected health information without having strict guardrails,” he said.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, requires certain organizations that maintain identifiable health information — such as hospitals and insurers — to protect it from being disclosed without patient consent.

Those entities can disclose such information without consent only in specific scenarios, with a justification that it is deemed “reasonable” or “necessary.” Even then, HIPAA mandates that they provide only the minimum amount of information required.

OPM argues in its notice that it is entitled to the information from insurers “for oversight activities.”

But several people who reviewed the notice questioned whether OPM’s explanation for requesting the information is sufficient.

“The language in it seems quite broad and encompasses potentially a lot of information and data and is sort of light on justification,” said Jodi Daniel, a digital health strategist who helped develop the legal framework for HIPAA privacy rules over two decades ago.

Several major insurers that offer federal employee health plans — including the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Kaiser Permanente, and UnitedHealthcare — declined to comment on their plans to comply with the notice or offer insight on where plans to implement the data sharing stood.

Only one insurer individually weighed in with a public comment on OPM’s plan. In March, CVS Health executive Melissa Schulman urged the federal agency to reconsider its proposal.

“OPM’s request raises substantial HIPAA compliance issues,” Schulman wrote, arguing that federal law allows the agency to examine records but not to collect data. Insurers would be breaking the law by providing personal health information for OPM’s “vague and broad general purposes,” she added.

Schulman, who did not respond to additional questions from KFF Health News, also raised concerns about a lack of data privacy protections. She noted that insurers could be liable for security breaches or other situations “where consumer health information is inappropriately shared and outside of our control.”

In 2015, OPM announced the personal records of roughly 22 million Americans had been stolen from the agency in a data breach that has been blamed on the Chinese government.

The Association of Federal Health Organizations, which represents CVS Health and dozens of other federal health plan carriers, also weighed in with a 122-page comment opposing the notice. In it, AFHO Chair Kari Parsons emphasized that insurance carriers are bound by HIPAA to safeguard personal health information.

Federal law requires carriers “to furnish ‘reasonable reports’ OPM determines to be necessary,” Parsons wrote, “not to furnish the individual claims data of every individual.”

This isn’t the first time OPM has requested detailed data from insurers. In the AFHO comment, Parsons noted OPM had made a similar proposal in 2010, prompting HIPAA concerns. She described how, after several years of negotiations with AFHO, they discussed — but OPM never finalized — an agreement in 2019 for carriers to share de-identified data with OPM.

But since then, Parsons wrote, OPM has collected such detailed information on enrollees and their families that, with OPM’s new request, the agency may be able to trace even de-identified records to individuals.

OPM has not provided any update since closing comments in March. The agency would need to publish a final decision before anything officially changes.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/Fb2a4e7

USE OUR CONTENT

USE OUR CONTENT

USE OUR CONTENT

USE OUR CONTENT

USE OUR CONTENT

USE OUR CONTENT

USE OUR CONTENT

USE OUR CONTENT

USE OUR CONTENT

USE OUR CONTENT

USE OUR CONTENT

Health

Categories

Search This Blog

Labels

Popular Posts

Pages - Menu