Category: From California Healthline.org

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

BOSTON — On days when the sun was shining and the air was warm with a gentle, cooling breeze, Ateiya Sowers-Hassell liked to keep the salon door open. Labor Day was one of those days. Sowers-Hassell was tending to two clients at Salvaged Roots, the natural hair salon and spa in the Four Corners section of Boston’s Dorchester neighborhood where she works as a stylist. She was in a groove, soothing music playing in the background, when gunshots boomed through the air.

She saw people running from Exclusive Barbershop next door. She heard a voice telling a 911 operator that someone had been shot in the head. Her hands shook as she ventured outside. Then she saw 20-year-old Elijah Clunie slumped in a barber’s chair, haircut unfinished.

In the chaos, a 7-year-old boy stood in shock, eyes bulging at Clunie’s body. Sowers-Hassell asked the boy to come with her and sheltered him at the salon until his father arrived. “He kept going, ‘I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe,’” she said, and he later told her he never wanted to get his hair cut again.

Barbershops and salons are regarded in the Black community as safe, sacred spaces, where men and women gather to laugh, debate, and see their unofficial therapists: the barbers and stylists. When those refuges are violated by gun violence, an unspoken bond is broken.

Clunie’s killing cost Dorchester more than his own young life. Shootings send ripples of trauma through communities that can carry across generations. A 2020 study found that exposure to gun killings was linked to higher levels of depression, suicidal ideation, and other mental health difficulties. Children and young adults were the most susceptible, and Black youth were disproportionately affected.

When economists calculate the societal costs of gun violence, “what they find is that much bigger than hospital treatment or criminal justice response or anything, is the fear and trauma and how it affects individuals and businesses,” said Daniel Webster, a professor and distinguished scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Four Corners — home largely to African American, Caribbean, and Puerto Rican families — is not a destination neighborhood. A historic Methodist church is one of the few attractions. There aren’t any major supermarkets, fine dining restaurants, or hospitals. Of the businesses that do exist, many cover their doors and windows in plexiglass and metal bars.

“We talk about these food deserts of good, healthy food; the truth of the matter is, it’s a desert for everything,” Webster said. “Businesses generally don’t want to be there.”

The owner of Salvaged Roots, Shanita Clarke, said she intended her salon to stand out as an oasis in the community.

Clarke was planning to take her then-13-year-old son to the salon to get his hair done when she got a phone call about the shooting. She rushed to work to check on her stylists. Clarke, her staff, and clients spent the next three hours waiting while officers collected evidence. In the weeks that followed, calls came in to push back appointments. Clarke said she could sense her clients’ anxiety and understood it. Even though she wasn’t in the shop when Clunie was shot, she experienced the incident vicariously through the sound of gunshots captured on the salon’s security footage and accounts from her employees.

A case statement from the commonwealth of Massachusetts alleges the suspect in Clunie’s killing, Diamond Jose Brito, entered Exclusive Barbershop wearing all black clothing and a ski mask. Brito walked to the back of the shop, where Clunie was seated, and asked his barber how long the wait was for a haircut. About 45 minutes later, the statement alleges, Brito returned, walked to Clunie’s chair, shot him in the back of the head with a small silver revolver, then shot another victim multiple times.

Brito, of Canton, Massachusetts, was arrested in Mattapan in October and is being held without bail. He pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him, including murder.

“Mr. Brito maintains his innocence and we are looking forward to presenting his defense at trial,” Brito’s attorney, David Leon, said in a statement to KFF Health News.

Boston City Councilor Brian Worrell’s office is around the corner from Salvaged Roots and Exclusive Barbershop. The neighborhood requires investment and initiatives by elected officials and policymakers, he said. Residents have to feel that homeownership and stable careers are possible.

“That can’t be some far-off thinking,” said Worrell, who represents District 4, which includes that part of Dorchester. “They have to be able to see it, and it has to show up in their lives, in a real, tangible way.”

Clunie had been a student at TechBoston Academy and a basketball player who was named player of the game after a big win his senior year, in 2022. But in a draft senior presentation uploaded to the presentation site Prezi in June of that year, a user presumed to be Clunie wrote: “When I first moved to the Dorchester area I thought I was going to die,” noting “the killings on the news” every day.

Moments after the shooting, an unknown person walked into the barbershop and recorded a graphic video of Clunie’s body, which was then uploaded to social media platforms. It spread on Facebook and X, leading users to find Clunie’s personal accounts, on which some commenters made light of his death. He would have turned 21 the Saturday following his killing.

Worrell called the video especially inappropriate and callous. But apathy in the face of violence, he said, isn’t hard to imagine in a community suffering food and housing insecurity, struggling schools, and a persistent lack of opportunity.

Clarke said she’s torn on how to move forward. Loud noises and being alone trigger anxiety, and she now sometimes locks the salon doors once clients are in for their appointments. She’s felt anger and isolation, she said.

Recovering from the trauma of witnessing gun violence is often more difficult for onlookers when they still live and work where the shootings happened.

“We want to address the mental health trauma from gun violence, but let’s not kid ourselves,” Webster said. “If we don’t actually address gun violence, we’re swimming against a really strong tide.”

Since she opened her salon almost six years ago, Clarke has been active in community efforts to make the neighborhood safer, attending civic association and neighborhood meetings and speaking with police and local politicians.

Clarke believes efforts to clean up nearby Melnea Cass Boulevard moved more drug users into Dorchester. Salvaged Roots is next to a commuter rail station, which Clarke said attracts transients who set up camps and leave behind trash and sometimes drug paraphernalia. Only a week before Clunie’s killing, there was a fatal shooting across the street from the salon.

In 2024, there were about 20 shootings in the police district that includes Four Corners, five of them fatal. Most of the victims were Black men, according to a KFF Health News analysis of Boston Police Department data.

Though gun violence overall is at a record low in Boston since 2023 and the city has invested more in investigative resources — including police detectives, management, and oversight — a disproportionate amount occurs in Boston’s historically Black communities.

Since Clarke opened Salvaged Roots, she feels Four Corners has gotten both better and worse. “If other businesses leave, then where do people that live in the community — where are the nice places that they get to go to?” she asked.

Residents of neighborhoods with frequent gun violence and crime can mistakenly be perceived as being desensitized, but “we can never accept the violence as normal,” Boston City Council President Ruthzee Louijeune said. She’s volunteered and worked in Four Corners and said tackling the violence takes a multipronged approach, including getting guns off the street and providing access to affordable housing, secure jobs, and good health care.

In communities of color, she said, intergenerational trauma from racism and poverty must also be addressed.

In Dorchester, Louijeune said, a high number of residents resort to visiting emergency rooms for mental health issues. The neighborhood needs more access to health care, she said, especially for young people. Across Boston, Black residents were nearly twice as likely to go to the ER for mental health care than white residents, according to the Boston Public Health Commission’s 2024 Mental Health Report.

Months later, attention and curiosity over the shooting had died down, but the trauma remained. Sowers-Hassell continues to work at Salvaged Roots, and though the city sent a trauma team to meet with the stylists after the shooting, she still has flashbacks. She said the influx of resources was helpful and that Four Corners has been a little quieter. But she’s skeptical the reprieve will last.

“Everybody talks a good game,” she said, “but when it’s time to get something done, what’s going to happen?”

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

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is already acting on his anti-vaccine views, ordering an end of research into why people become vaccine-hesitant and requesting new research on the long-debunked theory that vaccines can cause autism in children. Coincidentally, the Trump administration at the last minute pulled the nomination of former GOP congressman and vaccine skeptic Dave Weldon to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, perhaps signaling that Republicans in the Senate are growing uncomfortable with the issue.

Meanwhile, Congress continues to contemplate how to cut as much as $880 billion in spending — possibly from Medicaid — at a time when more beneficiaries of the government health program for those with low incomes and disabilities have become Republican voters.

 This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Shefali Luthra of The 19^th, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Trump administration’s last-minute decision to pull the nomination of Dave Weldon to head the CDC — shortly before his confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was set to begin Thursday morning — has fueled speculation that Weldon’s anti-vaccine views meant he didn’t have enough Senate support to win confirmation. Weldon, a physician and former Florida congressman, has advanced debunked theories about vaccines and autism.
• Senate Democrats threatened to vote against a continuing resolution, or CR, to fund the government through Sept. 30. The measure passed narrowly in the House, with just one Democrat, Jared Golden of Maine, voting for it. Senate Democrats oppose the stopgap spending bill on many fronts, including its proposed cuts to medical research and its lack of a “fix” to prevent payment cuts to doctors who accept Medicare patients. The Democrats propose a 30-day government funding bill to allow negotiations on a bipartisan measure. The House adjourned after passing the CR on Tuesday and is not scheduled to return to Washington until March 24.
• The Medicaid program may be garnering more support as Republicans continue to debate how to cut federal spending to finance a major tax cut package. The impact of Medicaid funding cuts on rural hospitals and on the Medicaid expansion population that gained coverage as part of the Affordable Care Act are two areas of discussion as House Republicans deliberate.
• Continued staffing reductions at federal agencies are stoking concerns about lower levels of service to constituents and worsening mental health in the federal workforce. If federal workers are dismissed for poor performance — a charge many federal employees have called false because they received positive job performance reviews — then they don’t receive severance and cannot collect unemployment. With 8 in 10 federal workers employed outside the Washington, D.C., area, the sweeping impacts of reductions in the federal workforce are being felt far beyond the Beltway.
• The Trump administration’s decision to cancel $250 million in National Institutes of Health grants to Columbia University is the latest in an ongoing campaign to cut federal research funding. The uncertainty in federal funding has caused several schools to freeze hiring and rescind some graduate student admissions, raising concerns that the Trump administration’s policies are disrupting scientific research. Recent moves from HHS to allow new rules and regulations without public comment and new restrictions from the National Cancer Institute on what topics require review before publication (vaccines, fluoride, and autism are now on the list) are raising concerns that politics is playing a larger role in federal health policy.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Jeff Grant, who recently retired from CMS after 41 years in government service.

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

Julie Rovner: NBC News’ “‘You Lose All Hope’: Federal Workers Gripped by Mental Health Distress Amid Trump Cuts,” by Natasha Korecki.

Shefali Luthra: The New York Times’ “15 Lessons Scientists Learned About Us When the World Stood Still,” by Claire Cain Miller and Irineo Cabreros.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Atlantic’s “His Daughter Was America’s First Measles Death in a Decade,” by Tom Bartlett.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “India Trade Group Blasts Study Linking Drugs to Safety Risks,” by Satviki Sanjay.

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

California’s Medicaid program has borrowed $3.4 billion from the state’s general fund — and will likely need even more — to cover ballooning health expenses for 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities.

The state Department of Finance disclosed the loan to lawmakers in a letter late Wednesday, noting funds were needed to make critical payments to health care providers in Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid. In recent months, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has warned of skyrocketing health care costs, including higher prescription drug prices and increased enrollment by newly eligible seniors and immigrants without legal status.

Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer said the loan will cover Medi-Cal obligations through the end of the month. He declined to specify the total of the program’s potential shortfall. However, a document circulated by state Senate leaders warns that additional funding may be needed to cover expenses through June 30, the end of the fiscal year.

The cost overrun adds a new layer of difficulty for Democrats who control the legislature and are already grappling with congressional budget plans that could slash Medicaid funding, which accounts for 60% of Medi-Cal’s $174.6 billion budget. President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers have also criticized California Democrats for covering residents regardless of their immigration status.

Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon downplayed the loan. “Rising Medicaid costs are a national challenge, affecting both red and blue states alike,” Gardon said. “This is not unique to California.”

Health officials last year said the state would spend roughly $6.4 billion in the 2024-25 fiscal year to cover immigrants without legal status, which the Democratic governor has hailed as a key step toward his goal of providing “universal coverage” for Californians. In recent testimony, however, finance staff told legislators that benefits to all income-eligible Californians are projected to cost roughly $9.5 billion, of which $8.4 billion will come from the general fund.

Republicans called for fresh scrutiny of the state’s decision to cover residents without legal status. “This program is out of control,” Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones posted on the social platform X. “We are demanding a full hearing and a full cost analysis so the public knows exactly where their tax dollars are going.”

Patient advocates objected to Republicans singling out the expansion for immigrants.

“Health care costs are influenced by many factors including prescription drugs, hospital costs, and more,” said Rachel Linn Gish, a spokesperson for Health Access California, a consumer health advocacy group.

According to a fall update from the Department of Health Care Services, Medi-Cal spending grew due to higher-than-expected enrollment of seniors, fewer Californians losing Medi-Cal coverage than anticipated, and increased pharmaceutical spending, as well as expanding coverage of immigrants. For instance, the state is spending $1.1 billion more on residents who were expected to lose coverage after the covid-19 pandemic, and an additional $2.7 billion more than anticipated to cover unauthorized residents.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said he’s committed to maintaining the state’s expansions of Medi-Cal services.

“There are tough choices ahead, and Assembly Democrats will closely examine any proposal from the Governor,” he said in a statement. “But let’s be clear: We will not roll over and leave our immigrants behind.”

Senate leaders said they were looking closely at the state’s estimated costs and caseloads and would recommend cost containment measures as part of their budget proposal in the coming weeks.

Scott Graves, budget director at the California Budget & Policy Center, said it’s not unusual for the state government to make adjustments when spending doesn’t line up with projections.

Last year, for instance, the state borrowed $1.75 billion against its general fund when revenues from a state provider tax were delayed. Prior to that, Department of Finance officials said, California took out a similar loan in 2018 for $830 million.

“The reality is all of these are just estimates, especially with a very complicated program like Medi-Cal,” Graves said, noting that $3.4 billion is roughly 2% of the state’s overall Medi-Cal budget. “It seems like we’re on the verge of making a mountain out of a molehill.”

Mike Genest, who served as finance director under Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, agreed that adjustments can be routine. But he said the magnitude of Medi-Cal’s current overrun was not.

“For this to happen in the middle of the year — we’re only in March — I mean, that’s pretty astounding,” Genest said.

California Democrats continue to characterize Trump and congressional Republicans as the biggest threat, pointing to the House budget plan to shrink Medicaid spending by as much as $880 billion. They say cuts of that magnitude would leave millions of residents uninsured, reducing access to preventive care and driving up costlier emergency room services.

They cautioned that some short-term cost increases could be driven by newly eligible residents seeking long-delayed care, which could level off in coming years. However, some acknowledge difficult decisions ahead.

“We definitely have to ensure that those who are our most vulnerable — our kids, those with chronic conditions — continue to have some sort of coverage,” said Democratic Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson, a San Diego County physician. “The question is, what will that look like? To be quite honest with you, at this point, I don’t know.”

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

The prospect of deep Medicaid cuts has become a flashpoint in Congress, with leaders of both parties accusing their counterparts of lying.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said Feb. 27 that a Republican budget measure would “set in motion the largest cut to Medicaid in American history,” and that Republicans are hiding the consequences.

“The Republicans are lying to the American people about Medicaid,” Jeffries said. “I can’t say it any other way. Republicans are lying. Prove me wrong.”

Republicans said Democrats were distorting the Republican budget. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) said, “The word ‘Medicaid’ is not even in this bill.” House Speaker Mike Johnson said on CNN that Republicans don’t want to cut Medicaid, “and the Democrats have been lying about it.”

Republicans are looking for massive budget savings to meet their goal of fully extending President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. This is a separate process from Congress’ need to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government running by March 14 or face a federal government shutdown.

Here’s what we know so far about potential Medicaid cuts.

The House GOP Budget Plan Seeks $880 Billion in Cuts

Medicaid serves about 1 in 5 Americans. The health care program for low-income people is paid for by the federal government and partly by states. Louisiana, home to Johnson and Scalise, has one of the highest state proportions of Medicaid enrollees.

The House Republican budget plan adopted Feb. 25 opens the door to slashing Medicaid, even though it doesn’t name the program. The plan directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find ways to cut the deficit by at least $880 billion over the next decade.

The committee has jurisdiction over Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, in addition to much smaller programs. CHIP offers low-cost health coverage to children in families that earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

Republicans ruled out cuts to Medicare, the health insurance program for seniors that leaders cut at their political peril. Medicare is about 15% of the federal budget, and Medicaid is about 8.6%.

When Medicare is set aside, Medicaid accounts for 93% of the funding under the committee’s jurisdiction, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found in a March 5 analysis. That means it is impossible for the committee to find enough cuts that don’t affect Medicaid.

“It’s a fantasy to imply that federal Medicaid assistance won’t be cut very deeply,” said Allison Orris, an expert on Medicaid policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.

After Medicaid, the next-largest program under the committee’s jurisdiction is CHIP. Lawmakers don’t appear to be planning to wipe out CHIP, but even if they did, they would be only a “fraction of the way there,” said Joan Alker, an expert on Medicaid and CHIP at Georgetown University.

If Medicare cuts are off the table, the only way to achieve $880 billion in savings is through big Medicaid cuts, said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, the health policy research, polling, and news organization that includes KFF Health News, the publisher of California Healthline.

Andy Schneider, a professor at Georgetown University who served in the Obama administration as a senior adviser at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said even if the committee eliminated all those “other” programs entirely it could achieve only $381 billion in savings — about 43% of the target.

“In short, if they don’t want to cut Medicaid [or CHIP], and they don’t want to cut Medicare, the goal of cutting $880 billion is impossible,” Schneider said.

The $880 billion cut is not a done deal. House Republicans were able to pass their budget package, but Senate Republicans are taking a different approach, without proposing such significant cuts.

Any finalized budget blueprint would need Senate Republicans’ buy-in. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is among Republicans who have spoken against potential cuts; he told HuffPost, “I would not do severe cuts to Medicaid.”

The numbers are starting points that may lead to negotiation among at least Republicans, said Joseph Antos, a health care expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “We are a long way from final legislation, so it’s not possible to predict how much any program will be cut,” he said.

“If the bill also includes extending the [Trump 2017] tax cuts, we are probably months away from seeing real language,” Antos said.

Once the House and Senate have reached an agreement on language and the resolution passes both chambers, the committees will work on detailed cuts. To enact such cuts, both chambers would need to approve a separate bill and receive Trump’s signature.

Why Eliminating Fraud Doesn’t Solve the Problem

Republican leaders have deflected concerns about Medicaid cuts by talking about a different target: Medicaid fraud.

“I’m not going to touch Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Now, we’re going to get fraud out of there,” Trump told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on March 9, in keeping with his campaign rhetoric that he would protect those programs.

At the same time, Trump on his Truth Social platform praised the House resolution that would make cuts highly likely: “The House Resolution implements my FULL America First Agenda, EVERYTHING, not just parts of it!”

Would eliminating fraud solve the Medicaid problem? No.

On CNN, Johnson said cutting fraud, waste, and abuse would result in “part of the savings to accomplish this mission.” He said the government loses $50 billion a year in Medicaid payments “just in fraud alone.”

Johnson conflated “fraud” with “improper payments.” The Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm that examines the use of public funds, found about $50 billion in improper payments in Medicaid and the same amount in Medicare in fiscal 2023.

Those improper payments were made in an incorrect amount (overpayment or underpayment), should not have been made at all, or had missing or insufficient documentation. But that doesn’t mean that there was $50 billion in Medicaid fraud, which would involve obtaining something through willful misrepresentation.

The system used to identify improper payments is not designed to measure fraud, so we don’t know what percentage of improper payments were losses due to fraud, said Schneider, the former Obama administration health adviser.

Plus, it’s a drop in the overall bucket of the potential $880 billion in cuts.

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

President Donald Trump’s health officials want you to take your vitamins.

Mehmet Oz, the nominee to lead the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has fed calves on camera to tout the health wonders of bovine colostrum on behalf of one purveyor in which he has a financial stake. Janette Nesheiwat, the potential surgeon general, sells her own line of supplements.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services, said he takes more vitamins than he can count — and has suggested he’ll ease restrictions on vitamins, muscle-building peptides, and more.

Their affection for supplements might lead to tangible consequences for Americans’ health regimens. Late in the 2024 campaign, Kennedy claimed the federal government was waging a “war on public health” by suppressing a vast array of alternative therapies — many of them supplements, like nutraceuticals and peptides.

In February, Trump announced the “President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission” with Kennedy at the helm, calling for “fresh thinking” on nutrition, “healthy lifestyles,” and other pathways toward combating chronic disease. Spokespeople for Kennedy did not reply to multiple requests for comment.

Supplements can be beneficial, particularly in aiding fetal development or warding off anemia, said Pieter Cohen, a general internist at the Cambridge Health Alliance, who researches supplements. “I recommend supplements routinely,” he said.

Still, “the majority of use is not necessary to improve or maintain health,” and due to only light regulations, supplement makers may make claims about their benefits without sufficient evidence, Cohen said. “No supplement needs to get tested or vetted by the FDA before it’s sold.”

Consumer watchdogs, regulators, and researchers have reported cases of finding traces of lead and other toxins in supplements. And a 2015 analysis from a team of federal health researchers attributed about 23,000 emergency department visits annually to supplement use. (The Council for Responsible Nutrition, the industry’s lobbying group, challenged the findings, arguing some visits were due to over-the-counter and homeopathic medicines that should not have been included.)

Nevertheless, many Americans are ready to buy in. Internet forums populated by biohackers, weight lifters, and enthusiasts of alternative medicine, along with supplement producers, applauded Kennedy’s elevation to health secretary. Many express hopes that he’ll loosen what they perceive as unwarranted restrictions on these products.

The Natural Products Association saluted Trump’s health nominees as a victory for “health freedom.”

“For the first time in our industry’s history, the top healthcare political appointees think it is important that Americans have the right to use nutritional supplements,” wrote Kyle Turk, the association’s vice president for government affairs.

The worlds of supplement users and the Trump team overlap substantially when it comes to being skeptical of the traditional health system.

Supplement use is part of “a broadening sort of health populist movement,” said Callum Hood, the head of research at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit that researches online disinformation, pointing to influencers who criticize conventional public health measures and offer alternatives like supplements, powders, or peptides.

To many supplement enthusiasts, Kennedy’s views align with theirs — particularly his dislike for Big Pharma and Big Food, which he characterizes as corrupt, profiting from Americans’ ill health.

Kennedy promotes supplements as a key part of good health. In a prerecorded interview aired this month, amid a growing measles outbreak that started in West Texas, he said doctors had had “very, very good results” by treating those patients with cod liver oil, which can be delivered in pill form, along with a steroid and an antibiotic. (Separately, he wrote in a Fox News op-ed that parents should discuss the vaccine with their doctors, adding, “The decision to vaccinate is a personal one.”)

“What we’re trying to do is really to restore faith in government and to make sure that we are there to help them with their needs and not particularly to dictate what they ought to be doing,” Kennedy said in a Fox News interview.

Kennedy spoke of federal officials delivering vitamin A to affected communities — a treatment he pushed in past remarks as chairman of the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense.

“What is the cure for measles?” he told an audience in 2021 at an Amish country fair in Pennsylvania. “Chicken soup and vitamin A. And neither of those things can be patented.”

The World Health Organization advises people who contract measles to take vitamin A, which can prevent blindness and death — but it also strongly urges all children be vaccinated against the disease.

While the image of natural wellness has long evoked organic supermarket-patronizing, liberal types, supplement use is bipartisan — and now slightly more popular with Republicans. A December poll from Ipsos and Axios found that 63% of Republicans take supplements daily or most days, versus 58% of independents and 52% of Democrats.

Supplement companies sometimes explicitly court right-wing customers. In the days before Trump’s inauguration, the brand Nugenix posted an ad on the social platform X for its testosterone supplement with the president’s trademark red hat perched on the bottle, bearing the slogan “Make Your T-Levels Great Again.” (Adaptive Health, Nugenix’s parent company, did not respond to requests for comment.)

Some industry observers think the shift rightward happened during the pandemic. “During the covid era, Democrats became the party of science and establishment,” said John Roulac, a California-based supplements entrepreneur. In his telling, the party and especially its elected officials were more likely to trust the FDA and other big institutions — and to discount any potential contribution to health from supplements.

“Under RFK, you have people associated less with pharmaceutical drugs and more with healthier lifestyle choices, whether that’s eating organic food or using herbs or taking vitamins,” Roulac said.

Kennedy and others in Trump’s orbit have found a particularly warm reception among some of the biggest supplement evangelists: influencers, who often promote personal responsibility, in the form of vitamins and other products, as the key to health — and have provided plenty of airtime in recent years for Trump’s newly minted health officials.

On popular podcast host Lex Fridman’s show in 2023, Kennedy accepted praise for being in “great shape” and attributed it, in part, to his vitamin regimen. “I take a lot of vitamins,” he said. “I can’t even list them to you here because I couldn’t even remember them at all.”

In November, Oz endorsed Kennedy’s nomination on his TikTok channel — and then, in his next post, told viewers they need “an alphabet soup” of vitamins to protect their brains and power their organs.

Oz, who at the time had not yet been named to lead CMS, pointed viewers to a “trusted source” of vitamins: iHerb.

Federal ethics rules generally bar public officials from using their office for financial gain. Last month, in a letter to the health agency’s ethics official, Oz disclosed that he is an adviser to iHerb and holds a financial stake in the company. He wrote that, if he is confirmed, he plans to resign and divest from iHerb, as well as recuse himself from policy matters directly involving the company “until I have divested.”

Oz’s Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled for March 14. A spokesperson for Oz did not reply to multiple requests for comment.

Nesheiwat, Trump’s pick for surgeon general, has touted BC Boost, a combination of vitamins promising to toughen one’s immune system and rev energy. The supplement — which advertising claims was formulated by Nesheiwat herself — bears her name and portrait on the package.

“After years of educating my patients, now I made it a little easier to get all the nutrition you need to live strong and stay healthy,” reads a marketing quote attributed to Nesheiwat.

The surgeon general, considered “the nation’s doctor,” does not set policy but rather acts as a spokesperson for public health. During the Biden administration, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy outlined the ills from alcohol, loneliness, and social media.

Nesheiwat, whose financial disclosures are not yet public, did not reply to an inquiry to her website, nor did an HHS spokesperson reply to a request for comment.

It’s unclear what moves the administration might take to boost supplements. Industry officials say they hope the government will make it easier for everyday consumers to use health savings accounts to buy vitamins and other products. The FDA could also decide to allow manufacturers to make more aggressive claims about their wares’ health benefits.

Contrary to Kennedy’s claim of a “war on public health,” in recent years the supplements industry has seen its fortunes grow, and attempts to increase regulations have fallen short amid pressure from supplement makers.

According to the Nutrition Business Journal, revenues for the supplement industry surged during the pandemic, as customers became “more invested in their health,” said Journal analyst Erika Craft. Revenues have continued to increase since then, outpacing earlier industry expectations and boosting product sales to some $70 billion per year, she told KFF Health News.

One FDA attempt to put more stringent regulations — like registration — on businesses, during the 1990s, was defeated soundly after the industry and its clients lobbied Congress.

“It was one of the largest campaigns to Congress imaginable,” David Kessler, the FDA commissioner at the time, said in an oral history.

Grace Sparks, a survey analyst at KFF, the health policy research, polling, and news organization that includes KFF Health News, the publisher of California Healthline, provided research assistance for the Ipsos-Axios poll.

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 patients walked into Planned Parenthood clinics, a consumer data company sold their precise locations to anti-abortion groups for targeted ads.

When patients picked up prescriptions for testosterone replacement therapy, law enforcement retrieved their names and addresses without a warrant.

And when a father was arrested by immigration authorities, agents allegedly accessed his personal information from a medical clinic where he received diabetes treatment.

Progressive California lawmakers have proposed a number of bills aimed at bolstering privacy protections for women, transgender people, and immigrants in response to such intrusions by anti-abortion groups, conservative states, and federal law enforcement agencies as President Donald Trump declares the nation “will be woke no longer” and flexes his executive power to roll back rights.

Democrats have supermajorities in the state legislature, but even if they pass the proposals, they may first need to lobby one of their own: Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has noticeably tempered his once harsh criticism of Trump.

Last month, the Democratic governor issued a rare veto threat against a bill that would expand the state’s sanctuary law to limit cooperation between state prisons and federal immigration agents. And Newsom recently called transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair” on his new podcast with guest Charlie Kirk, a founder of the conservative group Turning Point USA. Newsom went on to tell Kirk that he had a “hard time with” the way the right talks about transgender people.

Billions of dollars are also on the line for California. Newsom visited the White House last month seeking unconditional aid for wildfire victims in Los Angeles, and the state relies on Washington for over 60% of its Medicaid budget, which is vulnerable to significant cuts under the GOP’s budget blueprint.

“California’s leaders have not been as aggressive, out of recognition that there are many things that the state needs federal cooperation on,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at the University of California-San Diego.

A Newsom spokesperson declined to comment on pending legislation. He has a track record of supporting abortion, transgender, and immigrant rights.

Since taking office, Trump has granted the Elon Musk-controlled Department of Government Efficiency — created through a Trump executive order — access to previously restricted data, including medical information, raising concerns that sensitive information could be exposed without proper safeguards. 

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

While most Americans are familiar with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA, it offers only narrow protection for patients in health care settings. There’s no comprehensive federal law protecting data privacy.

Health care information has increasingly become a tool of surveillance and enforcement, and in states that have banned certain medical treatments or toughened immigration laws, vulnerable populations are at greater risk, said Suzanne Bernstein, a health privacy rights expert with the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Progressive Democrats are concerned that personal information and people’s medical decisions could be used to monitor or criminalize patients, facilitate arrests in or near health care facilities, or jeopardize access to health care services.

They and health privacy advocates say now is the time to shore up protections for the nearly 2 million immigrants living in California without authorization, the more than 200,000 transgender adults in the state, and thousands of people — living in the state or out of state — in need of abortion care in California each year. Some of these laws could take effect immediately if signed.

“This is about making sure that people are able to access critical health care in California and to take the politics out of our hospitals and health clinics,” said state Sen. Jesse Arreguín, who hopes the governor would sign his bill to protect immigrants.

The bills are expected to be debated in Sacramento in the coming months.

Since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, anti-abortion groups have purchased location information from consumer data companies to target people seeking abortion care with anti-abortion ads. And authorities in states with abortion bans have used cellphone data to enforce laws beyond their borders.

A bill introduced by state Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, AB 45, would make geofencing, the collection of phone location by data brokers, illegal around health care facilities that provide in-person services. It would also prevent reproductive health information collected during research from being disclosed in response to out-of-state requests.

Conservative organizations said the proposal would single them out by restricting their ability to inform women about alternatives to abortion, including services offered by crisis pregnancy centers.

“I think that could very well be a First Amendment violation,” said Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council, a statewide anti-abortion nonprofit. “It doesn’t seem like the bill would be prohibiting or putting any restrictions on a group like Planned Parenthood if they wanted to market or target to a local high school or college.”

So far this year, lawmakers in 49 states have introduced more than 700 anti-transgender bills, seeking to ban gender-affirming care, prohibit gender identity education in schools, or restrict transgender students from participating in sports, according to the Trans Legislation Tracker, a national research organization tracking bills affecting transgender people. Transgender adults represent less than 1% of the U.S. population.

And some states with bans or restrictions on gender-affirming care have been targeting health care data. In 2023, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis requested that Florida universities release data on the number of individuals who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria or received treatment at campus clinics. That same year, Missouri’s Republican attorney general, Andrew Bailey, submitted 54 requests to one hospital seeking information about gender-affirming care procedures.

Trump has issued a series of executive orders to ban access to gender-affirming care for minors. Federal judges have temporarily blocked some portions of his orders.

To guard against other states that criminalize or ban gender-affirming care, California state Sen. Scott Wiener wants to expand current protections for minors to include adults.

His bill, SB 497, would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant to access state databases on gender-affirming care and make it a misdemeanor to release the data to unauthorized parties. It would also prohibit health care providers, employers, and insurers from releasing information about a person who seeks or obtains gender-affirming physical and mental health care to an agency or individual from another state.

“We want to make sure that we are as comprehensively as possible shielding trans people from hate emanating from the federal government, other states, and private parties,” Wiener said.

Keller countered that authorities in states with bans on abortion or gender-affirming care should have access to medical information as they investigate providers who could harm patients or coerce them into procedures against their will. He cited a lawsuit against Kaiser Permanente over a teenager who detransitioned after undergoing gender-affirming care. A 2015 survey found it was uncommon for people undergoing gender-affirming care to decide to permanently detransition.

“The only way that you’re able to uncover that level of widespread malpractice and malfeasance is if these health care records are able to be accessed,” Keller said.

The California Family Council plans to oppose both bills.

Earlier this year, Trump rescinded a long-standing policy of not making immigration arrests near hospitals, schools, or churches. The decision has providers fearful that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will disrupt their work at health facilities and prompt immigrants to skip medical care — for themselves or, of particular concern, their children.

Anticipating the move, California’s Democratic attorney general, Rob Bonta, issued guidance in December advising health care providers how best to respond if ICE comes to their doorstep. But while private entities are encouraged to follow these policies, only state-run facilities are required to adopt them.

“Some health care providers have implemented them, but not everyone has,” Arreguín said.

Arreguín’s SB 81 would require all health care facilities, including hospitals and community-based clinics, to follow state guidance to limit cooperation with immigration authorities. It would also prohibit providers from granting access to private areas or places where a patient is actively receiving treatment or care, unless there’s a warrant.

Another immigration bill, AB 421, would limit the sharing of local law enforcement information if agents plan to make an arrest within a one-mile radius of a hospital or medical office, a child care or day care facility, a religious institution, or a place of worship. California law enforcement has some discretion to share information with immigration agents when an individual has been convicted of a serious crime or felony.

Kousser said immigration is more complicated for California politicians than health privacy. Although a February poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 7 in 10 Californians think immigrants are a benefit to the state, Kousser said that lawmakers, especially those who won by narrow margins in contested districts, still have to make tough political choices.

Senate Republican leader Brian Jones, who represents a predominantly Democratic district in San Diego, is proposing to change California’s sanctuary policies to require law enforcement to share information with ICE when a person has been convicted of a serious crime.

“When these violent felons are released from local custody, they go right back into the communities that they came from to re-victimize those same immigrant communities,” Jones said.

But Jones acknowledged the need for nuance when it comes to health privacy.

“Look, the bottom line for me on this immigration reform in America is it needs to be humanitarian and it needs to make sense,” Jones said. “And so, if there are areas that we need to protect folks, it might make sense.”

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

After a patch of ice sent Marc Durocher hurtling to the ground, and doctors at UMass Memorial Medical Center repaired the broken hip that resulted, the 75-year-old electrician found himself at a crossroads.

He didn’t need to be in the hospital any longer. But he was still in pain, unsteady on his feet, unready for independence.

Patients nationwide often stall at this intersection, stuck in the hospital for days or weeks because nursing homes and physical rehabilitation facilities are full. Yet when Durocher was ready for discharge in late January, a clinician came by with a surprising path forward: Want to go home?

Specifically, he was invited to join a research study at UMass Chan Medical School in Worcester, Massachusetts, testing the concept of “SNF at home” or “subacute at home,” in which services typically provided at a skilled nursing facility are instead offered in the home, with visits from caregivers and remote monitoring technology.

Durocher hesitated, worried he might not get the care he needed, but he and his wife, Jeanne, ultimately decided to try it. What could be better than recovering at his home in Auburn with his dog, Buddy?

Such rehab at home is underway in various parts of the country — including New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — as a solution to a shortage of nursing home and rehab beds for patients too sick to go home but not sick enough to need hospitalization.

Staffing shortages at post-acute facilities around the country led to a 24% increase over three years in hospital length of stay among patients who need skilled nursing care, according to a 2022 analysis. With no place to go, these patients occupy expensive hospital beds they don’t need, while others wait in emergency rooms for those spots. In Massachusetts, for example, at least 1,995 patients were awaiting hospital discharge in December, according to a survey of hospitals by the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association.

Offering intensive services and remote monitoring technology in the home can work as an alternative — especially in rural areas, where nursing homes are closing at a faster rate than in cities and patients’ relatives often must travel far to visit. For patients of the Marshfield Clinic Health System who live in rural parts of Wisconsin, the clinic’s six-year-old SNF-at-home program is often the only option, said Swetha Gudibanda, medical director of the hospital-at-home program.

“This is going to be the future of medicine,” Gudibanda said.

But the concept is new, an outgrowth of hospital-at-home services expanded by a covid-19 pandemic-inspired Medicare waiver. SNF-at-home care remains uncommon, lost in a fiscal and regulatory netherworld. No federal standards spell out how to run these programs, which patients should qualify, or what services to offer. No reimbursement mechanism exists, so fee-for-service Medicare and most insurance companies don’t cover such care at home.

The programs have emerged only at a few hospital systems with their own insurance companies (like the Marshfield Clinic) or those that arrange for “bundled payments,” in which providers receive a set fee to manage an episode of care, as can occur with Medicare Advantage plans.

In Durocher’s case, the care was available — at no cost to him or other patients — only through the clinical trial, funded by a grant from the state Medicaid program. State health officials supported two simultaneous studies at UMass and Mass General Brigham hoping to reduce costs, improve quality of care, and, crucially, make it easier to transition patients out of the hospital.

The American Health Care Association, the trade group of for-profit nursing homes, calls “SNF at home” a misnomer because, by law, such services must be provided in an institution and meet detailed requirements. And the association points out that skilled nursing facilities provide services and socialization that can never be replicated at home, such as daily activity programs, religious services, and access to social workers.

But patients at home tend to get up and move around more than those in a facility, speeding their recovery, said Wendy Mitchell, medical director of the UMass Chan clinical trial. Also, therapy is tailored to their home environment, teaching patients to navigate the exact stairs and bathrooms they’ll eventually use on their own.

A quarter of people who go into nursing homes suffer an “adverse event,” such as infection or bed sore, said David Levine, clinical director for research for Mass General Brigham’s Healthcare at Home program and leader of its study. “We cause a lot of harm in facility-based care,” he said.

By contrast, in 2024, not one patient in the Rehabilitation Care at Home program of Nashville-based Contessa Health developed a bed sore and only 0.3% came down with an infection while at home, according to internal company data. Contessa delivers care in the home through partnerships with five health systems, including Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, the Allegheny Health Network in Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin’s Marshfield Clinic.

Contessa’s program, which has been providing in-home post-hospital rehabilitation since 2019, depends on help from unpaid family caregivers. “Almost universally, our patients have somebody living with them,” said Robert Moskowitz, Contessa’s acting president and chief medical officer.

The two Massachusetts-based studies, however, do enroll patients who live alone. In the UMass trial, an overnight home health aide can stay for a day or two if needed. And while alone, patients “have a single-button access to a live person from our command center,” said Apurv Soni, an assistant professor of medicine at UMass Chan and the leader of its study.

But SNF at home is not without hazards, and choosing the right patients to enroll is critical. The UMass research team learned an important lesson when a patient with mild dementia became alarmed by unfamiliar caregivers coming to her home. She was readmitted to the hospital, according to Mitchell.

The Mass General Brigham study relies heavily on technology intended to reduce the need for highly skilled staff. A nurse and physician each conducts an in-home visit, but the patient is otherwise monitored remotely. Medical assistants visit the home to gather data with a portable ultrasound, portable X-ray, and a device that can analyze blood tests on-site. A machine the size of a toaster oven dispenses medication, with a robotic arm that drops the pills into a dispensing unit.

The UMass trial, the one Durocher enrolled in, instead chose a “light touch” with technology, using only a few devices, Soni said.

The day Durocher went home, he said, a nurse met him there and showed him how to use a wireless blood pressure cuff, wireless pulse oximeter, and digital tablet that would transmit his vital signs twice a day. Over the next few days, he said, nurses came by to take blood samples and check on him. Physical and occupational therapists provided several hours of treatment every day, and a home health aide came a few hours a day. To his delight, the program even sent three meals a day.

Durocher learned to use the walker and how to get up the stairs to his bedroom with one crutch and support from his wife. After just one week, he transitioned to less-frequent, in-home physical therapy, covered by his insurance.

“The recovery is amazing because you’re in your own setting,” Durocher said. “To be relegated to a chair and a walker, and at first somebody helping you get up, or into bed, showering you — it’s very humbling. But it’s comfortable. It’s home, right?”

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

Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a professor at the University of California-San Francisco medical school, has spent well over a decade researching the disquieting risk that one of modern medicine’s most valuable tools, computerized tomography scans, can sometimes cause cancer.

Smith-Bindman and like-minded colleagues have long pushed for federal policies aimed at improving safety for patients undergoing CT scans. Under new Medicare regulations effective this year, hospitals and imaging centers must start collecting and sharing more information about the radiation their scanners emit.

About 93 million CT scans are performed every year in the United States, according to IMV, a medical market research company that tracks imaging. More than half of those scans are for people 60 and older. Yet there is scant regulation of radiation levels as the machines scan organs and structures inside bodies. Dosages are erratic, varying widely from one clinic to another, and are too often unnecessarily high, Smith-Bindman and other critics say.

“It’s unfathomable,” Smith-Bindman said. “We keep doing more and more CTs, and the doses keep going up.”

One CT scan can expose a patient to 10 or 15 times as much radiation as another, Smith-Bindman said. “There is very large variation,” she said, “and the doses vary by an order of magnitude — tenfold, not 10% different — for patients seen for the same clinical problem.” In outlier institutions, the variation is even higher, according to research she and a team of international collaborators have published.

She and other researchers estimated in 2009 that high doses could be responsible for 2% of cancers. Ongoing research shows it’s probably higher, since far more scans are performed today.

The cancer risk from CT scans for any individual patient is very low, although it rises for patients who have numerous scans throughout their lives. Radiologists don’t want to scare off patients who can benefit from imaging, which plays a crucial role in identifying life-threatening conditions like cancers and aneurysms and guides doctors through complicated procedures.

But the new data collection rules from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued in the closing months of the Biden administration are aimed at making imaging safer. They also require a more careful assessment of the dosing, quality, and necessity of CT scans.

The requirements, rolled out in January, are being phased in over about three years for hospitals, outpatient settings, and physicians. Under the complicated reporting system, not every radiologist or health care setting is required to comply immediately. Providers could face financial penalties under Medicare if they don’t comply, though those will be phased in, too, starting in 2027.

When the Biden administration issued the new guidelines, a CMS spokesperson said in an email that excessive and unnecessary radiation exposure was a health risk that could be addressed through measurement and feedback to hospitals and physicians. The agency at the time declined to make an official available for an interview. The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

The Leapfrog Group, an organization that tracks hospital safety, welcomed the new rules. “Radiation exposure is a very serious patient safety issue, so we commend CMS for focusing on CT scans,” said Leah Binder, the group’s president and CEO. Leapfrog has set standards for pediatric exposure to imaging radiation, “and we find significant variation among hospitals,” Binder added.

CMS contracted with UCSF in 2019 to research solutions aimed at encouraging better measurement and assessment of CTs, leading to the development of the agency’s new approach.

The American College of Radiology and three other associations involved in medical imaging, however, objected to the draft CMS rules when they were under review, arguing in written comments in 2023 that they were excessively cumbersome, would burden providers, and could add to the cost of scans. The group was also concerned, at that time, that health providers would have to use a single, proprietary tech tool for gathering the dosing and any related scan data.

The single company in question, Alara Imaging, supplies free software that radiologists and radiology programs need to comply with the new regulations. The promise to keep it free is included in the company’s copyright. Smith-Bindman is a co-founder of Alara Imaging, and UCSF also has a stake in the company, which is developing other health tech products unrelated to the CMS imaging rule that it does plan to commercialize.

But the landscape has recently changed. ACR said in a statement from Judy Burleson, ACR vice president for quality management programs, that CMS is allowing in other vendors — and that ACR itself is “in discussion with Alara” on the data collection and submission. In addition, a company called Medisolv, which works on health care quality, said at least one client is working with another vendor, Imalogix, on the CT dose data.

Several dozen health quality and safety organizations — including some national leaders in patient safety, like the Institute of Healthcare Improvement — have supported CMS’ efforts.

Concerns about CT dosing are long-standing. A landmark study published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2009 by a research team that included experts from the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and universities estimated that CT scans were responsible for 29,000 excess cancer cases a year in the United States, about 2% of all cases diagnosed annually.

But the number of CT scans kept climbing. By 2016, it was estimated at 74 million, up 20% in a decade, though radiologists say dosages of radiation per scan have declined. Some researchers have noted that U.S. doctors order far more imaging than physicians in other developed countries, arguing some of it is wasteful and dangerous.

More recent studies, some looking at pediatric patients and some drawing on radiation exposure data from survivors of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, have also identified CT scan risk.

Older people may face greater cancer risks because of imaging they had earlier in life. And scientists have emphasized the need to be particularly careful with children, who may be more vulnerable to radiation exposure while young and face the consequences of cumulative exposure as they age.

Max Wintermark, a neuroradiologist at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who has been involved in the field’s work on appropriate utilization of imaging, said doctors generally follow dosing protocols for CT scans. In addition, the technology is improving; he expects artificial intelligence to soon help doctors determine optimal imaging use and dosing, delivering “the minimum amount of radiation dose to get us to the diagnosis that we’re trying to reach.”

But he said he welcomes the new CMS regulations.

“I think the measures will help accelerate the transition towards always lower and lower doses,” he said. “They are helpful.”

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