GOP Focuses on Fraud, Seeking To Redirect Voters’ Ire Over Healthcare Costs

Heading into the midterm elections, high healthcare costs rank among voters’ biggest concerns. But lately, there’s a twist giving the issue new momentum on campaign agendas: a focus on fraud in government health programs.

The administration of President Donald Trump has used claims of widespread wrongdoing to justify investigations, suspensions of billions of dollars in payments to states, and the cancellation of Affordable Care Act health coverage for hundreds of thousands of people.

The effort has opened a broader political fight over the extent of fraud and the administration’s response to it. Republicans say they’re safeguarding taxpayer dollars by going after bad actors. Democrats contend the administration has relied on insufficient evidence to target blue states and cut programs Republicans have long tried to shrink. Meanwhile, Trump’s pardons of executives convicted of healthcare fraud, administration moves to weaken some protections against abuses, and a high-profile error by Trump regulators stand in contrast with the administration’s proclaimed fraud-fighting goals.

The dispute is becoming a talking point for both parties leading up to the November election.

Republican candidates are trying to win voters’ confidence by emphasizing their efforts to halt what they say is the misuse of taxpayer dollars in federal health programs.

“Going after fraud gives Republicans a healthcare message when they would otherwise just be defending cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. The approach, he said, helps “blunt” those attacks.

Democrats, however, traditionally have an advantage on healthcare in general, with polls showing voters are more likely to trust them with such issues. Now Democrats are portraying Republicans’ fraud crackdown as a cover for the GOP’s weakening of safety net programs. But the GOP messaging could resonate at the ballot box.

About 44% of voters — and 54% of Republican voters — say say fraud in government programs is “extremely important” for candidates to talk about, according to a KFF poll conducted in mid-September, suggesting the fraud focus might be connecting with the GOP base. Such fraud is also the top issue rural Republican voters want candidates to talk about, based on a separate survey by KFF and the Associated Press.

It’s an issue that is hardly new, and government watchdogs have repeatedly documented fraud by health providers and brokers, as well as improper enrollment in government health programs. A report by the Government Accountability Office in March warned that the “sheer amount of payments in the Medicare program creates significant fraud risks.” And in a separate probe, GAO investigators were able to get subsidized insurance for fake ACA enrollees.

What has changed is the prominence the issue now occupies in national politics.

Administration’s Fraud Targets

Trump administration authorities have this year charged hundreds of people, including doctors, in alleged billing schemes. It has announced audits of state Medicaid fraud units and increased scrutiny of enrollment in federal programs, withholding billions of dollars in federal Medicaid payments over claims of lax oversight — with what Democrats say is a laser focus on blue states despite a lack of evidence.

The administration’s more expansive claims about fraud — and the actions it has taken in response — have generated fierce political clashes.

Most recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services canceled ACA enrollments covering 760,000 people. While Democrats have questioned the methods that found them to be fraudulent, federal officials said they included nonexistent consumers whose applications were submitted by brokers or agents who can earn commissions from insurers.

CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said at a press event that the cancellations included people who had coverage through the ACA but hadn’t used it. He also said some had no Social Security numbers, calling that evidence of problems.

“About 35% of current people on the Obamacare system — 35%, more than a third — had never used the program. They haven’t bought a prescription medication. They haven’t seen a doctor. That just is not possible,” Oz said. “So we know there is fraud.”

Democrats and some health policy analysts challenge that conclusion. They say that younger and healthier people are much less likely to use their insurance and that not using their coverage doesn’t mean they were improperly enrolled. Critics also say the absence of Social Security numbers doesn’t necessarily establish fraud; for example, newborns can be added to their parents’ plans before receiving a number.

“This is yet another attempt by the Trump administration to kick hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans off their healthcare,” Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) posted on the social media site X. “Millions are already struggling to access healthcare—and this is their plan?”

There are political risks for the GOP as well. The disenrollment of alleged phantom accounts is likely to ensnare legitimate consumers, say health analysts and ACA advocates, leading to a potential backlash against Republicans if scores of people lose coverage just before the midterm elections.

States that tend to deliver for GOP candidates will be hit especially hard, they say, because ACA enrollees are concentrated in those states. The 4.5 million people in Florida and 4.1 million in Texas who have marketplace coverage account for nearly 40% of the country’s ACA enrollment, according to a KFF analysis.

Conservative health policy advisers say the administration took multiple steps to avoid canceling legitimate coverage, including attempts to contact consumers and requirements that additional criteria be met before coverage was terminated.

“Those criticizing the action either don’t understand it or see some political advantage in mischaracterizing it,” said Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute and a former Trump health policy adviser.

Democrats, meanwhile, highlight inconsistencies in the administration’s broader anti-fraud campaign.

They note that the Department of Health and Human Services last year recertified hundreds of insurance brokers and agents who had been suspended in 2024 by the Biden administration for suspected fraud or abuse. The Trump administration also laid off about 200 employees from a CMS office involved in regional oversight of the ACA marketplace.

On Oct. 3, Trump called on Congress to pass legislation with mandatory prison terms for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid, eliminating probation as an option.

But Trump has also pardoned health industry executives convicted of major fraud schemes, including people who are connected to his political allies or who spent heavily on lobbying on their behalf. The pardons included a nursing home operator sentenced to three years in prison for a nearly $40 million tax scheme and, in Trump’s first term, five executives at a Florida company convicted for Medicaid fraud.

Trump’s pardons in 2021 of executives who profited from massive public healthcare fraud spurred criticism from the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association. Critics now say the administration is portraying cuts to Medicare and Medicaid as necessary for weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse while exonerating criminals who have engaged in some of the biggest schemes in federal health programs.

Blue State Allegations

HHS has raised concerns about Medicaid fraud and program integrity in several states, and the administration has deferred or threatened to cut federal Medicaid funding while disputes are investigated.

Democrats say the administration is itself engaging in fraud by using unsubstantiated allegations of abuse to politically target blue states.

One of the most striking clashes occurred in New York.

Federal officials launched an investigation of the state’s Medicaid program after claiming that personal care services — including help with bathing, dressing, and meal preparation — had been provided to more than 5 million people, which would have amounted to roughly three-quarters of the state’s Medicaid population — an almost impossibly large proportion.

“It is time for New York to come clean about its Medicaid program,” CMS’ Oz posted in March on X.

CMS later acknowledged its calculations were wrong. The agency said that it had misunderstood the state’s billing codes and that the actual number of beneficiaries who received the services was closer to 450,000. The administration continued its scrutiny of the New York program, however, and later suspended millions of dollars in federal funding for the state’s Medicaid fraud unit, saying the division wasn’t producing enough indictments.

The administration also withheld about $2 billion in Medicaid funding from California, citing concerns about program integrity and oversight of some home medical services. State officials deny the allegations, saying spending on home services has grown because of factors such as higher wages for home health aides and an increase the number of older people receiving care.

The White House announced plans to defer more than $500 million in federal funds from Minnesota, claiming the state had failed to protect its Medicaid program from abuse. State officials have defended their oversight and gone to court to challenge the decision.

Vice President JD Vance, who chairs Trump’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, and other administration officials announced the state deferrals at the White House, giving what traditionally would have been technical disputes between state and federal health officials a much higher political profile. Vance’s office did not respond to KFF Health News questions about the administration’s anti-fraud activities related to healthcare.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Andy Schneider, a Georgetown University research professor and a senior adviser at CMS during the Obama administration. “It’s a deferral, not a finding of fraud. This is being elevated by political decision-makers.”

Republican candidates have pounced on the investigations and allegations. In Minnesota, Republican gubernatorial candidate Lisa Demuth, who is speaker of the Minnesota House, released a September ad claiming that her Democratic opponent, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, “has never done anything to stop the fraud here in Minnesota.” Klobuchar has said that as governor she would “launch a top-to-bottom audit of state government to root out fraud.”

In New York, Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat whose office runs the Medicaid fraud unit, criticized the decision to withhold funds and said weakening the operation would benefit criminals. Her Republican challenger in the November election, Saritha Komatireddy, has cited the Trump administration’s claims during her campaign, telling Fox News Digital that James is “totally failing to prosecute Medicaid fraud.”

The administration says its actions are necessary because fraud diverts taxpayer money from people who legitimately qualify for government programs.

“The fraud doesn’t just steal money — it steals our trust,” Oz said in August on CBS’ Face the Nation.

Democrats and healthcare advocates say the White House’s anti-fraud crusade is being used by Republicans to distract from criticisms over its sweeping funding cuts to Medicaid, the ACA, and other federal health programs.

Republican-backed legislation enacted last year is projected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade.

Congressional Republicans also declined to extend enhanced ACA premium subsidies that expired at the end of 2025, increasing premium costs for many people who buy insurance through the marketplaces. Enrollment has since declined by millions.

Overall, the combined effect of GOP-led changes will result in 16 million more uninsured people by 2034, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

Those changes have given Democrats an opening to campaign on protecting healthcare coverage and affordability while Republicans seek to shift some of the debate toward fraud and government spending.

“It’s really a way to distract and reframe the cuts in a different way, to say it’s part of an anti-fraud effort,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group focused on expanding health coverage. “Fighting fraud shouldn’t result in people losing coverage.”

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

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

Read More

Readers Are Pleading To Make American Healthcare Greater

Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.

---

Not-So-Great Healthcare

Why doesn’t world-class medicine produce world-class health?

Hayat Norimine’s reporting gets at something that has bothered me for a long time about American healthcare (Priced Out: “As Health Insurance Costs Soar, Healthcare Workers Also Feel the Pinch,” Sept. 22).

We are very proud of U.S. medicine, and we should be. We are at the forefront of new treatments, our clinician workforce is unmatched, and we deploy technologies that seemed impossible just a few years ago. Yet we are in the middle of the pack compared with other countries, in terms of healthy lifespan and many markers of quality care.

At the same time, the cost of accessing care has become outrageously high. When clinicians stop getting health insurance for themselves and their families, you know something is deeply broken.

What good is our health system if most people cannot afford to use it?

One family in Norimine’s story went without insurance when their premiums climbed. Another person kept her coverage but waited weeks to see a doctor because of a $10,000 deductible. These are different problems, but both expose the distance between the care we can provide and the care people can actually access.

Insurance is supposed to help people get the care they need to stay healthy, not just when they are at death’s door. Yet the way insurance is designed can discourage someone from seeing a clinician early, filling a prescription, or following up before a problem gets worse. A clinician may say, “This is what you should do next,” while a person’s coverage gives them a reason to wait or decline.

That tension is not an accident. It is how the system was built. Doctors design care. Insurers design coverage. The two are put together in separate rooms by different teams, measured on different things, then handed to the same person as if they were one plan. No physician would design a $10,000 deductible; it just blocks people from investing in prevention and getting care early. But no physician was in the room when that threshold was set.

Making coverage affordable is essential. So is asking what that coverage enables people to do. If better health is the goal, the people responsible for a person’s health need a hand in shaping what their coverage pays for and when. Design coverage and care together, and it gets easier for people to get the care we know works while avoiding waste.

— Clay Johnston; Austin, Texas

---

On Dementia, Violence, and Sedation

Reading “Drugs Are Widely Used To Sedate Dementia Patients. Her Sons Wanted To Keep Her Off Them” (Sept. 30) inspired me to share my own experience.

My husband died of dementia about two years ago at age 86. It was not an easy journey. Dementia made him agitated for the same reason it does to others: People with dementia cannot tolerate being told “no.”

So when I had to tell him to stop driving, he became violent. I was told by an eldercare specialist that if my husband remained at home, he might kill me. So it was off to a memory care center, a really good and really expensive one. And he became violent and agitated there because he couldn’t come home, which was what he wanted, and which I could not safely handle. I was also aware that if he couldn’t make it at the memory care center, there was virtually no other place that would take him.

So did I say yes to medication? I did indeed. Even with the antipsychotic, my husband would become out of control. He often tried to “abscond,” as they say in memory-care speak. I also paid through the nose for one-on-one care, which kept him sort of safe. But one night, he fell in the bathroom and broke his hip. A hip replacement was suggested. He was suffering, he had absolutely no quality of life, and I turned the offer down. He was transferred to palliative care and died peacefully about five days later.

There is no solution to this problem that I can see other than medical aid in dying, which he probably would have refused. Me — I will not refuse. My current terror is that I might do this to my remaining family.

— Nora Staffanell; Monroe, New York

---

The issue is appropriate treatment, not simply drug avoidance.

Jordan Rau’s report rightly highlights the danger of using sedating medications simply to make people with dementia easier to manage. But inappropriate chemical restraint should not be confused with medically appropriate treatment of serious neuropsychiatric symptoms.

Psychosis, agitation, and aggression are distinct. Before prescribing medication, clinicians should identify the target symptom and look for reversible contributors such as pain, infection, medication effects, constipation, sleep disruption, sensory impairment, fear, environmental overstimulation, or the way personal care is being delivered.

Nonpharmacological, person-centered interventions should generally come first. The American Psychiatric Association recommends antipsychotics, outside of emergencies, only when agitation or psychosis is severe, dangerous, or causes substantial distress and after nonpharmacologic approaches have been assessed. When used, treatment should begin at a low dose and aim for the minimum effective dose.

However, nonpharmacological measures do not always suffice. In 2026, the APA reaffirmed that antipsychotics can benefit some older adults with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia when used judiciously within a comprehensive treatment plan. Brexpiprazole, for example, received FDA approval in 2023 for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s dementia.

These drugs carry real risks, including increased mortality, sedation, orthostasis, extrapyramidal symptoms, cerebrovascular events, and falls. But untreated severe agitation or aggression also carries risks: distress, injury, emergency transfers, hospitalization, caregiver breakdown, and loss of placement.

The responsible question is therefore not whether antipsychotics are dangerous, but whether, for a particular patient and target symptom, likely benefits outweigh risks after reversible causes and nonpharmacological measures have been addressed.

Good dementia care means neither reflexive prescribing nor reflexive withholding. It means careful diagnosis, person-centered care, informed risk-benefit discussion, lowest effective dosing, close monitoring, and periodic attempts to reduce or discontinue medication when appropriate.

— James Ellison; Philadelphia

---

Decoding ER Bills

Autumn Daniels was billed $410 for an emergency room visit in which no clinician evaluated her (Bill of the Month: “She Left After Waiting Hours in the Emergency Room. The ER Billed Her Anyway,” Sept. 29). She received registration, vital signs, and a single question, then sat in the waiting room for four hours and left.

Carle Health billed CPT code 99281, an evaluation and management service. The American Medical Association’s CPT guidelines, quoted in your article, state that triage alone is not an evaluation and management service and cannot be reported with that code. Carle’s own email confirms the problem by defining “care” to include registration and nursing assessment. That’s triage under another name.

Billing for a service that was not performed is the most important reason insurers deny hospital claims, and it’s what physicians are trained to recognize as fraud. Daniels’ insurer denied the claim under “against medical advice,” a label that cannot apply to a patient no clinician ever saw. The right response is a written refusal to pay, addressed to the hospital, stating that the billed service was never rendered.

I spent 20 years in clinical medicine and over a decade as a health insurance medical director reviewing exactly this question. Daniels should owe nothing.

— Virgie Bright Ellington; New Rochelle, New York

---

This article goes much deeper than simply exploring lack of treatment in the emergency room. It’s about callous treatment, which is unacceptable on many levels. The ER provided poor care and wasn’t busy, but because the unseen patient was only feeling unwell and not bleeding from every orifice, she wasn’t taken seriously as a priority, so she left. Yet despite not being seen by a doctor, a miscellaneous bill — over $400 — was submitted for payment.

What is pain anyway — feeling uncomfortable? Pain is people dying from triggers in the body. Therefore, treating people like a business by these corporate hospitals is extremely concerning. A person feeling ill, receiving no treatment after four hours of waiting, then leaving the ER with a chronic headache  — which could be anything from a brain injury, an upcoming stroke, or a hemorrhage — should not be charged. And certainly a miscellaneous code should not have been applied for the pleasure of pain, waiting, and the five minutes it took to take her temperature.

No, the insurance company should not pay, and it should also let the hospital know that it will be booted from the network for false claims — spending less-than-adequate time with a patient and then submitting bills.

Laws need to be mandated, and advocates must demand optimum care, with healthcare providers abiding by the Hippocratic oath.

People are not stick figures to be treated carelessly and then charged fully. Every time a baseless claim is submitted by the hospital to the insurance company, there’s a trickle-down effect, and rates go up.

It’s akin to being charged for walking on the sidewalk outside a grocery store, checking the fruit stands, getting help from the outside clerk, and then being charged by the store — despite not making a purchase.

Bad service serves no one and will backfire on the provider in the end. How many times do we have to check management at the door for not understanding that very concept? Far too often. We need to show that medical disregard and abuse are not tolerated. It’s essential to pursue change at the federal and state level. Why? Because, ultimately, hospitals are taking advantage of people. They’ve forgotten why they exist.

— Tiff Gadison; Sacramento, California

---

Living Under the Government’s Thumb

It’s not a good feeling to know that the government has the upper hand and pulls the strings (Health Hub: “Sticker Shock at the Doctor’s Office Could Motivate Midterm Voters,” Sept. 18). Here it is, 2026, and this single mother still struggles — but even more so with talks of cuts and funding to programs I and so many others depend on.

I was interviewed back in November 2018 about an absurd medical bill I received and was expected to pay, even though I have Medicare and Medicaid. Jay Hancock wrote my story, which aired on All Things Considered (Bill of the Month: “Chronically Ill, Traumatically Billed: The $123,000 Medicine for MS,” Nov. 28, 2018). It also appeared on CBS Mornings with Gayle King.

Things definitely haven’t gotten any better for me. I worry about not only my health insurance and my medication but the fact I am on permanent disability. The state of the nation under the current administration is pretty frightening. My Social Security/SSI is my only means of getting by. I receive EBT (electronic benefits transfer for food assistance), and I have a family to feed. I live in government-subsidized housing, based on my income. So pretty much my whole life is controlled by the actions of folks who probably have zero clue how it is to live on a fixed income and with a chronic health condition, one in which stress exacerbates the symptoms, as well as being a single parent.

Don’t even mention being able to afford the price of gas; my car will sit more than go now. I have to pick and choose when to run errands, usually on a day I already have a scheduled appointment. That not only causes me lots of anxiety, but the fatigue is relentless! This is a very stressful, unnerving way to live.

— Shereese Hickson; Niles, Ohio

---

Uniting for Good

I’m writing on behalf of students with the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative (ALCSI). Our team recently came across Noam N. Levey’s Common Ground article “‘Cancer Doesn’t Care’: Citizen Lobbyists Unite To Push Past Washington’s Ugly Politics” (Oct. 21, 2025), and its message about cancer bringing people together across political divides strongly resonated with our team.

I wanted to share a recent development in California that reflects a similar idea. A lung cancer screening awareness bill that began as an idea from a small group of California college students was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 28, after receiving support from legislators of both parties.

As students passionate about lung cancer screening awareness, our team began exploring legislative action to improve screening rates. In March 2025, we developed the initial proposal that ultimately became California SB 1124 and continued advocating for the bill throughout the legislative process until it was signed into law.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Screening can catch the disease at an earlier, more treatable stage, but many people eligible for lung cancer screening don’t know they qualify or that screening is available to them. SB 1124 addresses that gap by requiring tobacco retailers across California to post signage about lung cancer screening at the point of sale, reaching people where they already are rather than relying on them to seek out the information. Considering that California has historically been one of the states with the lowest lung cancer screening rates, this action is crucial.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Bob Archuleta (D–Pico Rivera). Through grassroots outreach, students involved with this bill initiative helped build a coalition of support from organizations across California and the country, including the California Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, and the NAACP California Hawai‘i State Conference, among dozens of others.

Our experience really echoed what stood out to us in Levey’s article: that cancer can bring together people who may disagree on plenty of other issues. We also hope our experience shows that young people can have a meaningful voice in that process and contribute to bringing people together around a shared public health goal.

— Elaine Dong; Los Angeles

---

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/6B8lsIS

Read More

At a Last-Hope Health Clinic, Desperation, Kindness and Fear for What’s Next

These doctors and community health workers are a safety net for patients losing coverage as premiums soar and Medicaid cuts mount, even as their clinic struggles to stay afloat.

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

Read More

The New Science of Stuttering

Experts are reaching consensus on what the condition is. Now they’re debating how best to treat it.

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

Read More

Kenya Confirms Four New Ebola Cases

Seven Ebola infections have now been confirmed in Kenya, which before this month had never recorded cases of the deadly virus.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/Ww7zHhG

Read More

A Reporter Who Saw Covid Coming Has Died

Helen Branswell recognized the threat of the pandemic ahead of the vast majority of journalists and even medical experts. She was 69.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/zZpUfK4

Read More

When a Gun Owner Shows Early Signs of Dementia

Public health experts are finding ways to encourage firearm safety practices for older adults who own guns, especially when there are indications of cognitive decline.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/XNY61Iy

Read More

Is Longevity Medicine Going Mainstream?

As major health systems open their own programs, longevity medicine is gaining credibility and becoming more accessible.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/DjVY4XZ

Read More

Next Governor To Face Thorny Choices After California’s Rapid Medicaid Expansion

In March 2025, when California ran out of Medicaid funds to pay doctors and hospitals, the state borrowed $3.4 billion to keep the program afloat. It was, as a spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom insisted, nothing new. Indeed, a handful of times over the years, the state had taken out internal, short-term loans to sustain its healthcare program for the poor and disabled.

The unprecedented move came a few months later, when Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers agreed to pay down the loan — which grew to $4.4 billion — over 10 years instead of later in the year. California’s healthcare safety net, it seemed, was buckling.

Rising healthcare costs systemwide were partly to blame. But so were several state-led expansions that made California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, one of the nation’s most generous.

Now, with congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over 10 years, California and dozens of other states must contemplate the limits of their generosity. The problem is particularly acute in the nation’s most populous state, which spends more on Medicaid than New York and Texas combined.

“We know we can’t afford to serve everybody we want to serve in the model that we have today,” said Mark Ghaly, the former top Newsom health official who now co-chairs the Future of Medi-Cal Commission, a 29-person panel with the goal of modernizing and sustaining California’s Medicaid program for those who need it. “What can we do differently? What can we do smarter?”

The 2025 law that Newsom, a Democrat, has dubbed President Donald Trump’s “Big Ugly Bill” is expected to leave millions more Americans without health insurance, mostly because of new work requirements. It also curbs the use of healthcare provider taxes and other strategies states have deployed to maximize federal funds. Some state lawmakers and consumer advocates have argued the federal cuts, along with rising costs, present an opportunity for the next governor to overhaul a program plagued by long appointment wait times, low reimbursement rates for healthcare providers, and volatile financing.

“If we continue to just give millions and millions into the same system and expect something different — I’m sick and tired of that,” said Caroline Menjivar, a Democratic state senator representing a Los Angeles-area district where roughly half of constituents rely on Medi-Cal.

Democratic lawmakers, who have often clashed with Newsom on Medi-Cal rollbacks, succeeded in getting him to delay a number of painful cuts until 2027 in hopes that a new governor might reverse them.

So far, neither of the candidates running in the November election to replace Newsom have offered substantive proposals for weathering the upheaval health policy experts say is on the horizon for a program that covers 1 in 3 Californians — roughly 13.6 million people.

Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, wants to pare back Medi-Cal eligibility and has promised to end coverage for immigrants without legal status, citing that benefit as an example of “wildly unsustainable” state spending. Democrat Xavier Becerra, who has spent decades trying to expand government-funded healthcare, has promised to protect Californians from the massive federal cuts.

Expanding Coverage

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the law that established Medicaid and Medicare in 1965 to cover certain low-income groups, such as families with children, older people, and those with disabilities. Over the past six decades, states have substantially widened that pool, most notably under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion to childless adults.

Starting in 2024, California offered healthcare coverage to all low-income residents, regardless of age or immigration status, although lawmakers scaled that back this year. At the same time, the state opted to cover a slew of non-mandated benefits such as physical therapy, hospice care, and housing assistance.

“California has always struggled with wanting to have as broad a program as possible but then having to figure out a way to pay,” said Jennifer Kent, who oversaw Medi-Cal under Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat. “There is no population that we have met that we don’t want to offer coverage to, and we’ve never met a benefit that we don’t like.”

Since 2010, California’s Medi-Cal enrollment has nearly doubled while spending has ballooned from $50 billion a year to $222 billion. It now makes up more than 40% of overall state spending, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Conservatives argue the program is bloated and rife with fraud. They say the federal changes will force states to refocus resources on the neediest.

“The role of the safety net programs was just that — to be a safety net,” Hilton said in an interview. “I don’t think it’s a particularly positive boast to say 40% of Californians should be on a program that was designed for people living in poverty.”

Becerra declined an interview request.

Nelly, a 59-year-old from Los Angeles County, was one of millions who have benefited from the state’s Medi-Cal expansion, but she was initially reluctant to sign up.

For years after she left her corporate job to care for her ailing mother, Nelly said, she didn’t consider applying. She remained uninsured until three years ago, when she woke up and couldn’t see out of her left eye.

She enrolled in Medi-Cal in the emergency room. It now covers her appointments with specialists and transportation to and from. While her condition may exempt her from the new Medicaid work requirements, Nelly said, she’s still worried about losing coverage after experiencing numerous paperwork hiccups simply trying to renew.

Nelly, who asked that her full name not be used, because she hasn’t told her family about her condition, said she understands not everyone on the program may need it. But, she added, “it should be there for someone like me.”

Tough Choices Ahead

When Republican state lawmakers got wind of Newsom’s plan to stretch the debt repayment over a decade, they accused Democrats of trying to “paper over” the state’s structural deficit.

“This leaves future governors and legislatures to clean up the mess,” stated a July 2025 memo from GOP senators. The Legislative Analyst’s Office later called the maneuver “unusual.” That could leave Becerra, the favorite to succeed Newsom in the overwhelmingly liberal state, as the face of staggering changes to a program he spent his career defending.

More than 2 million Californians under age 65 could lose health coverage over the next four years as a result of the state and federal policy changes, according to recent estimates by the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. At least 730,000 residents have already disenrolled since June 2025.

State agencies are scrambling to implement new federal work requirement rules for adult Medicaid enrollees under 65, hoping to automate as much verification as possible to blunt coverage losses. And in 2028, states will be required to charge some enrollees fees for many services, making it harder for them to maintain coverage.

Disability rights activists say new asset limits will prevent Californians from getting needed home care, which they say is more cost-effective and humane than nursing homes. Counties, deemed by state law to be healthcare providers of last resort, say they need immediate funding for the millions of uninsured patients they anticipate in the new year.

Hospital administrators have urged policymakers to help them keep their facilities stable, and the state’s most recent budget included some $390 million to assist public and distressed hospitals.

Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital in Los Angeles treats five times the patients it was designed to serve, and 80% of patients are uninsured or on Medi-Cal. Demand is so high in the chronically underserved area, MLK Community Healthcare CEO Elaine Batchlor said, that the hospital has erected tents in the parking lot. Most emergency room patients are now treated there.

“We already have an extremely overcrowded, overburdened emergency department,” Batchlor said. “Insured care will turn into uncompensated care, and the financial burden for that will fall on providers.”

Becerra has said he opposes the state’s recent freeze on enrollment for adult immigrants without legal status, as well as new monthly premiums set to take effect next year, saying such moves will only saddle taxpayers with higher bills for ER care.

If elected, Becerra will probably need to wade into the politically toxic debate over whether to raise more revenue, cut benefits further, or do both.

Aside from promising to find and eliminate billions in administrative waste from the industry, the nation’s former top health official has not explained how he would cobble together the tens of billions of dollars the state is likely to need just to maintain status quo.

The next governor must tread carefully, Kent warned. “When people come and say, ‘Well, you should just do this because it’s the right thing,’” she said, “all of those right things have fiscal consequences.”

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/t6gv9cR

Read More

7 Takeaways From an Investigation Into Financial Aid at Texas Hospitals

Most hospitals offer financial assistance to patients who struggle to afford their bills, often referred to as charity care. But many people are stymied by cumbersome aid applications. Others don’t even know help exists.

Hospitals have the ability to proactively screen patients to see if they’re eligible for aid and, if so, automatically wipe out or reduce their bills — a process known as presumptive eligibility.

A growing number of state policymakers and researchers believe requiring hospitals to use presumptive eligibility would protect low-income Americans from falling into medical debt, especially with federal funding cuts expected to increase the number of people without health insurance.

Data shows that Texas has among the highest state rates of people in medical debt, and policymakers in Texas are considering legislation that would require nonprofit hospitals to use presumptive eligibility before sending patients a bill.

In a first-of-its-kind analysis, Tradeoffs examined the presumptive eligibility policies of 166 nonprofit general and children’s hospitals in Texas. The goal was to shed light on how easy or difficult hospitals make it for low-income people to get financial aid without an application.

Scroll to the bottom of the page to explore a searchable table with all 166 hospitals’ policies.

Here’s what we found:

1. Nearly half of nonprofit hospitals in Texas (44%) say they will bill patients before screening them for free or discounted care.

Some hospitals screen patients after sending a single bill. Others may send multiple bills and hire collection agencies to chase after debts before they check whether a patient is eligible for help.

The most common approach is for hospitals to say they will screen patients before taking “extraordinary collection actions,” which include garnishing their wages, selling the debt to a debt collector, or denying further care until outstanding bills are paid.

Anna Stelter, vice president of policy for the Texas Hospital Association, said hospitals want to investigate other options for payment — like Medicaid or county safety net programs — before they offer financial assistance.

“We do want to make sure that whoever is financially responsible for that care is identified and pays,” Stelter said. “Charity care is the relief of last resort.”

Just one nonprofit in Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System, has a written policy that requires its hospitals to check and proactively reduce or wipe out what patients owe before sending bills.

Research shows that when patients receive financial aid makes a difference.

A 2022 study found that patients who received hospital financial aid within weeks of care were much more likely to return to the doctor and get treatment for conditions like diabetes and depression. Conversely, a landmark study published in 2024 found that wiping out people’s medical debt years later had no effect on their mental and physical health, healthcare use, or financial situation.

2. Most hospitals say they do not reimburse patients who qualify for financial aid for money they have already paid.

Hospitals often put patients on payment plans to chip away at bills they can’t afford. But only 10 of 166 nonprofit hospitals in Texas guarantee a full refund to patients found to be eligible for financial aid. Most others say they won’t return money that patients paid before being screened.

Surveys show patients take out loans and rack up credit card debt to cover what they owe. In one recent survey, one-third of Americans without health insurance said they had borrowed money for medical care in the previous year.

“It is very frustrating,” said Aimee Carlock, who was required to pay $5,500 to Texas Health Resources to schedule uterus surgery. She later qualified for free care, and the hospital wiped out her remaining $16,000 bill. But the $5,500 was gone. “That’s a lot of money to me,” said Carlock, a self-employed housecleaner who was recently approved for food stamps.

Texas Health’s policy offers refunds only in the amount a patient has paid in excess of what the hospital typically charges someone with insurance. All hospitals must offer refunds to patients who qualify for financial aid in these situations to avoid federal penalties.

Texas Health didn’t respond to an interview request after Carlock agreed to grant the system permission to speak about her experience.

In some cases, patients must fill out extensive applications to recoup their money. The application for Abilene-based Hendrick Health instructs patients to “completely and precisely” fill in financial and personal details, describing their savings and listing Social Security numbers for family members they live with who might help with the bills. Patients must submit two current pay stubs, a tax return, two months of bank statements, and a justification of why they need help.

“Explain circumstances in which paying this hospital bill would create a hardship,” the application says.

Hendrick Health didn’t respond to questions about its policy.

3. Many hospitals never tell patients that their debt has been forgiven.

Some of the largest nonprofit hospital systems in Texas don’t notify patients when their bill has automatically been wiped out. That includes Christus Health, Texas Health Resources, and Texas hospitals owned by CommonSpirit Health, one of the nation’s largest Catholic health systems.

Research shows patients who don’t know their debt has been forgiven may skip needed care. A 2026 study found that people with medical debt were three to four times as likely to delay future physical and mental healthcare as people without medical debt.

“If the patient doesn’t get some sort of notice,” said Erin Fuse Brown, a health policy researcher at Brown University, the possibility that they could be billed “hangs like a sword over their neck.”

Stelter, with the Texas Hospital Association, said many hospitals have limited staff in their billing departments. “Notifying patients whose bill was completely forgiven that they were presumptively eligible is probably lower on the totem pole than helping somebody who’s trying to complete an application,” she said.

If hospitals offer someone less than the maximum discount available, federal law requires the hospital to notify the patient, in case they want to appeal for a full write-off.

Texas Health and Christus Health didn’t respond to interview requests about their policies. A CommonSpirit spokesperson declined an interview.

4. Some hospitals say their financial assistance policies don’t reflect how they actually operate. These discrepancies can work to patients’ advantage — or detriment.

AdventHealth says some of its Texas patients get screened for financial assistance before getting bills, a consumer-friendly practice. The system’s policy, however, has no requirement for when hospitals must screen patients.

“We want patients to understand and have access to available financial assistance before receiving a bill whenever possible,” said Tim Reiner, senior vice president for revenue cycle for the system, which owns and operates four hospitals in Texas.

Houston Methodist also screens patients for help before sending bills, if they are uninsured, a spokesperson said. There is no requirement for its eight hospitals to do so under the system’s policy.

According to its policy, Covenant Health, a five-hospital system based in Lubbock, must screen patients before sending bills to collection agencies and lists detailed criteria for who is eligible to have bills proactively wiped out.

But in 2019, the system decided not to use presumptive eligibility “due to the regulatory requirements and administrative complexities,” said spokesperson Ainsley Nelson. “Our focus continues to be ensuring compassionate access to care and helping patients navigate the financial assistance options available to them.”

Covenant is owned by Providence, a multistate Catholic health system based in Renton, Washington, which agreed to refund or erase more than $150 million in patient bills after investigations charged that the system failed to inform patients of charity care.

Providence said the system fixed the problem identified by investigators, refunded patients, and now coaches its employees to communicate “with compassion and respect.”

5. Who qualifies for presumptive eligibility varies significantly from one hospital to another.

Hospitals in Texas get to decide who is eligible to be automatically screened for and enrolled in financial assistance.

Presumptive eligibility policies often apply to people who are homeless, deceased, or already enrolled in state or federal programs to help low-income households with medical care, housing, food, or prescriptions. Some hospitals have additional criteria, including writing off bills for anyone in a religious order who took a vow of poverty.

Some hospitals share little to no public information about who they will proactively screen. Thirteen hospitals owned by Ascension, one of the nation’s largest Catholic health systems, say only that it may screen patients “with a sufficient unpaid balance.”

Ascension didn’t respond to questions about its eligibility criteria.

This variation means that a patient’s ability to access free care depends greatly on where they go.

6. Some hospitals provide less generous charity care to patients who receive it automatically instead of submitting an application.

At CommonSpirit’s hospitals across southeastern Texas, patients who are auto-enrolled get help with debt from the prior 12 months. Patients who submit an application get the same help with prior bills, plus free or discounted treatment for the next six months.

North Texas Medical Center limits financial assistance for auto-enrolled patients to individual visits. Applicants may be eligible going back 12 months before approval.

North Texas Medical Center didn’t respond to additional questions about its policy.

7. Policies that are supposed to be easily accessible to patients are often difficult to find.

Hospital financial assistance policies are intended to be transparent to patients and the public. For more than a decade, federal law has required nonprofit hospitals to widely publish their policies.

In practice, finding these policies and deciphering them is often hard.

To find the policies of all nonprofit hospitals in Texas, Tradeoffs started with a list of hospital financial assistance policy websites maintained by the nonprofit Dollar For. To verify websites were up to date and fill in missing policies, Tradeoffs scoured hospital websites, often clicking through multiple links to locate policies.

In cases in which hospitals did not publish full policies online, Tradeoffs requested copies from hospitals and filed a public records request with the state of Texas, which requires hospitals to submit charity policies annually.

“You would have to know what you’re looking for before you went looking for it, or you’re never going to find it,” said Ray Kluender, an associate professor at Harvard University, who has had to hunt for hospital policies as part of his research on medical debt.

This article is part of Hidden Help, an investigative series from Tradeoffs and KFF Health News about how hospitals can protect their patients from the life-altering harms of medical debt.

Tradeoffs is a nonprofit newsroom reporting on healthcare’s toughest choices. Sign up for the weekly newsletter to get the latest stories every Thursday morning.

Tradeoffs’ reporting for this series was supported, in part, by the California Health Care Foundation, the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and the Solutions Journalism Network.

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/GsiKYb8

Read More

Readers Offer Lessons on the Way to 100

We asked people who aspire to live long lives about how they hoped to do it and who might have inspired them along the way.

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

Read More

They Created a Cell That’s Almost Alive. What to Do With It Now?

SpudCells may one day produce new medicines and materials. But first scientists have to improve them — and make sure they aren’t misused.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/4DHcQ9B

Read More

Pope Leo XIV Has Lung Adenocarcinoma. What Is It?

The cancer has a high survival rate if caught in the early stages.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/5yZBE8V

Read More

California’s Billionaire Tax Promises Healthcare Relief. The Fine Print Is Murkier.

The pitch behind California’s billionaire tax proposal is simple: Tax the richest residents in the nation’s wealthiest state to offset steep federal cuts to healthcare, food assistance, and education.

But if approved by voters in November, it’s unclear how much money the ballot initiative would raise, how quickly the funding would become available, and how lawmakers would spend it.

The measure would steer proceeds from a first-in-the-nation wealth tax to a state healthcare fund, giving the governor and lawmakers the power to decide how to spend what California’s nonpartisan legislative analyst estimated would be “tens of billions of dollars.” Backers say it could raise up to $100 billion over five years to keep hospitals and emergency rooms open and preserve insurance coverage for millions of Californians. Yet, community health centers, doctors, and other healthcare entities that might benefit from such a cash infusion argue that the union spearheading the measure has readied a blank check for politicians.

“I’m not sure that you can say, with full security, that this will stop clinics from being closed or healthcare workers from being laid off, or people from losing their healthcare,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget & Policy Center, a left-leaning nonprofit.

Can’t see the audio player? Visit kffhealthnews.org to listen.

Taxing the Ultrarich

Put on the ballot by one of California’s largest healthcare unions, Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on roughly 200 Californians with a net worth of at least $1 billion, including most of their stock holdings, yachts, and artwork. It would apply to those who were residents of California on Jan. 1, 2026. Real estate, pensions, and retirement accounts would generally be exempt.

The revenue raised is intended to offset the roughly $30 billion a year in anticipated losses to the Golden State from congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Over the next four years, state and federal funding cuts are projected to nearly double California’s uninsured population, which stands at about 2.4 million people, according to the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center.

Securing additional tax revenue is essential because state lawmakers have yet to come up with a way to pay for healthcare services that will be affected by the cuts, said Dave Regan, president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which represents hospital workers and got the wealth tax on the ballot. It would earmark 90% of the tax revenue for healthcare, while the remaining 10% would be split between food assistance and education at lawmakers’ discretion. Regan said such broad categories would give politicians flexibility to be more responsive to the looming cuts.

“Figuring out or predicting exactly what the fallout will be, of where reductions and cuts get made, in a complicated healthcare system, it’s just too difficult to predict,” Regan said.

Among the choices the next governor and lawmakers will face are whether to provide healthcare to people cut off by the new federal Medicaid work requirements, reverse state rollbacks limiting coverage for immigrants with legal status, or raise the low physician reimbursement rates that make some providers reluctant to accept patients enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

Lawmakers could also shore up subsidies on Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace, whose enrollees have seen their premiums skyrocket after losing millions in federal assistance after Congress last year let enhanced subsides expire.

Most of the money must be spent on health, but healthcare experts said the measure’s ambiguous language could allow lawmakers to use the new billionaire health fund to replace existing state dollars, contrary to the text of the proposition.

“A lot of times these propositions are written in a way to get attention and get support,” said Glenn Melnick, a healthcare economist at the University of Southern California. “But in fact, they can be used for other things later.”

Instead, the healthcare industry is pushing for a long-term funding plan. René Bravo, a pediatrician in San Luis Obispo County and the president of the California Medical Association, worries that a one-time infusion of tax dollars “is going to run out.”

“We need to work on a more sustainable, durable funding mechanism for the Medi-Cal system,” he said.

At the same time, doctors are asking him what will happen when the biggest Medi-Cal eligibility cuts begin to take effect next year. Even if voters approve the ballot measure, the money wouldn’t be available for at least a few months while the state collects the tax. And billionaires could spread their payments over five years.

Californians Divided

Pasadena resident Lynne Wines, a 72-year-old retired banker, knows the state needs the money. But she worries that wealthy investors will see the measure as a precedent and flee the state. Even though the ballot measure is clear that it’s a one-time tax, Wines said it’s a slippery slope.

“Taxes have a way of being needed over and over, and politicians have a way of finding those needs,” Wines said. “So, I don’t really feel secure that this is just a one-time thing.”

She noted that Google co-founder and billionaire Sergey Brin bought a home in Nevada and moved some of his businesses to the Silver State late last year. He is backing ad campaigns opposing the measure. Brin has given more than $100 million to a nonprofit promoting two competing measures, Propositions 41 and 42, designed to blunt or block it, according to contributions filed with the secretary of state’s office. One would count some new state taxes toward California’s overall spending limit and require the state auditor to review new state tax proposals before voters weigh in. The other would prohibit new state taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts, and other assets.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, warned on CNN in June that just the threat of the tax “has sent trillions of dollars, by some estimates, of wealth leaving the state.” A March study by the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University projected that the billionaire tax would cost California $25 billion, citing, in part, the lost revenue from billionaires who have already left the state.

California voters appear torn over departing billionaires. Two independent September polls suggested voter support for Proposition 40 varied from a low of 45% to a high of 52%.

Pasadena resident Steve Erler, 74, works full-time as a building manager because he can’t afford to retire. He worries that federal cuts will hurt children and seniors.

Steve Erler of Pasadena, California, works full-time as a building manager because he can’t afford to retire. He worries that federal cuts will hurt children and seniors, and he supports a California ballot measure that would tax billionaires. (Jackie Fortiér/KFF Health News)

“These people who are making all this money, they can never spend it all. What are they going to do, buy another house in the Hamptons, buy another jet? They don’t need that,” Erler said while out walking his dog in August. “They need to be able to say when they go to bed at night, ‘I helped a child with healthcare. I helped a senior get fed.’ That’s what’s important,” he said.

Democrats are divided — one of many ideological fights playing out nationwide this election cycle as progressives take on more centrist candidates. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the California Democratic Party have endorsed Proposition 40, while Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is exploring a presidential bid, and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Xavier Becerra oppose it while saying that ultrawealthy or high-earning people should pay more. “It’s time for an economic reset, a true minimum tax on billionaires that, well, ensures the people at the very top pay at least the tax rate their own workers pay,” said Newsom, who supports a federal wealth tax, although legislation for a federal wealth tax in Congress has stalled.

If voters approve the ballot measure, political analysts said, it could show other states that taxing the wealthy may help close budget gaps and pay for essential services. Already several Democratic states, including Hawai‘i, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, have approved millionaire taxes, but those have been limited to income, not overall wealth. Voters in Washington state will decide this fall whether to keep their millionaire tax.

“I do think this is just the beginning of these proposals nationwide,” said Melnick, the USC healthcare economist.

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

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

Read More

States Now Have to Decide How to Spend Meta’s Settlement Billions

Previous agreements with the tobacco and opioid industries show the difficulty of putting the money in the right hands.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/p6rWxHv

Read More

People Say These Peptides Hurt Them. Their Stories Are Muffled in MAHA’s Push for Medical Freedom.

After the third day of squirting an experimental drug up his nose, Dylan Meetze felt horrible.

“It was like I was underwater, like it took the most to do anything,” he said.

Meetze stopped taking the drug but endured fatigue and anxiety for months afterward, and his eyes and muscles twitched, he said.

He had taken BPC-157, a peptide drug popularized by podcasts about wellness, longevity, and what’s called “body optimization.” “Peptide” is a general term for substances that are smaller than proteins but composed of the same building blocks. Dozens of peptide drugs, including insulin and GLP-1 weight loss medicines, have garnered approval by the Food and Drug Administration. But BPC-157 and many others have not because they haven’t undergone clinical trials.

This fact hasn’t stopped online influencers from promoting them as remedies for muscle injuries, gut issues, covid, and more. Use of BPC-157 is growing in the U.S., particularly among white males, according to a new analysis of millions of de-identified electronic health records. Since 2020, the analysis, which hasn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, found that more than 1,000 people told doctors they had used the drug.

Meetze said he decided to take BPC-157 after listening to Andrew Huberman, a Stanford neuroscientist with more than 16 million followers on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, who talks up peptides frequently on his podcasts. Studies in mice suggest that BPC-157 helps muscles heal and has “very high safety profiles,” Huberman has said, “at least, with respect to the lethal dosing.” His guest on one episode, Craig Koniver, a doctor who sells peptides through his wellness clinic, called BPC-157 “super safe” and recommended it for “anyone who’s working out on a regular basis.” Koniver did not respond to requests for comment.

Huberman didn’t respond to multiple queries from KFF Health News, but an automatic reply linked to a disclaimer on his Huberman Lab website that says the podcast doesn’t constitute medical advice: “Any reliance on information provided through the podcast is solely at the user’s own risk.”

Hoping BPC-157 might help him advance as a weightlifter, Meetze said he bought the drug last year from an online vendor, Researchem. A chemical supply company with that name sells experimental peptides through its website, warning that the substances are “solely for laboratory research” and are “not intended for human consumption.” (It lists an address in Hillsboro, Oregon, that corresponds to a shared office space. A receptionist at the space said Researchem wasn’t registered there, and multiple queries from KFF Health News to the email address listed on the website went unanswered.)

Companies are required to warn that experimental peptides, which haven’t been approved by the FDA, are for research use only. But many companies may soon be permitted to drop the warning because of a push by health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lower barriers to their use. He and other leaders of the Make America Healthy Again movement have promoted peptides as a way to improve the country’s health.

On the social media platform X, before he took the helm at the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy vowed to end the “aggressive suppression” of “peptides, stem cells, raw milk” and “anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.” (In fact, peptides are heavily patented.)

He has repeated the pledge since taking office. On Joe Rogan’s podcast early this year, Kennedy said he was a “big fan” of peptides and wanted to make many of them “more accessible.” On a podcast with the co-chair of the MAHA Action committee, Gary Brecka, Kennedy said the FDA’s role should be to assess science, “but not tell people and not tell physicians what they can and cannot prescribe.”

“If you want to take an experimental drug,” he added, “you ought to be able to do that.”

This summer, Kennedy’s health department appointed doctors with financial stakes in the peptide industry to a panel that advises the FDA. At an FDA meeting in July, the new appointees voted to ease restrictions on six experimental peptides, including the trendy compounds BPC-157, TB-500, and MOTS-c. Specifically, they advised adding these peptides to a list, called 503A, that would allow specialized pharmacies to make the drugs for human use, even though the FDA hasn’t approved them.

In an email, HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard wrote that every committee member satisfies the FDA’s ethics requirements. “FDA — not podcasts or politics — determines which substances qualify for inclusion on the 503A Bulks List,” she wrote. The FDA has yet to issue a final decision.

The vote went against FDA scientists who presented research on the six peptides, concluding there wasn’t enough evidence to show they improved any condition. Furthermore, the scientists highlighted a potential for liver damage, allergic reactions, or other serious consequences.

“People are saying this is about medical freedom — putting decisions back in the hands of patients,” said Reshma Ramachandran, a regulatory science researcher at Yale School of Medicine. “But what we see in practice is that incentives aren’t actually centered around patients. They’re centered around selling products.”

Scientists also warned that drugmakers would be reluctant to invest millions of dollars into clinical trials on peptides if they could be sold without FDA approval.

“The chances of clinical trials getting done now are diminished,” said Eric Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research, a biomedical science institute in San Diego. “We will have more people who are prey to predators that will sell, sell, sell.”

A lack of data leaves consumers in the dark.

Meetze sought help on Reddit, where people post about pain, headaches, vision problems, and a lack of motivation after taking experimental peptides. Peptide enthusiasts often comment on these posts with skepticism, attributing a person’s problems to contaminated products, preexisting conditions, or misuse of the drugs. The online vitriol in the Reddit conversations can be intense, so Meetze welcomed an invitation to join a private group on the social platform Discord in which people with BPC-157 side effects tried to figure out what happened to them and how to fix it.

“There are millions of success stories with these peptides,” Meetze said, “but no one wants to believe that this wrecks some of our lives.”

Experimental peptides are often sold at longevity, wellness, and “performance medicine” clinics — even though they haven’t been proved safe and effective in clinical trials. (Amy Maxmen/KFF Health News)

Wolverines and Migraines

One member of the private side-effects group, a 46-year-old software engineer named Dominik E., said he got an excruciating migraine within days of taking BPC-157 with TB-4, another unapproved peptide — a combination called the “Wolverine Stack” because of its purported ability to heal wounds rapidly, like its namesake Marvel superhero.

“My left eye started throbbing really badly, and the left side of my face became numb,” he told KFF Health News, which agreed to only partially identify him and others interviewed for this article who were concerned about divulging sensitive health information.

After two months of migraines, Dominik said, the pain eased, but his face felt inflamed. “It is a total nightmare,” he said.

“I’m afraid how people will judge me,” said Lois S., a woman who works at a Michigan elementary school. She hoped BPC-157 and another unapproved peptide, retatrutide, would help with weight loss, but she stopped taking the treatment when she felt pain.

“I sought out this substance from a lab that clearly labeled it not for human use, purchased a syringe, and injected this in my kitchen,” she said. “That belies all logic about what a normal person would do.”

Peptide proponents argue that shoddy manufacturing — not the peptides — causes harm. Therefore, they say, the FDA must protect the public by allowing doctors to prescribe peptides made for human use by pharmacies that specialize in compounding medicines. Typically, compounding pharmacies manufacture alternatives to FDA-approved drugs so a patient can, say, get a liquid version of a drug that the original manufacturer makes only as pills.

Adding unapproved peptides to the FDA’s list of compoundable drugs would mark a departure from the list’s purpose, said Peter Lurie, a former FDA official who now directs the advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest. He noted that federal and state oversight for compounding pharmacies is often lax, and they’ve been cited for contamination.

Furthermore, he added, the move would mislead consumers into thinking they’re buying drugs backed by clinical trials. People promoting peptides often point to promising laboratory research as evidence. Rats with spinal injuries regained tail mobility after BPC-157 injections, for example, and old mice given the experimental peptide MOTS-c could run longer. On average, however, fewer than 10% of substances that show promise in animal studies prove effective in clinical trials.

“A lot of this pseudoscience stuff sounds deeply impressive — inflammation this and telomere that — but at the end of the day, none of it really matters,” Lurie said. “You’ve got to show clinical benefit in humans: Does it work?”

Peptide promoters lean on anecdotes, often without verifiable numbers. In a podcast recorded at the White House, the MAHA influencer Brecka said: “Twenty million people have been prescribed these things without adverse events.” His guest on the episode, Brigham Buhler — who is the co-author of The Peptide Revolution and owner of a compounding pharmacy that sells peptides and a clinic, Ways2Well, that prescribes them — told Brecka that none of its 75,000-plus patients had reported adverse events from peptides.

Buhler cited even higher numbers in the movie MAHA Uncensored, a documentary featuring Kennedy and other leaders of the MAHA movement and that bears the MAHA trademark. In the segment on peptides, Buhler said: “Having treated literally hundreds of thousands of people through our compounding pharmacy, we’ve never had a major adverse event.”

Topol asks why those boasting success haven’t conducted clinical studies. “If influencers and companies really believe these peptides are helping people,” Topol said, “then they should put their profits back into rigorous research.”

Chris Woodward, a spokesperson for Brecka and his company, the Ultimate Human, said in an email that the health and wellness issues discussed on Brecka’s podcast do not constitute medical advice. “Mr. Brecka consistently advises his audience to consult a licensed physician,” Woodward wrote. Buhler did not respond to requests for comment.

Not all anecdotes are rosy. At an antiaging conference last summer in Las Vegas, two women were rushed to the hospital and intubated after being injected with experimental peptides and vitamins, according to citations that Nevada’s state pharmacy board issued against the doctor running the booth and his colleagues for prescribing and administering drugs without a state medical license.

An FDA database for adverse events contains concerning reports. Although the database can’t prove that a drug, vaccine, or medical device caused harm — the reports are brief, unverified, and voluntary — it signals issues worth exploring. A 36-year-old woman was hospitalized in December after taking the experimental peptide BPC-157 for weight control and a skin disorder, for example, and a 48-year-old man was hospitalized with a “life-threatening” condition after taking the peptide.

FDA scientists presented some of these reports at the July meeting and flagged worrisome outcomes in animal experiments, such as a 2020 study revealing signs of liver toxicity in rats and dogs injected with BPC-157.

Brian Lee, a liver disease specialist at the University of Southern California, was among the panel’s minority who voted against easing restrictions. Without clinical studies, he said, afflictions that take time to develop, like liver damage and cancer, might not be spotted for years: “I think this endorsement can be potentially harmful, and I cannot in good conscience vote ‘yes.’”

The panel’s newcomers disagreed. “I do not believe the FDA made a good case on issues with safety with BPC,” said Kris Wusterhausen, founder of an antiaging company in Texas, the Resurge Clinic, which sells a BPC-157 product for $149.

“Once you’ve seen the effects of BPC,” he said, “you can’t unsee it.”

Awaiting Trial

Deepak Srivastava, president of the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, designed a clinical trial two decades ago to see if a peptide he studies, TB-4, could repair tissue after a heart attack. Before enrollment, people volunteering for the study would be screened for early signs of cancer because TB-4 triggers vessel growth and cell migration, which might exacerbate malignant growths. He worries about the FDA panel’s vote to ease restrictions on a derivative of TB-4, before such trials have been completed, saying, “You need to have a healthy respect for the fact that drugs can be harmful.”

Pinchas Cohen, a peptide researcher at the University of Southern California, was less cautious, saying the FDA buzz might drive investors to fund trials. He’s seeking support to bring a peptide his lab identified, MOTS-c, to market. It’s “un-ideal” for people to take unproven drugs, Cohen said, but that’s what’s happening: “The world is changing and people like me need to accept that this is the new reality and find ways to make it as safe as possible.”

In the meantime, people like Meetze resort to podcasts and online forums for advice. His symptoms faded after a year, but he still had spells of feeling “zero emotions.”

Peptide users describe this condition as anhedonia. It’s come up on Huberman’s podcasts.

Huberman occasionally mentions other potential peptide risks, like cancer, sprinkling them into advice on how to take them. Take a 2024 episode with 1.2 million views: “I do not think that BPC-157 is not without its quote-unquote ‘side effects,’” Huberman says. “If you’re going to go down this path of taking BPC-157, I would encourage you to take the minimal effective dose, to not simply do it every day, and certainly to not do it continuously, and of course to monitor your other health metrics for anything that could potentially resemble cancer or tumor growth, because obviously stimulating angiogenesis for wound repair sounds like a great thing, recovering and being able to do your workouts or play your sport, or move about more comfortably, of course, a wonderfully attractive thing to do.”

“Isn’t that what we all want? But obviously not with the trade-off of growing a tumor,” he said, before interrupting the discussion to advertise a supplement company sponsoring the show.

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/QpcnM3u

Read More