Category: From California Healthline.org

SACRAMENTO — A judge has initiated a federal court takeover of California’s troubled prison mental health system by naming the former head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to serve as receiver, giving her four months to craft a plan to provide adequate care for tens of thousands of prisoners with serious mental illness.

Senior U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller issued her order March 19, identifying Colette Peters as the nominated receiver. Peters, who was Oregon’s first female corrections director and known as a reformer, ran the scandal-plagued federal prison system for 30 months until President Donald Trump took office in January. During her tenure, she closed a women’s prison in Dublin, east of Oakland, that had become known as the “rape club.”

Michael Bien, who represents prisoners with mental illness in the long-running prison lawsuit, said Peters is a good choice. Bien said Peters’ time in Oregon and Washington, D.C., showed that she “kind of buys into the fact that there are things we can do better in the American system.”

“We took strong objection to many things that happened under her tenure at the BOP, but I do think that this is a different job and she’s capable of doing it,” said Bien, whose firm also represents women who were housed at the shuttered federal women’s prison.

California corrections officials called Peters “highly qualified” in a statement, while Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office did not immediately comment. Mueller gave the parties until March 28 to show cause why Peters should not be appointed.

Peters is not talking to the media at this time, Bien said. The judge said Peters is to be paid $400,000 a year, prorated for the four-month period.

About 34,000 people incarcerated in California prisons have been diagnosed with serious mental illnesses, representing more than a third of California’s prison population, who face harm because of the state’s noncompliance, Mueller said.

Appointing a receiver is a rare step taken when federal judges feel they have exhausted other options. A receiver took control of Alabama’s correctional system in 1976, and they have otherwise been used to govern prisons and jails only about a dozen times, mostly to combat poor conditions caused by overcrowding. Attorneys representing inmates in Arizona have asked a judge to take over prison health care there.

Mueller’s appointment of a receiver comes nearly 20 years after a different federal judge seized control of California’s prison medical system and installed a receiver, currently J. Clark Kelso, with broad powers to hire, fire, and spend the state’s money.

California officials initially said in August that they would not oppose a receivership for the mental health program provided that the receiver was also Kelso, saying then that federal control “has successfully transformed medical care” in California prisons. But Kelso withdrew from consideration in September, as did two subsequent candidates. Kelso said he could not act “zealously and with fidelity as receiver in both cases.”

Both cases have been running for so long that they are now overseen by a second generation of judges. The original federal judges, in a legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, more than a decade ago forced California to significantly reduce prison crowding in a bid to improve medical and mental health care for incarcerated people.

State officials in court filings defended their improvements over the decades. Prisoners’ attorneys countered that treatment remains poor, as evidenced in part by the system’s record-high suicide rate, topping 31 suicides per 100,000 prisoners, nearly double that in federal prisons.

“More than a quarter of the 30 class-members who died by suicide in 2023 received inadequate care because of understaffing,” prisoners’ attorneys wrote in January, citing the prison system’s own analysis. One prisoner did not receive mental health appointments for seven months “before he hanged himself with a bedsheet.”

They argued that the November passage of a ballot measure increasing criminal penalties for some drug and theft crimes is likely to increase the prison population and worsen staffing shortages.

California officials argued in January that Mueller isn’t legally justified in appointing a receiver because “progress has been slow at times but it has not stalled.”

Mueller has countered that she had no choice but to appoint an outside professional to run the prisons’ mental health program, given officials’ intransigence even after she held top officials in contempt of court and levied fines topping $110 million in June. Those extreme actions, she said, only triggered more delays.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on March 19 upheld Mueller’s contempt ruling but said she didn’t sufficiently justify calculating the fines by doubling the state’s monthly salary savings from understaffing prisons. It upheld the fines to the extent that they reflect the state’s actual salary savings but sent the case back to Mueller to justify any higher penalty.

Mueller had been set to begin additional civil contempt proceedings against state officials for their failure to meet two other court requirements: adequately staffing the prison system’s psychiatric inpatient program and improving suicide prevention measures. Those could bring additional fines topping tens of millions of dollars.

But she said her initial contempt order has not had the intended effect of compelling compliance. Mueller wrote as far back as July that additional contempt rulings would also be likely to be ineffective as state officials continued to appeal and seek delays, leading “to even more unending litigation, litigation, litigation.”

She went on to foreshadow her latest order naming a receiver in a preliminary order: “There is one step the court has taken great pains to avoid. But at this point,” Mueller wrote, “the court concludes the only way to achieve full compliance in this action is for the court to appoint its own receiver.”

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

As Congress mulls potentially massive cuts to federal Medicaid funding, health centers that serve Native American communities, such as the Oneida Community Health Center near Green Bay, Wisconsin, are bracing for catastrophe.

That’s because more than 40% of the about 15,000 patients the center serves are enrolled in Medicaid. Cuts to the program would be detrimental to those patients and the facility, said Debra Danforth, the director of the Oneida Comprehensive Health Division and a citizen of the Oneida Nation.

“It would be a tremendous hit,” she said.

The facility provides a range of services to most of the Oneida Nation’s 17,000 people, including ambulatory care, internal medicine, family practice, and obstetrics. The tribe is one of two in Wisconsin that have an “open-door policy,” Danforth said, which means that the facility is open to members of any federally recognized tribe.

But Danforth and many other tribal health officials say Medicaid cuts would cause service reductions at health facilities that serve Native Americans.

Indian Country has a unique relationship to Medicaid, because the program helps tribes cover chronic funding shortfalls from the Indian Health Service, the federal agency responsible for providing health care to Native Americans.

Medicaid has accounted for about two-thirds of third-party revenue for tribal health providers, creating financial stability and helping facilities pay operational costs. More than a million Native Americans enrolled in Medicaid or the closely related Children’s Health Insurance Program also rely on the insurance to pay for care outside of tribal health facilities without going into significant medical debt. Tribal leaders are calling on Congress to exempt tribes from cuts and are preparing to fight to preserve their access.

“Medicaid is one of the ways in which the federal government meets its trust and treaty obligations to provide health care to us,” said Liz Malerba, director of policy and legislative affairs for the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, a nonprofit policy advocacy organization for 33 tribes spanning from Texas to Maine. Malerba is a citizen of the Mohegan Tribe.

“So we view any disruption or cut to Medicaid as an abrogation of that responsibility,” she said.

Tribes face an arduous task in providing care to a population that experiences severe health disparities, a high incidence of chronic illness, and, at least in western states, a life expectancy of 64 years — the lowest of any demographic group in the U.S. Yet, in recent years, some tribes have expanded access to care for their communities by adding health services and providers, enabled in part by Medicaid reimbursements.

During the last two fiscal years, five urban Indian organizations in Montana saw funding growth of nearly $3 million, said Lisa James, director of development for the Montana Consortium for Urban Indian Health, during a webinar in February organized by the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families and the National Council of Urban Indian Health.

The increased revenue was “instrumental,” James said, allowing clinics in the state to add services that previously had not been available unless referred out for, including behavioral health services. Clinics were also able to expand operating hours and staffing.

Montana’s five urban Indian clinics, in Missoula, Helena, Butte, Great Falls, and Billings, serve 30,000 people, including some who are not Native American or enrolled in a tribe. The clinics provide a wide range of services, including primary care, dental care, disease prevention, health education, and substance use prevention.

James said Medicaid cuts would require Montana’s urban Indian health organizations to cut services and limit their ability to address health disparities.

American Indian and Alaska Native people under age 65 are more likely to be uninsured than white people under 65, but 30% rely on Medicaid compared with 15% of their white counterparts, according to KFF data for 2017 to 2021. More than 40% of American Indian and Alaska Native children are enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP, which provides health insurance to kids whose families are not eligible for Medicaid. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, the publisher of California Healthline.

A Georgetown Center for Children and Families report from January found the share of residents enrolled in Medicaid was higher in counties with a significant Native American presence. The proportion on Medicaid in small-town or rural counties that are mostly within tribal statistical areas, tribal subdivisions, reservations, and other Native-designated lands was 28.7%, compared with 22.7% in other small-town or rural counties. About 50% of children in those Native areas were enrolled in Medicaid.

The federal government has already exempted tribes from some of Trump’s executive orders. In late February, Department of Health and Human Services acting general counsel Sean Keveney clarified that tribal health programs would not be affected by an executive order that diversity, equity, and inclusion government programs be terminated, but that the Indian Health Service is expected to discontinue diversity and inclusion hiring efforts established under an Obama-era rule.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also rescinded the layoffs of more than 900 IHS employees in February just hours after they’d received termination notices. During Kennedy’s Senate confirmation hearings, he said he would appoint a Native American as an assistant HHS secretary. The National Indian Health Board, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates for tribes, in December endorsed elevating the director of the Indian Health Service to assistant secretary of HHS.

Jessica Schubel, a senior health care official in Joe Biden’s White House, said exemptions won’t be enough.

“Just because Native Americans are exempt doesn’t mean that they won’t feel the impact of cuts that are made throughout the rest of the program,” she said.

State leaders are also calling for federal Medicaid spending to be spared because cuts to the program would shift costs onto their budgets. Without sustained federal funding, which can cover more than 70% of costs, state lawmakers face decisions such as whether to change eligibility requirements to slim Medicaid rolls, which could cause some Native Americans to lose their health coverage.

Tribal leaders noted that state governments do not have the same responsibility to them as the federal government, yet they face large variations in how they interact with Medicaid depending on their state programs.

President Donald Trump has made seemingly conflicting statements about Medicaid cuts, saying in an interview on Fox News in February that Medicaid and Medicare wouldn’t be touched. In a social media post the same week, Trump expressed strong support for a House budget resolution that would likely require Medicaid cuts.

The budget proposal, which the House approved in late February, requires lawmakers to cut spending to offset tax breaks. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees spending on Medicaid and Medicare, is instructed to slash $880 billion over the next decade. The possibility of cuts to the program that, together with CHIP, provides insurance to 79 million people has drawn opposition from national and state organizations.

The federal government reimburses IHS and tribal health facilities 100% of billed costs for American Indian and Alaska Native patients, shielding state budgets from the costs.

Because Medicaid is already a stopgap fix for Native American health programs, tribal leaders said it won’t be a matter of replacing the money but operating with less.

“When you’re talking about somewhere between 30% to 60% of a facility’s budget is made up by Medicaid dollars, that’s a very difficult hole to try and backfill,” said Winn Davis, congressional relations director for the National Indian Health Board.

Congress isn’t required to consult tribes during the budget process, Davis added. Only after changes are made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and state agencies are tribes able to engage with them on implementation.

The amount the federal government spends funding the Native American health system is a much smaller portion of its budget than Medicaid. The IHS projected billing Medicaid about $1.3 billion this fiscal year, which represents less than half of 1% of overall federal spending on Medicaid.

“We are saving more lives,” Malerba said of the additional services Medicaid covers in tribal health care. “It brings us closer to a level of 21st century care that we should all have access to but don’t always.”

This article was published with the support of the Journalism & Women Symposium (JAWS) Health Journalism Fellowship, assisted by grants from The Commonwealth Fund.

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

The Trump administration’s crackdown on DEI programs could exacerbate an unexpectedly steep drop in diversity among medical school students, even in states like California, where public universities have been navigating bans on affirmative action for decades. Education and health experts warn that, ultimately, this could harm patient care.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has issued a handful of executive orders aimed at terminating all diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives in federally funded programs. And in his March 4 address to Congress, he described the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning the consideration of race in college and university admissions as “brave and very powerful.”

Last month, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — which lost about 50% of its staff in mid-March — directed schools, including postsecondary institutions, to end race-based programs or risk losing federal funding. The “Dear Colleague” letter cited the Supreme Court’s decision.

Paulette Granberry Russell, president and CEO of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, said that “every utterance of ‘diversity’ is now being viewed as a violation or considered unlawful or illegal.” Her organization filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

While California and eight other states — Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington — had already implemented bans of varying degrees on race-based admissions policies well before the Supreme Court decision, schools bolstered diversity in their ranks with equity initiatives such as targeted scholarships, trainings, and recruitment programs.

But the court’s decision and the subsequent state-level backlash — 29 states have since introduced bills to curb diversity initiatives, according to data published by the Chronicle of Higher Education — have tamped down these efforts and led to the recent declines in diversity numbers, education experts said.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, the numbers of Black and Hispanic medical school enrollees fell by double-digit percentages in the 2024-25 school year compared with the previous year, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Black enrollees declined 11.6%, while the number of new students of Hispanic origin fell 10.8%. The decline in enrollment of American Indian or Alaska Native students was even more dramatic, at 22.1%. New Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander enrollment declined 4.3%.

“We knew this would happen,” said Norma Poll-Hunter, AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity. “But it was double digits — much larger than what we anticipated.”

The fear among educators is the numbers will decline even more under the new administration.

At the end of February, the Education Department launched an online portal encouraging people to “report illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning,” stating that students should have “learning free of divisive ideologies and indoctrination.” The agency later issued a “Frequently Asked Questions” document about its new policies, clarifying that it was acceptable to observe events like Black History Month but warning schools that they “must consider whether any school programming discourages members of all races from attending.”

“It definitely has a chilling effect,” Poll-Hunter said. “There is a lot of fear that could cause institutions to limit their efforts.”

Numerous requests for comment from medical schools about the impact of the anti-DEI actions went unreturned. University presidents are staying mum on the issue to protect their institutions, according to reporting from The New York Times.

Utibe Essien, a physician and UCLA assistant professor, said he has heard from some students who fear they won’t be considered for admission under the new policies. Essien, who co-authored a study on the effect of affirmative action bans on medical schools, also said students are worried medical schools will not be as supportive toward students of color as in the past.

“Both of these fears have the risk of limiting the options of schools folks apply to and potentially those who consider medicine as an option at all,” Essien said, adding that the “lawsuits around equity policies and just the climate of anti-diversity have brought institutions to this place where they feel uncomfortable.”

In early February, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit against the University of California-San Francisco’s Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland over an internship program designed to introduce “underrepresented minority high school students to health professions.”

Attorney Andrew Quinio filed the suit, which argues that its plaintiff, a white teenager, was not accepted to the program after disclosing in an interview that she identified as white.

“From a legal standpoint, the issue that comes about from all this is: How do you choose diversity without running afoul of the Constitution?” Quinio said. “For those who want diversity as a goal, it cannot be a goal that is achieved with discrimination.”

UC Health spokesperson Heather Harper declined to comment on the suit on behalf of the hospital system.

Another lawsuit filed in February accuses the University of California of favoring Black and Latino students over Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions. Specifically, the complaint states that UC officials pushed campuses to use a “holistic” approach to admissions and “move away from objective criteria towards more subjective assessments of the overall appeal of individual candidates.”

The scrutiny of that approach to admissions could threaten diversity at the UC-Davis School of Medicine, which for years has employed a “race-neutral, holistic admissions model” that reportedly tripled enrollment of Black, Latino, and Native American students.

“How do you define diversity? Does it now include the way we consider how someone’s lived experience may be influenced by how they grew up? The type of school, the income of their family? All of those are diversity,” said Granberry Russell, of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. “What might they view as an unlawful proxy for diversity equity and inclusion? That’s what we’re confronted with.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, recently joined other state attorneys general to issue guidance urging that schools continue their DEI programs despite the federal messaging, saying that legal precedent allows for the activities. California is also among several states suing the administration over its deep cuts to the Education Department.

If the recent decline in diversity among newly enrolled students holds or gets worse, it could have long-term consequences for patient care, academic experts said, pointing toward the vast racial disparities in health outcomes in the U.S., particularly for Black people.

A higher proportion of Black primary care doctors is associated with longer life expectancy and lower mortality rates among Black people, according to a 2023 study published by the JAMA Network.

Physicians of color are also more likely to build their careers in medically underserved communities, studies have shown, which is increasingly important as the AAMC projects a shortage of up to 40,400 primary care doctors by 2036.

“The physician shortage persists, and it’s dire in rural communities,” Poll-Hunter said. “We know that diversity efforts are really about improving access for everyone. More diversity leads to greater access to care — everyone is benefiting from it.”

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

In 2019, Cristina Iglesias filed a lawsuit that changed the course of treatment for herself and other transgender inmates in federal custody.

Iglesias, a trans woman who had been incarcerated for more than 25 years, was transferred from a men’s prison to a women’s one in 2021. And in 2022, she reached a landmark settlement with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to receive gender-affirming surgery, which the agency said it had never provided for anyone in its custody.

By the time she got the surgery 10 months later, another federal inmate had also received a procedure to align their body with their gender identity. No other such surgeries for people in federal custody are publicly documented, although some people in state prisons have also received gender-affirming surgery, including at least five in Illinois and 20 in California within a U.S. prison population that tops 1.25 million people.

Still, those procedures loomed large in the 2024 presidential election. Political advertising for President Donald Trump and other Republicans included $215 million on anti-trans ads, according to media tracking firm AdImpact. One such ad declared that Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris supported “taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners,” and concluded, “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” Some Democrats bemoaned the ads as having helped tip the election.

In the run-up to the Nov. 5 election, 55% of voters felt support for trans rights had gone too far, according to VoteCast, a survey by The Associated Press and partners including KFF, the health policy research, polling, and news organization that includes KFF Health News.

On Inauguration Day, Trump issued a flurry of executive orders that included a directive to bar federal spending on gender-affirming care in federal prisons and to “ensure that males are not detained” in federal women’s facilities.

“President Trump received an overwhelming mandate from the American people to restore commonsense principles and safeguard women’s spaces — even prisons — from biological men,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly wrote in an email. “Forcing taxpayers to pay for gender transition for prisoners is the exact sort of insanity that the American people rejected at the ballot box in November.”

But for Iglesias, 50, Trump’s order was a shocking reversal.

“It puts someone’s life in danger being in a men’s prison as a trans woman,” she said from Chicago, where she’s lived since her release in 2023. “It’d be like putting sheep in a hyenas’ den.”

Iglesias said she faced emotional and physical abuse from her father for her desire to be female. When she was 12, she said, he put a gun in her mouth after finding her wearing her sister’s clothes. Iglesias said she ran away from home, stole checks, cars, and jewelry, and ended up in jail.

Lockup was not fun, Iglesias said, but it was the first place she got to be treated as a woman. So, she said, she wanted to stay. In 1994, she landed in federal prison after writing threatening letters to federal judges and prosecutors, according to court filings. In 2005, records show, she pleaded guilty to sending a letter to British officials that she falsely claimed contained anthrax. She told investigators she hoped to get extradited.

“I was reading these things where they were allowing trans females to start living with females,” Iglesias said.

She said her outlook changed after the death of her mother in 2010, which prompted her to get serious about having a life outside of prison, and about improving her life inside it.

She began requesting hormone therapy in 2011 and was approved for it in 2015, according to court records. The 2019 lawsuit that led to her transfer to a women’s prison and her surgery was initially handwritten and prepared with the help of only another inmate.

“The lawsuit was the foundation for everything that I am today,” Iglesias said. “For the first time in my life, instead of digging myself in these holes, I was digging myself out.”

Along with her settlement, Iglesias received a commitment from the Federal Bureau of Prisons to create a timeline for considering other inmates’ requests for gender-affirming care, and to recognize permanent hair removal and gender-affirming surgery as medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria — a medical condition in which the discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth causes significant distress.

In February, in response to Trump’s executive order, the bureau issued new guidelines requiring prison staffers to refer to inmates’ “legal name or pronouns corresponding to their biological sex,” and ending clothing requests “that do not align with an inmate’s biological sex.” The guidelines end referrals for gender-affirming surgery but allow inmates already receiving treatment, such as hormone therapy, to continue.

However, in a lawsuit filed March 7, a trans prisoner alleged the hormone therapy she had been receiving since 2016 was stopped on Jan. 26.

Spokespeople for the bureau did not respond to requests for comment.

The bureau spent $153,000 on hormone therapy in fiscal year 2022, its former director told Congress, 0.01% of its total spending on health care.

The new guidelines on trans inmates say that Trump’s executive order “does not supersede or change” the obligation to comply with federal regulations. But the executive order calls for amending them to prevent trans women from being housed in women’s prisons.

“It hurt my heart when I seen that because I do know other girls that are still in prison,” said Iglesias, who spent more than 25 years in male facilities. “Female prison is safe for a trans woman, and you can be who you are. You’re not penalized because you’re feminine.”

But requesting a transfer to a facility matching inmates’ gender identity had not been easy, and few prisoners had been moved before the order. A 2025 government court filing said that federal prisons house 2,198 trans prisoners out of over 155,000 inmates. Of those, the filing said, 22 are trans women housed in female facilities, and one is a trans man in a men’s facility. Although courts have blocked attempts to move that small subset of trans prisoners after the order, a trans prisoner not included in those suits had been relocated, The Guardian news outlet reported.

A Department of Justice report from 2014 estimated that trans inmates in state and federal prisons were 10 times as likely as other prisoners to report incidents of sexual victimization.

Iglesias said she experienced such violence firsthand. Included in her suit was a copy of a 2017 psychological report that said Iglesias reported being the victim of sexual misconduct or abuse in 1993, 2001, 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Later filings included allegations of having been raped in 2019 and 2020, and a series of rapes, threats, and other abuse in 2021 before she was transferred to a female facility. Iglesias said she faced more abuse than she officially reported.

“Just because you commit a crime doesn’t mean you deserve to have violence against you,” said Michelle García, deputy legal director of the ACLU of Illinois and one of the attorneys who ultimately represented Iglesias.

Federal law requires all inmates to be protected from abuse. A 1994 Supreme Court decision acknowledged trans inmates as particularly vulnerable to attack. Regulations from the Prison Rape Elimination Act, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, contain specific provisions for trans inmates, including allowing them to shower separately from other inmates and requiring prison officials to consider their health and safety when deciding whether to house them in male or female facilities.

Courts also have ruled that “deliberate indifference” to an inmate’s “serious medical needs” violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishments. The quality of overall medical care for federal prisoners has come under scrutiny amid reports of inmates going without needed medical care and preventable deaths.

Iglesias successfully argued in court that gender-affirming surgery was necessary for her gender dysphoria. She was diagnosed with what was then called “gender identity disorder” soon after entering federal custody in 1994, according to court filings. Her diagnosis was updated to gender dysphoria in 2015.

Iglesias’ court filings documented her having been assessed for the risk of suicide 33 times and placed on suicide watch 12 times, as well as an attempt at self-castration in 2009.

“Defendants are aware of Iglesias’s suffering, but have delayed her treatment without evaluating her medically,” the judge in her case wrote.

García called the Trump administration’s targeting of care for trans inmates cruel, unnecessary, and illogical.

“They’re not assessing the constitutional rights of people,” García said. “They’re making choices because this is a vulnerable community that they can rally people behind to hate.”

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

Los recortes de gastos, la inmigración y Medicaid están bien arriba en la lista de prioridades en la agenda de Washington. Este clima politico ofrece un terreno fértil para que la desinformación y los mitos se multipliquen en las redes sociales. Algunos de los más comunes se enfocan en los inmigrantes, los latinos y Medicaid.

En las plataformas circulan posts afirmando que los latinos beneficiarios de Medicaid —el programa de salud federal gerenciado por los estados para personas de bajos ingresos o con discapacidades —, “no trabajan” y exageraciones sobre el porcentaje de personas con Medicaid que son latinas.

El 25 de febrero, la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos votó por un estrecho margen a favor de un plan presupuestario que podría llevar a recortes de Medicaid de hasta $880 mil millones a lo largo de una década.

Medicaid y el Programa de Seguro de Salud Infantil (CHIP) son parte de la red de seguridad nacional, que cubre a unas 80 millones de personas. La inscripción a Medicaid aumentó bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA) y después del inicio de la pandemia de covid-19, pero luego comenzó a caer durante los dos últimos años de la administración Biden.

El impacto de los inmigrantes en el sistema de atención médica nacional puede exagerarse en medio de la retórica política acalorada. El actual vicepresidente JD Vance dijo durante la campaña electoral de 2024 que “estamos llevando a la quiebra a muchos hospitales al obligarlos a ofrecer atención a personas que no tienen el derecho legal de estar en nuestro país”. PolitiFact calificó esa declaración como “falsa”.

KFF Health News, en alianza con Factchequeado, recopiló cinco mitos que circulan en las redes sociales y los analizó con expertos.

1. ¿Trabajan los latinos que reciben Medicaid?

La mayoría sí. Un análisis de los datos de Medicaid realizado por KFF reveló que el 67% de los latinos que reciben Medicaid trabajan, “lo que representa la proporción mayor de adultos que reciben Medicaid que trabajan en comparación con otros grupos raciales y étnicos”, dijo Jennifer Tolbert, subdirectora del Programa de Medicaid y Personas sin Seguro de KFF.

“Para muchas personas de bajos ingresos, el mito es que no están trabajando, aunque sabemos por muchos datos recopilados que muchas personas trabajan pero no tienen acceso a un seguro asequible patrocinado a través del empleador”, dijo Timothy McBride, codirector del Centro para el Avance de los Servicios de Salud, Políticas e Investigación Económica, parte del Instituto de Salud Pública de la Universidad de Washington en St. Louis.

Ni la Oficina de Salud de las Minorías del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) ni los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS) respondieron a las solicitudes de comentarios.

2. ¿Son los latinos el grupo más grande inscrito en Medicaid?

No. Los blancos no hispanos son el grupo demográfico más grande en Medicaid.

La inscripción en los programas es de un 42% de blancos no hispanos, un 28% de latinos y un 18% de negros no hispanos, con pequeños porcentajes de otras minorías, según indica un documento de los CMS.

La proporción de latinos en la inscripción total de Medicaid “se ha mantenido bastante estable durante muchos años, entre el 26 y el 30% desde al menos 2008”, dijo Gideon Lukens, director de investigación y análisis de datos del equipo de políticas de salud del Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

En una publicación en un blog del 18 de febrero, Alex Nowrasteh y Jerome Famularo, del libertario Cato Institute, escribieron: “El mayor mito en el debate sobre el uso de la asistencia social por parte de los inmigrantes es que los no ciudadanos, que incluyen a los inmigrantes ilegales y a los que se encuentran legalmente en el país con diversas visas temporales y tarjetas de residencia, utilizan desproporcionadamente la asistencia social. Ese no es el caso”. Incluyeron Medicaid en el término “asistencia social”.

Aunque los latinos no son el grupo más grande en Medicaid, son el grupo demográfico con el mayor porcentaje de personas que reciben Medicaid. Hay alrededor de 65,2 millones de hispanos en el país, lo que representa el 19,5% de la población total de Estados Unidos.

Y aproximadamente el 31% de esa población está inscrita en Medicaid, en parte porque los latinos empleados a menudo tienen trabajos que no ofrecen beneficios como un seguro de salud.

La elegibilidad para Medicaid se basa en factores como los ingresos, la edad y el estatus de embarazo o discapacidad, y varía de un estado a otro, dijo Kelly Whitener, profesora asociada de Prácticas en el Centro para Niños y Familias de la Escuela de Políticas Públicas McCourt de la Universidad de Georgetown.

“La elegibilidad para Medicaid no se basa en la raza o la etnia”, agregó Whitener.

3. ¿La mayoría de los latinos indocumentados utilizan Medicaid?

No. Según la ley federal, los inmigrantes que carecen de estatus legal no son elegibles para los beneficios federales de Medicaid.

A enero, 14 estados y el Distrito de Columbia habían utilizado sus propios fondos para ampliar la cobertura a los niños en el país sin importar su estatus migratorio. De ellos, siete estados y el Distrito de Columbia expandieron la cobertura a algunos adultos sin importar su estatus migratorio.

Los estados cubren en su totalidad el costo de ofrecer atención médica a estos beneficiarios. El gobierno federal no pone ni un centavo.

El gobierno federal sí paga el llamado Medicaid de Emergencia, que reembolsa a los hospitales por la atención de emergencias médicas para personas que, debido a su estatus migratorio u otros factores, normalmente no califican para el programa.

El Medicaid de Emergencia comenzó en 1986 bajo el Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, firmado por el presidente republicano Ronald Reagan.

En 2023, el Medicaid de Emergencia representó el 0,4% del gasto total de Medicaid.

Algunos legisladores conservadores dicen que los inmigrantes que están en el país sin papeles no deberían recibir ningún beneficio de Medicaid.

“Medicaid está destinado a los ciudadanos estadounidenses que más lo necesitan: personas mayores, niños, mujeres embarazadas y discapacitados”, dijo Dan Crenshaw, representante republicano por Texas, en las redes sociales. “Pero los estados liberales están encontrando formas de jugar con el sistema y hacer que los contribuyentes cubran la atención médica de los inmigrantes ilegales”.

4. ¿Los latinos permanecen en Medicaid por décadas?

Expertos dicen que no hay un análisis por raza o etnia del tiempo que las personas usan el programa.

“Las personas que permanecen en Medicaid por más tiempo son aquellas que tienen Medicaid debido a una discapacidad y que viven con una situación médica que no cambia”, dijo Tolbert.

Los beneficiarios que usan los servicios de apoyo de Medicaid a largo plazo representan el 6% del número total de personas en el programa.

Muchos beneficiarios están en el programa temporalmente, dijo McBride. “Algunos estudios indican que hasta la mitad de las personas en Medicaid lo abandonan en un corto período de tiempo”, dijo, como en un año.

5. ¿Son los latinos en Medicaid el grupo que más usa los servicios médicos?

Los latinos no usan significativamente más servicios de Medicaid que otros, dicen expertos. Reciben servicios preventivos (como mamografías, pruebas de Papanicolaou y colonoscopías), atención primaria y atención de salud mental menos que otros grupos, según documentos de los CMS y la Comisión de Pago y Acceso a Medicaid y CHIP, una organización no partidista que proporciona análisis de políticas y datos.

Los latinos sí utilizan más los servicios de parto y alumbramiento de Medicaid. Las familias latinas y las familias blancas no hispanas representan cada una alrededor del 35% de los nacimientos de Medicaid, aunque los blancos no hispanos constituyen una proporción mayor de la población general.

Si bien los latinos conforman el 28% de todos los inscritos en Medicaid, representan el 37% de los miembros con beneficios limitados, que cubren solo servicios específicos.

“En realidad, utilizan los servicios de atención médica menos que otros grupos, debido a barreras sistémicas como el dominio limitado del inglés y la dificultad para navegar por el sistema”, dijo Arturo Vargas Bustamante, profesor de la Escuela Fielding de Salud Pública de UCLA y director de investigación en el Latino Policy and Politics Institute de la universidad.

Los latinos también evitan utilizar los servicios por temor a la regla de “carga pública” y otras políticas, apuntó Vargas Bustamante. El presidente Donald Trump amplió la política de carga pública y la aplicó con firmeza durante su primer mandato, aunque se suavizó bajo el presidente Joe Biden. La regla tenía como objetivo dificultar que los inmigrantes que utilizan Medicaid o programas de asistencia social obtuvieran la residencia permanente o se convirtieran en ciudadanos estadounidenses.

“El efecto amedrentador de la carga pública persiste, pero órdenes recientes como la deportación masiva o la eliminación de la ciudadanía por nacimiento han generado sus propios efectos aterradores”, agregó Vargas Bustamante.

Esta historia es producto de una colaboración entre Factchequeado y KFF Health News.

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

[embedded content]

The Senate Finance Committee got its chance March 14 to question Mehmet Oz, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the vast Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the largest agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. Oz, with his long history in television, was as polished as one would expect, brushing off even some more controversial parts of his past with apparent ease. In this special bonus episode of “What the Health?,” KFF Health News’ Rachana Pradhan and Stephanie Armour join host Julie Rovner to recap the Oz hearing. They also provide an update on the progress of nominees to lead the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

When the FDA announced in January, before President Joe Biden’s term ended, that it would ban a dye called red dye No. 3 in food and ingested drugs, the federal agency cited just one 1987 study on rats to support its action.

The industry-funded study, based on data from two prior studies, was led by a Virginia toxicologist who said then — and still believes today, decades after concerns first arose that the chemical could be carcinogenic — that his research found the petroleum-derived food coloring doesn’t cause cancer in humans.

“If I thought there was a problem, I would have stated it in the paper,” Joseph Borzelleca, 94, a professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at Virginia Commonwealth University, told KFF Health News after the FDA’s announcement. “I have no problem with my family — my kids and grandkids — consuming Red 3. I stand by the conclusions in my paper that this is not a problem for humans.”

Soon after Borzelleca’s paper was published in a scientific journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, the FDA examined the data his team had collected and reached its own conclusion: that the dye caused cancer in male lab rats. In 1990, the FDA cited the study in banning Red 3 in cosmetics.

In 1992, the FDA said it wanted to revoke approval of Red 3 in food and drugs. But the agency didn’t act at the time, citing a lack of resources.

More than 30 years later, after a renewed push by consumer advocates, the Biden administration announced the ban in its last days in power. The move came just weeks before the Senate confirmed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA.

Kennedy has been a vocal critic of food additives, including Red 3. On March 10 he met with top food industry executives and told them if they don’t eliminate artificial food dyes from their products, the federal government will force them to do so, Food Fix reported.

Consumer advocacy groups cheered the Red 3 ban, even as the FDA said there is no evidence that the dye is dangerous to people. “Importantly, the way that FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats does not occur in humans,” Jim Jones, FDA deputy commissioner for human foods, said in a statement.

Jones resigned from FDA in February, criticizing Trump administration cuts that he said hobbled his office.

The FDA did not respond to a request for comment, but Marty Makary, Trump’s nominee to lead the agency, said at his Senate confirmation hearing on March 6 that he is concerned about whether food additives such as Red 3 harm children.

“It did not make sense that red dye No. 3 was banned in cosmetics but allowed in the food supply,” Makary told Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who questioned why the FDA ban doesn’t take effect until 2027.

“We want to kill people for two more years?” the Alabama Republican said. “I would hope that you would, if you’re confirmed, you’d go in and look at it very quickly and say, ‘Why do we want to put our people in harm’s way?’”

The International Association of Color Manufacturers says Red 3 is safe in the tiny levels typically consumed by humans. The dye was approved for use in foods in the U.S. in 1907, and today it’s an ingredient in thousands of products including cereals, candy, beverages, and cake toppings.

Thomas Galligan, principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which petitioned the FDA for a ban, said that a federal regulation known as the Delaney Clause prohibits any ingredient that causes cancer in animals from being included in foods. (The publisher of KFF Health News, David Rousseau, is on the CSPI board.)

“At the end of the day, this is an unnecessary additive,” he said. “It’s a marketing tool for the industry to make foods look more appealing so consumers will buy them. But federal law is clear: No amount of cancer risk is acceptable in foods.”

Galligan said he was not surprised Borzelleca’s opinion on Red 3 had not changed or that the food dye industry has played down the risk.

In October 2023, California became the first state to ban Red 3 in food starting in 2027, superseding the FDA’s earlier rule allowing small amounts in foods as a color additive. The state legislature acted after a state analysis concluded the dye could cause hyperactivity in children.

The European Union, Australia, and Japan are among the locations that already ban the chemical in foods. The EU’s ban also cites hyperactivity in children. The EU requires food makers to include a warning that food dyes that are still allowed may “have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”

The IACM points to research by scientific committees operated by the World Health Organization, including a 2018 review that affirmed the safety of Red 3 in food.

Some food manufacturers have already reformulated products to remove Red 3. In its place they use beet juice; carmine, a dye made from insects; or pigments from foods such as purple sweet potato, radish, and red cabbage.

It isn’t clear how the FDA determined that Red 3 can cause cancer in male rats. Borzelleca’s paper said some rats that were fed Red 3 developed polyps in their thyroid gland but doesn’t mention cancer.

Borzelleca, whose study was funded by the IACM, then known as the Certified Color Manufacturers Association, said he was stunned the FDA banned the dye and used his research to back the move.

“I am surprised all this time has gone by and it’s been safe for human use, and now it’s being pulled from the market due to concerns not supported by the data,” Borzelleca said. “Our study did not find this was a carcinogen.”

His study was a response to the FDA’s requirement in the 1980s for additional long-term feeding studies in rats and mice as a condition for the continued provisional approval of several color additives, including Red 3.

Over decades, Borzelleca published dozens of research papers on the toxicology of food additives, pesticides, and water contaminants. He also served on advisory boards for the tobacco industry and represented cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds in negotiations with the Department of Health and Human Services about cigarette additives, according to a 1984 corporate memo. Borzelleca is a former president of the Society of Toxicology and consulted for the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization.

The commonwealth of Virginia gave him a lifetime achievement award in 2001 for his work helping assess dangers in foods, drugs, and pesticides.

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

Spending cuts, immigration, and Medicaid are at the top of the Washington agenda. That climate provides fertile ground for misinformation and myths to multiply on social networks. Some of the most common are those surrounding immigrants, Latinos, and Medicaid.

These claims include assertions that Latinos who use Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people and those with disabilities, “do not work” and exaggerations of the percentage of people with Medicaid who are Latinos.

The U.S. House voted narrowly on Feb. 25 in favor of a budget blueprint that could lead to Medicaid cuts of up to $880 billion over a decade.

Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program are part of the national safety net, covering about 80 million people. Medicaid enrollment grew under the Affordable Care Act and after the start of the covid-19 pandemic but then started falling during the final two years of the Biden administration.

Immigrants’ impact on the nation’s health care system can be overstated in heated political rhetoric. Now-Vice President JD Vance said on the campaign trail last year that “we’re bankrupting a lot of hospitals by forcing these hospitals to provide care for people who don’t have the legal right to be in our country.” PolitiFact rated that statement “False.”

KFF Health News, in partnership with Factchequeado, compiled five myths circulating on social media and analyzed them with experts in the field.

1. Do Latinos who receive Medicaid work?

Most do. A KFF analysis of Medicaid data found that almost 67% of Latinos on Medicaid work, “which is a higher share of Medicaid adults who are working compared to other racial and ethnic groups,” said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“For many low-income people, the myth is that they are not working, even though we know from a lot of data that many people work but don’t have access to affordable employer-sponsored insurance,” said Timothy McBride, co-director at the Center for Advancing Health Services, Policy and Economics Research, part of the Institute for Public Health at Washington University in St. Louis.

Neither the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health nor the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services responded to requests for comment.

2. Are Latinos the largest group enrolled in Medicaid?

No. White people who are not Hispanic represent the biggest demographic group in Medicaid and CHIP. The programs’ enrollment is 42% non-Hispanic white, 28% Latinos, and 18% non-Hispanic Black, with small percentages of other minorities, according to a CMS document.

Latinos’ share of total Medicaid enrollment “has remained fairly stable for many years — hovering between 26 and 30% since at least 2008,” said Gideon Lukens, research and data analysis director on the health policy team at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research organization.

In a Feb. 18 blog post, Alex Nowrasteh and Jerome Famularo of the libertarian Cato Institute wrote: “The biggest myth in the debate over immigrant welfare use is that noncitizens — which includes illegal immigrants and those lawfully present on various temporary visas and green cards — disproportionately consume welfare. That is not the case.” They included Medicaid in the term “welfare.”

Although Latinos are not the biggest group in Medicaid, they are the demographic group with the greatest percentage of people receiving Medicaid. There are about 65.2 million Hispanics in the country, representing 19.5% of the total U.S. population.

Approximately 31% of the Latino population is enrolled in Medicaid, in part because employed Latinos often have jobs that do not offer affordable insurance.

Eligibility for Medicaid is based on factors such as income, age, and pregnancy or disability status, and it varies from state to state, said Kelly Whitener, associate professor of practice at the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy.

“Medicaid eligibility is not based on race or ethnicity,” Whitener said.

3. Do most Latinos living in the country without legal permission use Medicaid?

No. Under federal law, immigrants lacking legal status are not eligible for federal Medicaid benefits.

As of January, 14 states and the District of Columbia had used their own funds to expand coverage to children in the country without regard to immigration status. Of those, seven states and D.C. expanded coverage to some adults regardless of immigration status.

The cost of providing health care to these beneficiaries is covered entirely by the states. The federal government does not put up a penny.

The federal government does pay for Emergency Medicaid, which reimburses hospitals for medical emergencies for people who, because of their immigration status or other factors, do not normally qualify for the program.

Emergency Medicaid began in 1986 under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, signed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.

In 2023, Emergency Medicaid accounted for 0.4% of total Medicaid spending.

Some conservative lawmakers say immigrants in the country illegally should not get any Medicaid benefits.

“Medicaid is meant for American citizens who need it most — seniors, children, pregnant women, and the disabled,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said on social media. “But liberal states are finding ways to game the system and make taxpayers cover healthcare for illegal immigrants.”

4. Do Latinos stay on Medicaid for decades?

Experts say there is no analysis by race or ethnicity of the length of time people use the program.

“The people who stay on Medicaid the longest are people who have Medicaid due to a disability and who live with a medical situation that does not change,” Tolbert said.

People who use long-term Medicaid support services represent 6% of the total number of people in the program.

Many beneficiaries are in the program temporarily, McBride said.

“Some studies indicate that as many as half of the people on Medicaid churn off of Medicaid within a short period of time,” he said, such as within a year.

5. Are Latinos on Medicaid the group that uses medical services the most?

Latinos do not use significantly more Medicaid services than others, experts say. Latinos receive preventive services (such as mammograms, pap smears, and colonoscopies), primary care and mental health care less than other groups, according to documents from CMS and the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, a nonpartisan organization that provides policy and data analysis.

Latinos do account for a disproportionate share of Medicaid labor and delivery services. Latino families and white families each represent about 35% of Medicaid births, although white people make up a bigger share of the overall population.

While Latinos represent 28% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees, they account for 37% of beneficiaries with limited benefits that cover only specific services.

“They actually use health care services less than other groups, because of systemic barriers such as limited English proficiency and difficulty navigating the system,” said Arturo Vargas Bustamante, a professor at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health and the faculty research director at the university’s Latino Policy and Politics Institute.

Latino people also avoid using services out of fear of the “public charge” rule and other policies, Vargas Bustamante said. President Donald Trump expanded the public charge policy and strongly enforced it during his first term, though it was softened under President Joe Biden. The policy was intended to make it harder for immigrants who use Medicaid or welfare programs to obtain green cards or become U.S. citizens.

“The chilling effect of public charge persists, but recent orders such as mass deportation or the elimination of birthright citizenship have generated their own chilling effects,” Vargas Bustamante added.

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

National Institutes of Health officials have urged scientists to remove all references to mRNA vaccine technology from their grant applications, two researchers said, in a move that signaled the agency might abandon a promising field of medical research.

The mRNA technology is under study at the NIH for prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, including flu and AIDS, and also cancer. It was deployed in the development of covid-19 vaccines credited with saving 3 million lives in the U.S. alone — an accomplishment President Donald Trump bragged about in his first term.

A scientist at a biomedical research center in Philadelphia wrote to a colleague, in an email reviewed by KFF Health News, that a project officer at NIH had “flagged our pending grant as having an mRNA vaccine component.”

“It’s still unclear whether mRNA vaccine grants will be canceled,” the scientist added.

NIH officials also told a senior NIH-funded vaccine scientist in New York state, who does not conduct mRNA vaccine research but described its efficacy in previous grant applications, that all references to mRNA vaccines should be scrubbed from future applications.

Scientists relayed their experiences on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional retaliation by the Trump administration.

A senior official at the National Cancer Institute confirmed that NIH acting Director Matthew Memoli sent an email across the NIH instructing that any grants, contracts, or collaborations involving mRNA vaccines be reported up the chain to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s office and the White House.

Memoli sent a similar message ahead of the agency canceling other research, such as studies of vaccine hesitancy.

Memoli’s email on that topic bluntly stated that NIH was not interested in learning why people shun vaccines or in exploring ways to “improve vaccine interest and commitment.”

The National Cancer Institute official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, said that “it is reasonable to assume mRNA vaccine work is next.”

The official said a similar memo also went out regarding NIH-funded work in South Africa, which the White House has targeted over false claims that the country’s government is persecuting white people. More recently, another one went out regarding all global research collaborations, the official said.

Spokespeople for the White House, HHS, and the NIH did not respond to requests for comment.

The NIH, whose latest annual budget was $47 billion, is one of the world’s most critical sources of funding for basic biomedical research. Its mission and programs are under unprecedented scrutiny from Trump’s White House and the Department of Government Efficiency, the Elon Musk-led agency created by a Trump executive order that has directed federal agencies to prepare for widespread layoffs.

The NIH is funding at least 130 studies involving the mRNA technology in covid vaccines produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna that have been administered to billions of people worldwide.

A former government official familiar with internal discussions said that the Trump administration intends to cut some grants for mRNA vaccine research but that the timing is unclear. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect relationships with the administration.

Political conservatives in the U.S. have promulgated conspiracy theories, unsupported by scientific evidence, that the shots and their relatively new technology are dangerous. This has undermined public support for covid vaccinations and mRNA research.

“There will not be any research funded by NIH on mRNA vaccines,” the scientist in New York said in an interview. “MAGA people are convinced that these vaccines have killed and maimed tens of thousands of people. It’s not true, but they believe that.”

Meanwhile, hundreds of other vaccine-related studies are in limbo. Kawsar Talaat, a vaccine researcher at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, has been waiting since the fall for money needed to recruit subjects for a study of an antidiarrheal vaccine.

“NIH approved our funding,” she said, “and now we’re waiting, and we don’t know if it’s going forward or going to be killed.”

The scientist in Philadelphia signaled that he believes Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist, is responsible for the NIH’s turn against mRNA research.

“Kennedy’s war on vaccines has started,” the scientist told his colleague.

The scientist in New York said that it was “ridiculous” to remove mRNA language from the grant applications. But “if my grant is rejected for any reason,” the scientist said, “people in my lab will lose their jobs.”

“I’ve worked with some of them for 20 years,” the scientist added. “They have children and families. There is a real climate of fear in academia about this now, especially among vaccine scientists.”

“My grant does not involve a request for funds to conduct mRNA vaccine experiments,” the scientist said, “so my principal concern was to avoid word-search flags that, at minimum, would lead to delays in any funding.”

While tenured research professors at universities generally receive a salary from their institution, the staffers who work in their labs and offices are often paid through NIH grants. The 2023 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine was given to two scientists for developing mRNA vaccines, through work that relied on pharmaceutical companies and on NIH scientists working under infectious disease specialist Anthony Fauci.

According to Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who chairs the chamber’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Kennedy promised during his Senate confirmation process that he would protect “the public health benefit of vaccination” and “work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems, and not establish parallel systems.”

Cassidy, a physician, had expressed reservations about confirming Kennedy to the HHS post and challenged his anti-vaccine views during a confirmation hearing. He ended up voting for him, he said, because Kennedy had agreed to work closely with Cassidy and his committee.

However, Kennedy has faced scrutiny in his first weeks in office for his handling of a large measles outbreak among mostly unvaccinated people in Texas that has led to the death of a child, the first U.S. measles death in more than a decade. A patient who tested positive for measles died in New Mexico, but the cause hasn’t been confirmed. Instead of urging vaccination against the disease, an almost surefire way to prevent infection, Kennedy has blamed malnourishment for the outbreak, promoted unproven treatments for measles, and falsely claimed in one Fox News interview that the vaccine is ineffective and even dangerous.

Cassidy did not respond to a request for comment on the NIH’s potential abandonment of mRNA vaccine research.

As part of the Trump administration’s push to examine spending on mRNA vaccines, health officials are reviewing a $590 million contract for bird flu shots that the Biden administration awarded to Moderna, Bloomberg News has reported. Legislation introduced by GOP lawmakers in at least seven states is aimed at banning or limiting mRNA vaccines. In some cases, the measures would hit doctors who give the injections with criminal penalties, fines, and the possible revocation of their licenses.

Stephanie Armour and Céline Gounder contributed to this article.

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