Category: From California Healthline.org

The new Trump administration could be coming for your snacks.

For years, the federal government has steered clear of regulating junk food, fast food, and ultra-processed food.

Now attitudes are changing. Some members of President-elect Donald Trump’s inner circle are gearing up to battle “Big Food,” or the companies that make most of the food and beverages consumed in the United States. Nominees for top health agencies are taking aim at ultra-processed foods that account for an estimated 70% of the nation’s food supply. Based on recent statements, a variety of potential politically charged policy options to regulate ultra-processed food may land on the Trump team menu, including warning labels, changes to agribusiness subsidies, and limits on which products consumers can buy with government food aid.

The push to reform the American diet is being driven largely by conservatives who have taken up the cause that has long been a darling of the left. Trump supporters such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose controversial nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services still faces Senate confirmation, are embracing a concept that champions natural foods and alternative medicine. It’s a movement they’ve dubbed “MAHA,” or Make America Healthy Again. Their interest has created momentum because their goals have fairly broad bipartisan support even amid a bitterly divided Congress in which lawmakers from both sides of the aisle focused on the issue last year.

It’s likely to be a pitched battle because the food industry wields immense political influence and has successfully thwarted previous efforts to regulate its products or marketing. The category of “food processing and sales companies,” which includes Tyson Foods and Nestle SA, tallied $26.7 million in spending on lobbying in 2024, according to OpenSecrets. That’s up from almost $10 million in 1998.

“They have been absolutely instrumental and highly, highly successful at delaying any regulatory effectiveness in America,” said Laura Schmidt, a health policy professor at the University of California-San Francisco. “It really does feel like there needs to be a moment of reckoning here where people start asking the question, ‘Why do we have to live like this?’”

“Ultra-processed food” is a widely used term that means different things to different people and is used to describe items ranging from sodas to many frozen meals. These products often contain added fats, starches, and sugars, among other things. Researchers say consumption of ultra-processed foods is linked — in varying levels of intensity — to chronic conditions like diabetes, cancer, mental health problems, and early death.

Nutrition and health leaders are optimistic that a reckoning is already underway. Kennedy has pledged to remove processed foods from school lunches, restrict certain food additives such as dyes in cereal, and shift federal agricultural subsidies away from commodity crops widely used in ultra-processed foods.

The intensifying focus in Washington has triggered a new level of interest on the legal front as lawyers explore cases to take on major foodmakers for selling products they say result in chronic disease.

Bryce Martinez, now 18, filed a lawsuit in December against almost a dozen foodmakers such as Kraft Heinz, The Coca-Cola Co., and Nestle USA. He developed diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease by age 16, and is seeking to hold them accountable for his illnesses. According to the suit, filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the companies knew or should have known ultra-processed foods were harmful and addictive.

The lawsuit noted that Martinez grew up eating heavily advertised, brand-name foods that are staples of the American diet — sugary soft drinks, Cheerios and Lucky Charms, Skittles and Snickers, frozen and packaged dinners, just to name a few.

Nestle, Coca-Cola, and Kraft Heinz didn’t return emails seeking comment for this article. The Consumer Brands Association, a trade association for makers of consumer packaged goods, disputed the allegations.

“Attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities,” said Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy, in a statement.

Other law firms are on the hunt for children or adults who believe they were harmed by consuming ultra-processed foods, increasing the likelihood of lawsuits.

One Indiana personal injury firm says on its website that “we are actively investigating ultra processed food (UPF) cases.” Trial attorneys in Texas also are looking into possible legal action against the federal regulators they say have failed to police ultra-processed foods.

“If you or your child have suffered health problems that your doctor has linked directly to the consumption of ultra-processed foods, we want to hear your story,” they say on their website.

Meanwhile, the FDA on Jan. 14 announced it is proposing to require a front-of-package label to appear on most packaged foods to make information about a food’s saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar content easily visible to consumers.

And on Capitol Hill, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) are sounding the alarm over ultra-processed food. Sanders introduced legislation in 2024 that could lead to a federal ban on junk food advertising to children, a national education campaign, and labels on ultra-processed foods that say the products aren’t recommended for children. Booker cosigned the legislation along with Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.).

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a December hearing examining links between ultra-processed food and chronic disease during which FDA Commissioner Robert Califf called for more funding for research.

Food companies have tapped into “the same neural circuits that are involved in opioid addiction,” Califf said at the hearing.

Sanders, who presided over the hearing, said there’s “growing evidence” that “these foods are deliberately designed to be addictive,” and he asserted that ultra-processed foods have driven epidemics of diabetes and obesity, and hundreds of billions of dollars in medical expenses.

Research on food and addiction “has accumulated to the point where it’s reached a critical mass,” said Kelly Brownell, an emeritus professor at Stanford who is one of the editors of a scholarly handbook on the subject.

Attacks from three sides — lawyers, Congress, and the incoming Trump administration, all seemingly interested in taking up the fight — could lead to enough pressure to challenge Big Food and possibly spur better health outcomes in the U.S., which has the lowest life expectancy among high-income countries.

“Maybe getting rid of highly processed foods in some things could actually flip the switch pretty quickly in changing the percentage of the American public that are obese,” said Robert Redfield, a virologist who led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the previous Trump administration, in remarks at a December event hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Claims that Big Food knowingly manufactured and sold addictive and harmful products resemble the claims leveled against Big Tobacco before the landmark $206 billion settlement was reached in 1998.

“These companies allegedly use the tobacco industry’s playbook to target children, especially Black and Hispanic children, with integrated marketing tie-ins with cartoons, toys, and games, along with social media advertising,” Rene Rocha, one of the lawyers at Morgan & Morgan representing Martinez, told KFF Health News.

The 148-page Martinez lawsuit against foodmakers draws from documents made public in litigation against tobacco companies that owned some of the biggest brands in the food industry.

Similar allegations were made against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers before they agreed to pay tens of billions of dollars in a 2021 settlement with states.

The FDA ultimately put restrictions on the labeling and marketing of tobacco, and the opioid epidemic led to legislation that increased access to lifesaving medications to treat addiction.

But the Trump administration’s zeal in taking on Big Food may face unique challenges.

The ability of the FDA to impose regulation is hampered in part by funding. While the agency’s drug division collects industry user fees, its division of food relies on a more limited budget determined by Congress.

Change can take time because the agency moves at what some critics call a glacial pace. Last year, the FDA revoked a regulation allowing brominated vegetable oil in food products. The agency determined in 1970 that the additive was not generally recognized as safe.

Efforts to curtail the marketing of ultra-processed food could spur lawsuits alleging that any restrictions violate commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. And Kennedy — if he is confirmed as HHS secretary — may struggle to get support from a Republican-led Congress that champions less federal regulation and a president-elect who during his previous term served fast food in the White House.

“The question is, will RFK be able to make a difference?” said David L. Katz, a doctor who founded True Health Initiative, a nonprofit group that combats public health misinformation. “No prior administration has done much in this space, and RFK is linked to a particularly anti-regulatory administration.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. population is recognized as among the most obese in the world and has the highest rate of people with multiple chronic conditions among high-income countries.

“There is a big grassroots effort out there because of how sick we are,” said Jerold Mande, who served as deputy undersecretary for food safety at the Department of Agriculture from 2009 to 2011. “A big part of it is people shouldn’t be this sick this young in their lives. You’re lucky if you get to 18 without a chronic disease. It’s remarkable.”

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Incoming President Donald Trump’s inauguration is Monday, yet the new GOP-led Congress is already rushing to work his priorities into legislation, eyeing cuts to Medicaid to pay for new tax and immigration priorities. But even in its waning days, the Biden administration continues to make big policy moves, including a possible order for tobacco companies to dramatically decrease the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. 

Meanwhile, the fires in Los Angeles are drawing new attention to the health dangers of not just smoke from organic matter, but also toxic substances released by burning plastic and other man-made materials — as well as the threat posed to both air and water quality.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Republican lawmakers are weighing options to cut federal spending on Medicaid, the nearly $900-billion-a-year government program that covers 1 in 5 Americans. They could use the savings to bolster Trump priorities, such as extending the 2017 tax cuts. The GOP made splashy but unsuccessful attempts to cut Medicaid when Trump first took office and the party held a larger House majority — though the party seems more aligned with Trump today than it was then.
• Congress has gotten down to business on messaging bills: It advanced legislation this week that would ban trans athletes from girls’ school sports and, separately, a measure to detain and even deport immigrants who are living in the U.S. without legal status and have been charged with, though not convicted of, minor crimes such as shoplifting.
• The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case later this year about the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force — an independent body of experts that issues recommendations in disease prevention and medicine. A ruling against its authority could strip coverage for key preventive health services from not just those with Affordable Care Act coverage, but also those on employer-sponsored health plans. The question stands: If not this task force, who would make the determinations about what preventive care should be covered?
• And the outgoing Biden administration issued a slew of health regulations this week, including a ban on the dye Red No. 3 in food and other ingested products, as well as an early regulation limiting the amount of nicotine in tobacco products. The incoming Trump administration could upend these and more regulations, though some do align with its policy interests.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Harris Meyer, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month” feature, about a colonoscopy that came with a much larger price tag than estimated. If you have a mystifying or outrageous medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Can Medical Schools Funnel More Doctors Into the Primary Care Pipeline?” by Felice J. Freyer.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “It’s Not Just Sunscreen. Toxic Products Line the Drugstore Aisles,” by Anna Edney.

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “A Secret Way To Fight Off Stomach Bugs,” by Daniel Engber.

Sandhya Raman: Nature’s “New Obesity Definition Sidelines BMI To Focus on Health,” by Giorgia Guglielmi.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

---

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Jen Fisher can do only so much to keep her son safe from the types of infections that children can encounter at school. The rest, she said, is up to other students and parents in their hometown of Franklin, Tennessee.

Fisher’s son Raleigh, 12, lives with a congenital heart condition, which has left him with a weakened immune system. For his protection, Raleigh has received all the recommended vaccines for a child his age. But even with his vaccinations, a virus that might only sideline another child could sicken him and land him in the emergency room, Fisher said.

“We want everyone to be vaccinated so that illnesses like measles and things that have basically been eradicated don’t come back,” Fisher said. “Those can certainly have a very adverse effect on Raleigh.”

For much of Raleigh’s life, Fisher could take comfort in the high childhood vaccination rate in Tennessee — a public health bright spot in a conservative state with poor health outcomes and one of the shortest life expectancies in the nation.

Mississippi and West Virginia, two similarly conservative states with poor health outcomes and short life expectancies, also have some of the highest vaccination rates for kindergartners in the nation — a seeming contradiction that stems from the fact that childhood vaccination requirements don’t always align with states’ other characteristics, said James Colgrove, a Columbia University professor who studies factors that influence public health.

“The kinds of policies that states have don’t map neatly on to ‘red’ versus ‘blue’ or one region or another,” Colgrove said.

Advocates, doctors, public health officials, and researchers worry such public health bright spots in some states are fading: Many states have recently reported an increase in people opting out of vaccines for their kids as Americans’ views shift.

During the 2023-24 school year, the percentage of kindergartners exempted from one or more vaccinations rose to 3.3%, the highest ever reported, with increases in 40 states and Washington, D.C., according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Tennessee and Mississippi were among those with increases. Nearly all exemptions nationally were for nonmedical reasons.

Vaccine proponents worry anti-vaccine messaging could accelerate a growing “health freedom” movement that has been pushed by leaders in states such as Florida. Momentum against vaccines is likely to continue to grow with the election of Donald Trump as president and his proposed nomination of anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Pediatricians in states with high exemption rates, such as Florida and Georgia, say they’re concerned by what they see — declining immunization levels for kindergartners, which could lead to a resurgence in vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles. The Florida Department of Health reported nonmedical exemption rates as high as 50% for children in some areas.

“The religious exemption is huge,” said Brandon Chatani, a pediatric infectious disease doctor in Orlando. “That has allowed for an easy way for these kids to enter schools without vaccines.”

In many states, it’s easier to get a religious exemption than a medical one, which often requires signoff from a doctor.

Over the past decade, California, Connecticut, Maine, and New York have removed religious and philosophical exemptions from school vaccination requirements. West Virginia has not had them.

Idaho, Alaska, and Utah had the highest exemption rates for the 2023-24 school year, according to the CDC. Those states allow parents or legal guardians to exempt their children for religious reasons by submitting a notarized form or a signed statement.

Florida and Georgia, with some of the lowest reported minimum vaccination rates for kindergartners, allow parents to exempt their children by submitting a form with the child’s school or day care.

Both states have reported declines in uptake of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, which is one of the most common childhood shots. In Georgia, MMR coverage for kindergartners dropped to 88.4% in the 2023-24 school year from 93.1% in 2019-20, according to the CDC. Florida dropped to 88.1% from 93.5% during the same period.

Andi Shane, a pediatric infectious disease specialist in Atlanta, traces Georgia’s declining rates to families who lack access to a pediatrician. State policies on exemptions are also key, she said.

“There’s lots of data to support the fact that when personal belief exemptions are not permitted, that vaccination rates are higher,” she said.

In December, Georgia public health officials put out an advisory saying the state had recorded significantly more whooping cough cases than in the prior year. According to CDC data, Georgia reported 280 cases in 2024 compared with 96 the year before.

Until 2023, Mississippi was one of the few states that allowed parents to opt out of vaccinating their kids only for medical reasons — and only with the approval of a doctor. That gave it among the highest vaccination rates in the nation as of the 2023-24 school year.

“It’s one of the few things Mississippi has done well,” said Anita Henderson, a pediatrician who has practiced in the southern part of the state for nearly 30 years. In terms of health, she said, childhood vaccination rates were the state’s one “shining star.”

But that changed in April 2023 when a federal judge ordered state officials to start allowing religious exemptions. The ruling has emboldened many families, Henderson said.

“We are seeing more and more skepticism, more and more vaccine hesitancy, and a lack of confidence because of this ruling,” she said.

State officials have granted more than 5,000 religious exemptions since the court order allowing them, according to the state health department. Daniel Edney, the state health officer, said most of the requests have come from “more affluent” residents in “pockets” of the state.

“Most people listen to the expert opinions of their pediatricians and family medicine doctors to stay on the vaccine schedule, because it’s what is best to protect their children,” he said.

West Virginia’s vaccine law — which hasn’t allowed nonmedical exemptions — also could soon change, Matthew Christiansen said in December before he resigned as the state’s health officer.

A bill that would have broadened exemptions made it through the legislature last year but was vetoed by outgoing Republican Gov. Jim Justice. The new governor, Republican Pat Morrisey, has been a vocal critic of vaccine mandates. And just a day after being inaugurated, he issued an executive order to propose provisions by Feb. 1 that could allow religious and conscientious exemptions.

“I want to send a message that if you have a religious belief, then we’re going to have an exception,” he said at a Jan. 14 press conference. “We’re not going to be the outlier.”

People asserting their personal freedoms to decline vaccines for their kids can ultimately curtail the ability of others to live full lives, Christiansen said. “Kids getting measles and mumps and polio and being paralyzed for their whole life is an impediment on personal freedom and autonomy for those kids,” he said.

Since the covid pandemic, anti-vaccine sentiment has been growing in Tennessee. One organization, Stand for Health Freedom, drafted a letter for constituents to send to their state lawmakers calling for the resignation of the medical director of Tennessee’s Vaccine-Preventable Diseases and Immunization Program. The group said she demonstrated a “lack of respect for the informed consent rights” of the people.

“They feel emboldened by the idea that this presidential administration seems to feel very strongly that a lot of these issues should be taken back to the states,” said Emily Delikat, director of Tennessee Families for Vaccines, a pro-vaccine group.

Ultimately, like many effective public health interventions, vaccines are a victim of their own success, said Henderson, the Mississippi pediatrician. Most people haven’t seen outbreaks of measles or polio, so they forget how dangerous the diseases are, she said.

“It may unfortunately take a resurgence of those diseases to raise awareness to the fact that these are dangerous, these are deadly, these are preventable,” she said. “I hope it doesn’t come to that.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

SACRAMENTO — As the nation braces for potential policy shifts under President-elect Donald Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” mantra, the nation’s most populous state and largest health care market is preparing for a few changes of its own.

With supermajorities in both houses, Democrats in the California Legislature passed — and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed — laws taking effect this year that will erase medical debt from credit reports, allow public health officials to inspect immigrant detention centers, and require health insurance companies to cover fertility services such as in vitro fertilization.

Still, industry experts say it was a relatively quiet year for health policy in the Golden State, with more attention on a divisive presidential election and with several state legislators seeking to avoid controversial issues as they ran for Congress in competitive swing districts.

Newsom shot down some of legislators’ most ambitious health care policies, including proposals that would have regulated pharmaceutical industry middlemen and given the state more power to stop private equity deals in health care.

Health policy experts say advocates and legislators are now focused on how to defend progressive California policies such as sweeping abortion access in the state and health coverage for immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization.

“I think everyone’s just thinking about how we’re going to enter 2025,” said Rachel Linn Gish, a spokesperson with the consumer health advocacy group Health Access California. “We’re figuring out what is vulnerable, what we are exposed to on the federal side, and what do budget changes mean for our work. That’s kind of putting a cloud over everything.”

Here are some of the biggest new health care laws Californians should know about:

Medical debt

California becomes the eighth state in which medical debt will no longer affect patients’ credit reports or credit scores. SB 1061 bars health care providers and debt collectors from reporting unpaid medical bills to credit bureaus, a practice that supporters of the law say penalizes people for seeking critical care and can make it harder for patients to get a job, buy a car, or secure a mortgage.

Critics including the California Association of Collectors called the measure from Sen. Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) a “tremendous overreach” and successfully lobbied for amendments that limited the scope of the bill, including an exemption for any medical debt incurred on credit cards.

The Biden administration has finalized federal rules that would stop unpaid medical bills from affecting patients’ credit scores, but the fate of those changes remains unclear as Trump takes office.

Psychiatric hospital stays for violent offenders

Violent offenders with severe mental illness can now be held longer after a judge orders them released from a state mental hospital.

State officials and local law enforcement will now have 30 days to coordinate housing, medication, and behavioral health treatment for those parolees, giving them far more time than the five-day deadline previously in effect.

The bill drew overwhelming bipartisan support after a high-profile case in San Francisco in which a 61-year-old man was charged in the repeated stabbing of a bakery employee just days after his release from a state mental hospital. The bill’s author, Assembly member Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), called the previous five-day timeline “dangerously short.”

Cosmetics and ‘forever chemicals’

California was the first state to ban PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” in all cosmetics sold and manufactured within its borders. The synthetic compounds, found in everyday products including rain jackets, food packaging, lipstick, and shaving cream, have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and diminished immune function and have been increasingly detected in drinking water.

Industry representatives have argued that use of PFAS — perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances — is critical in some products and that some can be safely used at certain levels.

Immigration detention facilities

After covid-19 outbreaks, contaminated water, and moldy food became the subjects of detainee complaints and lawsuits, state legislators gave local county health officials the authority to enter and inspect privately run immigrant detention centers. SB 1132, from Sen. María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles), gives public health officials the ability to evaluate whether privately run facilities are complying with state and local public health regulations regarding proper ventilation, basic mental and physical health care, and food safety.

Although the federal government regulates immigration, six federal detention centers in California are operated by the GEO Group. One of the country’s largest private prison contractors, GEO has faced a litany of complaints related to health and safety. Unlike public prisons and jails, which are inspected annually, these facilities would be inspected only as deemed necessary.

The contractor filed suit in October to stop implementation of the law, saying it unconstitutionally oversteps the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration detention centers. A hearing in the case is set for March 3, said Bethany Lesser, a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The law took effect Jan. 1.

Doctors vs. insurance companies using AI

As major insurance companies increasingly use artificial intelligence as a tool to analyze patient claims and authorize some treatment, trade groups representing doctors are concerned that AI algorithms are driving an increase in denials for necessary care. Legislators unanimously agreed.

SB 1120 states that decisions about whether a treatment is medically necessary can be made only by licensed, qualified physicians or other health care providers who review a patient’s medical history and other records.

Sick leave and protected time off

Two new laws expand the circumstances under which California workers may use sick days and other leave. SB 1105 entitles farmworkers who work outdoors to take paid sick leave to avoid heat, smoke, or flooding when local or state officials declare an emergency.

AB 2499 expands the list of reasons employees may take paid sick days or use protected unpaid leave to include assisting a family member who is experiencing domestic violence or other violent crimes.

Prescription labels for the visually impaired

Starting this year, pharmacies will be required to provide drug labels and use instructions in Braille, large print, or audio for blind patients.

Advocates of the move said state law, which already required translated instructions in five languages for non-English speakers, has overlooked blind patients, making it difficult for them to monitor prescriptions and take the correct dosage.

Maternal mental health screenings

Health insurers will be required to bolster maternal mental health programs by mandating additional screenings to better detect perinatal depression, which affects 1 in 5 people who give birth in California, according to state data. Pregnant people will now undergo screenings at least once during pregnancy and then six weeks postpartum, with further screenings as providers deem necessary.

Penalties for threatening health care workers (abortion clinics)

With abortion care at the center of national policy fights, California is cracking down on those who threaten, post personal information about, or otherwise target providers or patients at clinics that perform abortions. Penalties for such behavior will increase under AB 2099, and offenders can face felony charges, up to three years in jail, and $50,000 in fines for repeat or violent offenses. Previously, state law classified many of those offenses as misdemeanors.

Insurance coverage for IVF

Starting in July, state-regulated health plans covering 50 employees or more would be required to cover fertility services under SB 729, passed and signed last year. Advocates have long fought for this benefit, which they say is essential care for many families who have trouble getting pregnant and would ensure LGBTQ+ couples aren’t required to pay more out-of-pocket costs than straight couples when starting a family.

In a signing statement, Newsom asked legislators to delay implementation of the law until 2026 as state officials consider whether to add infertility treatments to the list of benefits that insurance plans are required to cover.

It’s unclear whether legislators intend to address that this session, but a spokesperson for the governor said that Newsom “clearly stated his position on the need for an extension” and that he “will continue to work with the legislature” on the matter.

Plans under CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, would have to comply by July 2027.

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

It takes a lot of courage to grow old.

I’ve come to appreciate this after conversations with hundreds of older adults over the past eight years for nearly 200 “Navigating Aging” columns.

Time and again, people have described what it’s like to let go of certainties they once lived with and adjust to new circumstances.

These older adults’ lives are filled with change. They don’t know what the future holds except that the end is nearer than it’s ever been.

And yet, they find ways to adapt. To move forward. To find meaning in their lives. And I find myself resolving to follow this path as I ready myself for retirement.

Patricia Estess, 85, of the Brooklyn borough of New York City spoke eloquently about the unpredictability of later life when I reached out to her as I reported a series of columns on older adults who live alone, sometimes known as “solo agers.”

Estess had taken a course on solo aging. “You realize that other people are in the same boat as you are,” she said when I asked what she had learned. “We’re all dealing with uncertainty.”

Consider the questions that older adults — whether living with others or by themselves — deal with year in and out: Will my bones break? Will my thinking skills and memory endure? Will I be able to make it up the stairs of my home, where I’m trying to age in place?

Will beloved friends and family members remain an ongoing source of support? If not, who will be around to provide help when it’s needed?

Will I have enough money to support a long and healthy life, if that’s in the cards? Will community and government resources be available, if needed?

It takes courage to face these uncertainties and advance into the unknown with a measure of equanimity.

“It’s a question of attitude,” Estess told me. “I have honed an attitude of: ‘I am getting older. Things will happen. I will do what I can to plan in advance. I will be more careful. But I will deal with things as they come up.’”

For many people, becoming old alters their sense of identity. They feel like strangers to themselves. Their bodies and minds aren’t working as they used to. They don’t feel the sense of control they once felt.

That requires a different type of courage — the courage to embrace and accept their older selves.

Marna Clarke, a photographer, spent more than a dozen years documenting her changing body and her life with her partner as they grew older. Along the way, she learned to view aging with new eyes.

“Now, I think there’s a beauty that comes out of people when they accept who they are,” she told me in 2022, when she was 70, just before her 93-year-old husband died.

Arthur Kleinman, a Harvard professor who’s now 83, gained a deeper sense of soulfulness after caring for his beloved wife, who had dementia and eventually died, leaving him grief-stricken.

“We endure, we learn how to endure, how to keep going. We’re marked, we’re injured, we’re wounded. We’re changed, in my case for the better,” he told me when I interviewed him in 2019. He was referring to a newfound sense of vulnerability and empathy he gained as a caregiver.

Herbert Brown, 68, who lives in one of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods, was philosophical when I met him at his apartment building’s annual barbecue in June.

“I was a very wild person in my youth. I’m surprised I’ve lived this long,” he said. “I never planned on being a senior. I thought I’d die before that happened.”

Truthfully, no one is ever prepared to grow old, including me. (I’m turning 70 in February.)

Chalk it up to denial or the limits of imagination. As May Sarton, a writer who thought deeply about aging, put it so well: Old age is “a foreign country with an unknown language.” I, along with all my similarly aged friends, are surprised we’ve arrived at this destination.

For me, 2025 is a turning point. I’m retiring after four decades as a journalist. Most of that time, I’ve written about our nation’s enormously complex health care system. For the past eight years, I’ve focused on the unprecedented growth of the older population — the most significant demographic trend of our time — and its many implications.

In some ways, I’m ready for the challenges that lie ahead. In many ways, I’m not.

The biggest unknown is what will happen to my vision. I have moderate macular degeneration in both eyes. Last year, I lost central vision in my right eye. How long will my left eye pick up the slack? What will happen when that eye deteriorates?

Like many people, I’m hoping scientific advances outpace the progression of my condition. But I’m not counting on it. Realistically, I have to plan for a future in which I might become partially blind.

It’ll take courage to deal with that.

Then, there’s the matter of my four-story Denver house, where I’ve lived for 33 years. Climbing the stairs has helped keep me in shape. But that won’t be possible if my vision becomes worse.

So my husband and I are taking a leap into the unknown. We’re renovating the house, installing an elevator, and inviting our son, daughter-in-law, and grandson to move in with us. Going intergenerational. Giving up privacy. In exchange, we hope our home will be full of mutual assistance and love.

There are no guarantees this will work. But we’re giving it a shot.

Without all the conversations I’ve had over all these years, I might not have been up for it. But I’ve come to see that “no guarantees” isn’t a reason to dig in my heels and resist change.

Thank you to everyone who has taken time to share your experiences and insights about aging. Thank you for your openness, honesty, and courage. These conversations will become even more important in the years ahead, as baby boomers like me make their way through their 70s, 80s, and beyond. May the conversations continue.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

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

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Frank Wampol had a dark realization when he came across some alarming data a few years ago: Over 5,000 male construction workers die from suicide annually — five times the number who die from work-related injuries, according to several studies. That’s considerably more than the suicide rate for men in the general population.

“To say this is a crisis would be an understatement,” said Wampol, vice president of safety and health at BL Harbert International, a construction company based in Birmingham with over 10,000 employees.

Since then, the company has added mental health first-aid training for on-site supervisors and distributed information about suicide prevention to laborers in the field. The efforts are part of a larger push led by the industry and supported by unions, research institutions, and federal agencies to address construction workers’ mental health.

But initiatives to combat this mental health crisis are tougher to implement than protocols for hard hats, safety vests, and protective goggles. And some of the potential solutions, such as paid sick leave, have drawn pushback from the industry as it eyes costs.

Safety experts have long been concerned about the physical hazards of construction work. The “Fatal Four” hazards are falls, electrocutions, being struck by an object like a brick or a crane boom, and getting caught between two objects, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Only in recent years have the psychosocial hazards of construction work moved onto the public radar. Studies paint a grim picture, said Douglas Trout, an occupational medicine physician and deputy director of the Office of Construction Safety and Health at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

In addition to high suicide rates, drug use is rampant, especially opioids such as heroin and fentanyl. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that construction ranks highest in overdose deaths by occupation.

“Rates of suicides and overdose deaths are some of the worst outcomes related to mental health conditions,” Trout said. “And unfortunately, these are the more measurable ones.”

Less measurable but also prevalent among construction workers are anxiety and depression, which often remain undiagnosed. Almost half of construction workers have experienced symptoms of both, a rate higher than that of the general U.S. population, according to a preliminary 2024 study by the Center for Construction Research and Training, an arm of North America’s Building Trades Unions. But fewer than 5% of construction workers reported seeing a mental health professional, compared with 22% of all U.S. adults, according federal statistics.

The combination of high-hazard environments and organizational factors puts construction workers at particular risk for mental health issues, Trout said. Construction is a high-stress occupation involving long hours, extended separation from family and friends, and low job security due to the industry’s cyclical nature.

Even though health insurance and workers’ compensation are offered by some contractors, paid sick leave for laborers, craft workers, and mechanics is not standard. While 18 states and Washington, D.C., have approved laws requiring paid sick leave and federal contractors have to offer it, the mandates don’t apply to many construction workers. And industry advocates are pushing back against such legal requirements, claiming they don’t fit the transient and seasonal nature of construction work.

If workers get injured, they often “try to tough it out and get back to the job as quickly as possible,” said Nazia Shah, director of safety and health services at the Associated General Contractors of America, the country’s largest construction trade association.

To manage pain from injuries, workers often resort to prescription opioids. Some then develop a dependency and turn to street drugs. “It’s a vicious cycle,” Shah said.

If a worker is fatigued, distracted by pain or personal issues, or impaired by some type of substance, the results can be catastrophic, said Wampol, a 20-year industry veteran who went into construction after retiring from a career as a firefighter and paramedic.

The biggest step, Shah said, is “breaking the stigma and normalizing conversations around mental health.”

The hurdles are particularly high in this male-dominated field, where harassment and bullying are common and speaking up about emotional hardships is often considered a sign of weakness, Shah said.

Several organizations, including the Associated Builders and Contractors, have created short “toolbox talks” to review the signs and symptoms of mental health issues, the risks of self-medicating with drugs and alcohol, and the resources available through health insurance and employee assistance programs.

Some, such as the AGC’s Missouri Chapter, hand out hard-hat stickers, cards, and “Hope coins” — small tokens that symbolize support. They all serve as conversation starters and include information on the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline in English and Spanish.

Many contractors hold regular stand-downs, with supervisors halting work at a construction site to provide on-the-spot training related to a specific mental health issue. Others, such as BL Harbert, offer health education fairs and team with local health clinics for lunch-and-learn events.

But Stanley Wheat, an on-site safety manager at BL Harbert, said that even the best policies, procedures, and training materials won’t stick without making an effort on the ground. “A PowerPoint presentation alone won’t cut it. You’ve got to know your people, and you’ve got to engage them.”

Wheat, a military veteran who has worked in construction for over two decades, said it’s important to make rounds several times a day at a job site — getting to know the workers and observing changes in their behaviors.

“You start noticing the guy who’s isolating himself, sitting alone at lunch, not talking with anybody,” he said.

Wheat can relate. His uncle died by suicide, but his family would never talk about it. During his time in the military, Wheat said, he went to rehab for drug and alcohol addiction. He dropped out of college to work in construction.

“I’ve been there,” he said. “I skinned my knuckles. I pulled my back. I worked injured.”

Wheat tries to strike up conversations with workers who he thinks are having a rough time. He listens, sometimes shares his personal story, and suggests resources for help.

Peer-to-peer support is among the more promising concepts in the effort to curb the mental health crisis in construction. Workers often don’t want to talk with management or outsiders, Trout said, “but they usually trust each other.”

One successful model is Mates, a program for mental health and suicide prevention that originated in Australia in 2008. The idea is to train on-site personnel — workers, foremen, superintendents — to spot and support co-workers in crisis, offer a confidential space to talk, and guide them to help if needed. The volunteers, called “connectors,” are typically identified by green hard hat stickers. Efforts are underway to bring a formalized Mates program to the U.S., Trout said.

Other, often small and local initiatives are being implemented, too. Some contractors have hired full-time wellness coordinators or bring mental health care providers to construction sites so employees can start appointments immediately. A few companies have put dedicated trailers on their job sites that serve as quiet rooms, with lounge chairs, board games, and video consoles, so workers can take a moment to decompress.

Many contractors also have added naloxone — an emergency medication used to reverse opioid overdoses, often known by the brand Narcan — to on-site medical kits.

Going forward, as President-elect Donald Trump takes office next week, the industry faces major uncertainties, including possible ripple effects from tariffs, mass deportations, tax cuts, and deregulation.

No matter what comes, Wampol said, the construction industry needs to understand that the investment in mental wellness and suicide prevention programs creates “a healthier, more productive workforce” — and, ultimately, a better bottom line.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Jessie Mazar squeezed the grab handle in her husband’s pickup and groaned as contractions struck her during the 90-minute drive from her home in rural northeastern California to the closest hospital with a maternity unit.

She could have reached Plumas District Hospital, in Quincy, in just seven minutes. But it no longer delivers babies.

Local officials have a plan for a birth center in Quincy, where midwives could deliver babies with backup from on-call doctors and a standby perinatal unit at the hospital, but state health officials have yet to approve it.

That left Mazar to brave the long, winding road — one sometimes blocked by snow, floods, or forest fires — to have her baby. Women across California are facing similar ordeals as hospitals increasingly close money-losing maternity units, especially in rural areas.

Midwife-operated birth centers offer an alternative for women with low-risk pregnancies and can play a crucial role in filling the gap left by hospitals’ retreat from obstetrics, maternal health advocates say.

Declining birth rates, staffing shortages, and financial pressures have led 56 California hospitals — about 1 in 6 — to shutter maternity units over the past dozen years.

But midwives say California’s regulatory regime around birth centers is unnecessarily preventing new centers from opening and leading some existing facilities to close. Obtaining a license can take as long as four years.

“All they’ve essentially done is made it more dangerous to have a baby,” said Sacramento midwife Bethany Sasaki. “People have to drive two hours now because a birth center can’t open, so it’s more dangerous. People are going to be having babies in cars on the side of the road.”

Last month, state Assembly member Mia Bonta introduced legislation to streamline the regulatory process and fix what she calls “a broken system” for licensing birth centers.

“We know that alternative birth centers lead to often better outcomes, lower-risk births, more opportunity for children to be born healthy, and also to lower maternal mortality and morbidity,” she said.

The proposed bill would remove various bureaucratic requirements, though many details have yet to be finalized. Bonta introduced the bill in its current form as a jumping-off point for discussions about how to expedite licensing.

“It’s a starting place,” said Sandra Poole, health policy advocate for the Western Center on Law & Poverty, a co-sponsor of the legislation.

For now, birth centers struggle with a gantlet of rules, only some clearly connected to patient safety. Over the past decade, the number of licensed birth centers in California dropped from 12 to five, according to Bonta.

Plumas County officials are trying to address one key issue: how far a birth center can be from a hospital with a round-the-clock obstetrics unit. State regulations say it can be no more than a 30-minute drive, a distance set when many more hospitals had maternity units.

The first-of-its-kind “Plumas model” aims to take advantage of flexibility provisions in the law to address the obstacle in a way that could potentially be replicated elsewhere in the state.

But the hospital’s application for a birth center and a perinatal unit has been “languishing” with the California Department of Public Health, which is “looking for cover from the legislature,” said Robert Moore, chief medical officer of Partnership HealthPlan of California, a Medi-Cal managed-care plan serving most of Northern California. Asked about the application, a CDHP spokesperson said only that it was under review.

The goal should be for all women to be within an hour’s drive of a hospital with an obstetrics unit, Moore said. Data shows the complication rate goes up after an hour and even higher after two hours, he said, while the benefit is less compelling between 30 and 60 minutes.

Numerous other regulations have made it difficult for birth centers to keep their doors open.

Since August, birth centers in Sacramento and Monterey have had to stop operating because their heating ducts failed to meet licensing requirements. The facilities fall under the same state Department of Health Care Access and Information regulations as primary care clinics, though birth centers see healthy families, not sick ones, and don’t need hospital-grade ventilation, said midwife Caroline Cusenza.

She had spent $50,000 remodeling the Monterey Birth & Wellness Center to include state-required items, such as nursing and hand-washing stations and a housekeeping closet. In the end, a requirement for galvanized steel heating vents, which would have required opening the ceiling at an unaffordable cost, prompted her heart-wrenching decision to close.

“We’re turning women away in tears,” said Sasaki, who owned Midtown Birth Center in Sacramento. She bought the building for $760,000 and spent $250,000 remodeling it in a way she believed met all licensing requirements. But regulators would not license it unless the heating system was redone. Sasaki estimated it would have cost an additional $50,000 to bring it into compliance — too much to keep operating.

She blamed her closure on “regulatory dysfunction.”

Legislation signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year could ease onerous building codes such as those governing Sasaki’s and Cusenza’s heating systems, said Poole, the health policy advocate.

The state has taken two to four years to issue birth center licenses, according to a brief by the Osher Center for Integrative Health at the University of California-San Francisco. The state Department of Public Health “works tirelessly to ensure health facilities are able to be properly licensed and follow all applicable requirements within our authority before and during their operation,” spokesperson Mark Smith said.

Bonta, an Oakland Democrat who chairs the Assembly’s health committee, said she would consider increasing the allowable drive time between a birth center and a hospital maternity unit as part of her new legislation.

The state last updated birth center regulations more than a decade ago, before hospitals’ mass exodus from obstetrics. “The hurdle is the time and distance standards without compromising safety,” Poole said. “But where there’s nothing right now, we would say a birth center is certainly a better alternative to not having any maternal care.”

Moore noted that midwife-led births in homes and birth centers are the mainstay of obstetric care in Europe, where the infant mortality rate is considerably lower than in the U.S. More than 98% of American babies are born in hospitals.

Babies delivered by midwives are more likely to be born vaginally, less likely to require intensive care, and more likely to breastfeed, the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative has found. Midwife-led births also lead to fewer infant emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and neonatal deaths. And they cost far less: Birth centers generally charge one-quarter or less of the average cost of about $36,000 for a vaginal birth in a California hospital.

If they catered only to private-pay clients, Cusenza and Sasaki could have continued operating without licenses. They must be licensed, however, to receive payments from Medi-Cal and some private insurance companies, which they needed to remain in business. Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid health insurance program for low-income residents, paid for 39% of the state’s births in 2022.

Bonta has heard reports from midwives that the key to getting licensed is hunting down the right state health department advocate. “I don’t believe that we should be building resources based on the model of ‘Where’s Waldo?’ in finding a champion inside CDPH,” she said.

Lori Link, director of midwifery at Plumas District Hospital, believes the Plumas model can turn what’s become a maternity desert into an oasis. Jessie Mazar, whose son was born in September without complications at a Truckee hospital, would welcome the opportunity to deliver her planned second child in Quincy.

“That would be convenient,” she said. “We’re not holding our breath.”

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Under President Joe Biden, enrollment in Medicaid hit a record high and the uninsured rate reached a record low.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House — along with a GOP-controlled Senate and House of Representatives — is expected to change that.

Republicans in Washington say they plan to use funding cuts and regulatory changes to dramatically shrink Medicaid, the nearly $900-billion-a-year government health insurance program that, along with the related Children’s Health Insurance Program, serves about 79 million mostly low-income or disabled Americans.

The proposals include rolling back the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, which over the last 11 years added about 20 million low-income adults to its rolls. Trump has said he wants to drastically cut government spending, which may be necessary for Republicans to extend 2017 tax cuts that expire at the end of this year.

Trump made little mention of Medicaid during the 2024 campaign. The first Trump administration approved work requirements in several states, though only Arkansas implemented theirs before a federal judge said it violated the law. The first Trump administration also sought to block grant funding to states.

House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told KFF Health News that Medicaid and other federal entitlement programs need major changes to help cut the federal debt. “Without them, we will watch this country sadly enter into fiscal collapse.”

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the Budget Committee, said Congress needs to explore cutting federal spending on Medicaid.

“You need wholesale reform on the health care front, which can include undoing a lot of the damage being done by the ACA and Obamacare,” Roy said. “Frankly, we could end up providing better service if we do it the right way.”

Advocates for poor people fear GOP funding cuts will leave more Americans without insurance, making it harder for them to get care.

“Medicaid is an obvious target for huge cuts,” said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families. “An existential fight about Medicaid’s future likely lies ahead.”

Medicaid, which turns 60 in July, is nearing the end of a disruptive period, after covid pandemic-era coverage protections expired in 2023 and all enrollees had to prove they still qualified. More than 25 million people lost coverage over the 18 months after the “unwinding” began, though it has not notably increased the number of people without insurance, according to the latest census data.

The unwinding’s disruptions could pale in comparison to what happens in the next four years, said Matt Salo, former executive director and founder of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “What we are going to see is an even bigger seismic shift in who Medicaid covers and how it operates,” he said.

But Salo said any efforts to shrink the program will face pushback.

“A lot of powerful entities — state governments, managed-care organizations, long-term care providers, and everyone under the sun who wants to do well by doing good — wants to see Medicaid work efficiently and be adequately funded,” he said. “And they will be highly motivated to push back on something they see as draconian cuts, because it could affect their business model.”

The GOP is looking at several tactics to reduce the size of Medicaid:

• Shifting to block grants. Switching to annual block grants could lower federal funding for states to operate the program while giving states more discretion over how to spend the money. Currently, the government matches a certain percentage of state spending each year with no cap. Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan have sought to block-grant Medicaid with no success. Arrington said he favors ending the open-ended federal funding to states and replacing it with a set annual amount based on how many people each state has in the program.
• Cutting ACA Medicaid funding. The ACA provided financing to cover, through Medicaid, Americans with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or $20,783 for an individual last year. The federal government pays 90% of the cost for adults covered through the law’s Medicaid expansion, which 40 states and Washington, D.C., have adopted. The GOP may try to lower that funding to the same match rate the feds pay states for everyone else in the program, which averages about 60%. “We should absolutely note that we are subsidizing the healthy, able-bodied Medicaid expansion population at a higher rate than we do the poorest and sickest among us, which was the original intent of the program,” Arrington said. “That’s not right.”
• Lowering federal matching funds. Since Medicaid began, the federal match rate has been based on the relative wealth of a state’s population, with poorer states receiving a higher rate and no state receiving less than a 50% match. Ten states get the base rate — all but two are Democratic-run states, including New York and California. The GOP may seek to cut the base rate to 40% or less.
• Adding work requirements. During the first Trump term, federal courts ruled that Medicaid law doesn’t allow coverage to be conditioned on enrollees’ working or seeking jobs. But the GOP may try again. “If we can get strict work requirements on able-bodied adults, that can be a huge cost savings by itself,” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) told KFF Health News. Because most Medicaid enrollees already work, go to school, or serve as caregivers, critics say such a requirement would simply add red tape to obtaining coverage, with little impact on employment.
• Placing enrollment hurdles. About 10 states offer some populations what’s called continuous eligibility, whereby people stay enrolled for years without having to renew their coverage. That policy’s been shown to prevent enrollees from falling out of the program for short periods because of hardships or paperwork problems, which can lead to surprise medical bills and debt. The Trump administration could seek to repeal waivers that allow states to grant multiyear continuous eligibility, which would require people in those states to reapply for coverage annually.

If the GOP’s plans to shrink Medicaid are realized, Democrats and health experts say, low-income people forced to buy private insurance would face challenges paying monthly premiums and the large copayments and deductibles common to commercial plans that typically don’t exist in Medicaid.

The Paragon Health Institute, a leading conservative think tank run by former Trump adviser Brian Blase, has issued reports saying the billions in extra money states took to expand Medicaid under the ACA has been a boon to private insurers that manage the program and relatively wealthier people it says shouldn’t be enrolled.

Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Cicero Institute, said he hopes the Trump administration holds states accountable for overpaying providers and enrolling people in Medicaid who are not eligible. Conservatives have cited CMS reports saying states improperly pay Medicaid providers billions of dollars a year, though the federal government notes that is mostly due to lack of documentation.

He said the GOP will look to scale back Medicaid to its “traditional” populations of children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. “We need to rebalance the program that most people think is underperforming,” he said. Most Americans, including large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats, view the program favorably, according to polls.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Throughout her childhood, Julia Lo Cascio dreamed of becoming a pediatrician. So, when applying to medical school, she was thrilled to discover a new, small school founded specifically to train primary care doctors: NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine.

Now in her final year at the Mineola, New York, school, Lo Cascio remains committed to primary care pediatrics. But many young doctors choose otherwise as they leave medical school for their residencies. In 2024, 252 of the nation’s 3,139 pediatric residency slots went unfilled and family medicine programs faced 636 vacant residencies out of 5,231 as students chased higher-paying specialties.

Lo Cascio, 24, said her three-year accelerated program nurtured her goal of becoming a pediatrician. Could other medical schools do more to promote primary care? The question could not be more urgent. The Association of American Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 20,200 to 40,400 primary care doctors by 2036. This means many Americans will lose out on the benefits of primary care, which research shows improves health, leading to fewer hospital visits and less chronic illness.

Many medical students start out expressing interest in primary care. Then they end up at schools based in academic medical centers, where students become enthralled by complex cases in hospitals, while witnessing little primary care.

The driving force is often money, said Andrew Bazemore, a physician and a senior vice president at the American Board of Family Medicine. “Subspecialties tend to generate a lot of wealth, not only for the individual specialists, but for the whole system in the hospital,” he said.

A department’s cache of federal and pharmaceutical-company grants often determines its size and prestige, he said. And at least 12 medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and Johns Hopkins, don’t even have full-fledged family medicine departments. Students at these schools can study internal medicine, but many of those graduates end up choosing subspecialties like gastroenterology or cardiology.

One potential solution: eliminate tuition, in the hope that debt-free students will base their career choice on passion rather than paycheck. In 2024, two elite medical schools — the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine — announced that charitable donations are enabling them to waive tuition, joining a handful of other tuition-free schools.

But the contrast between the school Lo Cascio attends and the institution that founded it starkly illustrates the limitations of this approach. Neither charges tuition.

In 2024, two-thirds of students graduating from her Long Island school chose residencies in primary care. Lo Cascio said the tuition waiver wasn’t a deciding factor in choosing pediatrics, among the lowest-paid specialties, with an average annual income of $260,000, according to Medscape.

At the sister school, the Manhattan-based NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the majority of its 2024 graduates chose specialties like orthopedics (averaging $558,000 a year) or dermatology ($479,000).

Primary care typically gets little respect. Professors and peers alike admonish students: If you’re so smart, why would you choose primary care? Anand Chukka, 27, said he has heard that refrain regularly throughout his years as a student at Harvard Medical School. Even his parents, both PhD scientists, wondered if he was wasting his education by pursuing primary care.

Seemingly minor issues can influence students’ decisions, Chukka said. He recalls envying the students on hospital rotations who routinely were served lunch, while those in primary care settings had to fetch their own.

Despite such headwinds, Chukka, now in his final year, remains enthusiastic about primary care. He has long wanted to care for poor and other underserved people, and a one-year clerkship at a community practice serving low-income patients reinforced that plan.

When students look to the future, especially if they haven’t had such exposure, primary care can seem grim, burdened with time-consuming administrative tasks, such as seeking prior authorizations from insurers and grappling with electronic medical records.

While specialists may also face bureaucracy, primary care practices have it much worse: They have more patients and less money to hire help amid burgeoning paperwork requirements, said Caroline Richardson, chair of family medicine at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School.

“It’s not the medical schools that are the problem; it’s the job,” Richardson said. “The job is too toxic.”

Kevin Grumbach, a professor of family and community medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, spent decades trying to boost the share of students choosing primary care, only to conclude: “There’s really very little that we can do in medical school to change people’s career trajectories.”

Instead, he said, the U.S. health care system must address the low pay and lack of support.

And yet, some schools find a way to produce significant proportions of primary care doctors — through recruitment and programs that provide positive experiences and mentors.

U.S. News & World Report recently ranked 168 medical schools by the percentage of graduates who were practicing primary care six to eight years after graduation.

The top 10 schools are all osteopathic medical schools, with 41% to 47% of their students still practicing primary care. Unlike allopathic medical schools, which award MD degrees, osteopathic schools, which award DO degrees, have a history of focusing on primary care and are graduating a growing share of the nation’s primary care physicians.

At the bottom of the U.S. News list is Yale, with 10.7% of its graduates finding lasting careers in primary care. Other elite schools have similar rates: Johns Hopkins, 13.1%; Harvard, 13.7%.

In contrast, public universities that have made it a mission to promote primary care have much higher numbers.

The University of Washington — No. 18 in the ranking, with 36.9% of graduates working in primary care — has a decades-old program placing students in remote parts of Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. UW recruits students from those areas, and many go back to practice there, with more than 20% of graduates settling in rural communities, according to Joshua Jauregui, assistant dean for clinical curriculum.

Likewise, the University of California-Davis (No. 22, with 36.3% of graduates in primary care) increased the percentage of students choosing family medicine from 12% in 2009 to 18% in 2023, even as it ranks high in specialty training. Programs such as an accelerated three-year primary care “pathway,” which enrolls primarily first-generation college students, help sustain interest in non-specialty medical fields.

The effort starts with recruitment, looking beyond test scores to the life experiences that forge the compassionate, humanistic doctors most needed in primary care, said Mark Henderson, associate dean for admissions and outreach. Most of the students have families who struggle to get primary care, he said. “So they care a lot about it, and it’s not just an intellectual, abstract sense.”

Establishing schools dedicated to primary care, like the one on Long Island, is not a solution in the eyes of some advocates, who consider primary care the backbone of medicine and not a separate discipline. Toyese Oyeyemi Jr., executive director of the Social Mission Alliance at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute of Health Workforce Equity, worries that establishing such schools might let others “off the hook.”

Still, attending a medical school created to produce primary care doctors worked out well for Lo Cascio. Although she underwent the usual specialty rotations, her passion for pediatrics never flagged — owing to her 23 classmates, two mentors, and her first-year clerkship shadowing a community pediatrician. Now, she’s applying for pediatric residencies.

Lo Cascio also has deep personal reasons: Throughout her experience with a congenital heart condition, her pediatrician was a “guiding light.”

“No matter what else has happened in school, in life, in the world, and medically, your pediatrician is the person that you can come back to,” she said. “What a beautiful opportunity it would be to be that for someone else.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip