Category: Rehab News

BOULDER, Colorado — Los organismos reguladores de Colorado están emitiendo licencias que permiten suministrar hongos psicodélicos con fines terapéuticos. A fines de la primavera o principios del verano es posible que ya estén autorizados los primeros “centros de sanación” estatales, donde se podrán consumir los hongos bajo supervisión.

Esto ocurre casi dos años después de que Oregon autorizara el uso de estos hongos también bajo regulación del estado.

Los hongos son una droga de la Lista I y según las leyes federales son ilegales excepto para la investigación clínica. Sin embargo, en los últimos cinco años, más de una docena de ciudades en todo el país los han despenalizado o ya no priorizan enfrentar su uso. Y muchos observadores están atentos a los programas estatales regulados de Oregon y Colorado. 

“En Oregon y Colorado vamos a aprender mucho sobre la administración de psicodélicos fuera de entornos clínicos, religiosos y clandestinos, porque son los primeros en probar esto en Estados Unidos”, dijo William R. Smith, profesor asistente de psiquiatría en la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad de Carolina del Norte. 

Los hongos psicodélicos y su compuesto psicoactivo, la psilocibina, tienen el potencial de tratar a personas con depresión y ansiedad, incluso a aquellas que no responden a otros medicamentos o terapias.

El Instituto Nacional sobre el Abuso de Drogas, que forma parte de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud (NIH), indica que el riesgo de que se presenten problemas de salud mental derivados del consumo de hongos en un entorno clínico supervisado es bajo, pero que puede ser más significativo fuera de ese contexto.

En una publicación en redes sociales el año pasado, antes de su nominación como secretario de Salud de Estados Unidos, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. comentó que tenía “la mente abierta a la idea de los tratamientos con psicodélicos”. 

Los médicos expertos consideran que se necesita más investigación, especialmente en personas con diagnóstico o antecedentes familiares de trastorno psicótico o bipolar. Los efectos adversos de la psilocibina, como dolor de cabeza y náuseas, suelen resolverse en uno o dos días.

Sin embargo, hay efectos persistentes derivados del uso de psicodélicos que pueden durar semanas, meses o incluso años. Los síntomas más comunes incluyen ansiedad y miedo, crisis existencial, desconexión social, y sensación de desapego de uno mismo y del entorno.

Tras la despenalización y legalización en Oregon y Colorado, los casos informados de consumo de hongos psicodélicos reportados a los centros de control de intoxicaciones aumentaron tanto en estos estados como a nivel nacional. 

En febrero, unas 40 personas se reunieron en Boulder, en un encuentro organizado por Nowak Society, un grupo de defensa de los psicodélicos, para hablar sobre los próximos cambios en Colorado.

Entre ellas estaban Mandy Grace, quien recibió su licencia estatal para administrar hongos psicodélicos, y Amanda Clark, consejera de salud mental con licencia en Denver, ambas defensoras del poder terapéutico de los hongos. 

“Ver que las terapias actuales no son suficientes para las personas, te desanima en tu práctica profesional”, explicó Clark. 

En 2022, los votantes de Colorado aprobaron la Propuesta 122 para legalizar los psicodélicos naturales, después que los votantes de Oregon aprobaran, en 2020, la legalización de la psilocibina para uso terapéutico.

El programa de Colorado se basa en el de Oregon, aunque no es idéntico. En Oregon, hasta marzo, se habían vendido 21.246 productos de psilocibina, un total que podría incluir dosis de seguimiento administradas a un mismo paciente, según la Oregon Health Authority.

Hasta mediados de marzo, Colorado había recibido por lo menos 15 solicitudes de licencias de centros de sanación, nueve para cultivo, cuatro para manufactura y una licencia de instalación para análisis del cultivo y preparación de los hongos bajo normas desarrolladas durante dos años por la Junta Asesora de Medicina Natural, designada por el gobernador. 

En Oregon, los tratamientos psicodélicos son costosos y es probable que en Colorado también lo sean, advirtió Tasia Poinsatte, directora en Colorado del Healing Advocacy Fund, una organización sin fines de lucro que apoya los programas estatales de terapia psicodélica. En ese estado, las sesiones con hongos psicodélicos suelen costar entre $1.000 y $3.000, no están cubiertas por las aseguradoras, y deben pagarse por adelantado. 

Los hongos en sí no son costosos, explicó Poinsatte, pero el tiempo del facilitador y los servicios de apoyo sí lo son, además de las tarifas estatales.

En Colorado, para dosis superiores a los 2 miligramos, los facilitadores deberán evaluar a los participantes al menos 24 horas antes. Además, supervisan la sesión, que dura varias horas, en las que los participantes consumen y experimentan con los hongos. Finalmente, realizan una reunión posterior para analizar la experiencia. 

Los facilitadores, que pueden no tener experiencia en emergencias de salud mental, necesitan adquirir formación en detección, consentimiento informado y seguimiento posterior a la sesión, dijo Smith. “Debido a que estos modelos son nuevos, necesitamos recopilar datos de Colorado y Oregon para garantizar la seguridad”, agregó.

En Colorado, los facilitadores generalmente pagan una tarifa de capacitación de $420, que les permite cumplir con las horas de consulta necesarias, y alrededor de $900 anuales por la licencia. Los centros de sanación pagan entre $3.000 y $6.000 para obtener las primeras licencias.

El costo inicial para los facilitadores es significativo: las 150 horas requeridas en un programa acreditado por el estado y las 80 horas de formación práctica pueden costar $10.000 o más. Clark dijo que no solicitaría una licencia de facilitadora debido al tiempo y al costo, que considera prohibitivo.

Con el propósito de aumentar la accesibilidad en Colorado, Poinsatte dijo que los centros de sanación planean ofrecer opciones de pago en cuotas y descuentos para veteranos, beneficiarios de Medicaid y personas de bajos ingresos. Las sesiones grupales son otra opción para reducir costos. 

La legislación de Colorado no permite la venta minorista de psilocibina, a diferencia del cannabis, que puede venderse tanto con fines recreativos como medicinales. Sin embargo, autoriza que los adultos mayores de 21 años cultiven, consuman y compartan hongos psicodélicos para uso personal. 

A pesar de la prohibición de venta minorista, los negocios relacionados con los psicodélicos han aumentado considerablemente. Dentro del almacén y laboratorio de Activated Brands, en Arvada, se venden bolsas de granos esterilizados como maíz, mijo y sorgo, junto con sustratos de suelo, materiales genéticos y kits listos para el cultivo. 

Sean Winfield, cofundador de la empresa, vende estos suministros para el cultivo de hongos psicodélicos o no psicoactivos, como el llamado la “melena de león”, a personas interesadas en cultivarlos en su casa. Además, pronto, Activated Brands ofrecerá clases de cultivo y educación al público, dijo Winfield. 

Winfield y su socio, Shawn Cox, organizaron recientemente una comida comunitaria sobre psicodélicos en la que expertos en el estudio y cultivo de este tipo de hongos hablaron sobre genética, extracción y equipamiento especializado. 

Los hongos psicodélicos tienen una larga historia en las culturas indígenas, y las disposiciones para su uso en ceremonias espirituales, culturales o religiosas están incluidas en la ley de Colorado junto con el reconocimiento del daño cultural que podrían sufrir las comunidades y los pueblos indígenas reconocidos a nivel federal si la medicina natural se comercializa o se explota en exceso. 

Varios estudios realizados en los últimos cinco años han evidenciado los beneficios a largo plazo del uso de la psilocibina en el caso de trastornos depresivos mayores resistentes al tratamiento, y la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA) la ha reconocido como una terapia innovadora. En la actualidad, se están realizando ensayos en fases avanzadas, que suelen ser el paso previo para solicitar la aprobación de la FDA.

Sin embargo, Smith dijo que, aunque la psilocibina es una herramienta prometedora para tratar trastornos de salud mental, aún no se ha demostrado que sea más eficaz que otros tratamientos avanzados.

Joshua Woolley, profesor asociado de psiquiatría y ciencias del comportamiento en la Universidad de California-San Francisco, dijo que, como investigador en ensayos clínicos, ha visto los beneficios de la psilocibina.

“Las personas pueden cambiar hábitos profundamente arraigados. Pueden salir de bloqueos. Pueden ver las cosas de nuevas maneras”, afirmó, refiriéndose al tratamiento de pacientes con una combinación de psilocibina y psicoterapia. 

Colorado, a diferencia de Oregon, permite la incorporación de la psilocibina en las prácticas de salud mental y médicas existentes mediante una licencia de facilitador clínico, así como a través de microcentros de sanación que tienen mayores limitaciones en la cantidad de hongos que pueden almacenar. 

Aun así, Woolley señaló que, debido a la prohibición federal y a las nuevas leyes estatales sobre psicodélicos, este es un territorio inexplorado. La mayoría de los medicamentos utilizados para tratar trastornos de salud mental están regulados por la FDA, algo que Colorado “está tomando en sus propias manos” al establecer su propio programa para regular la fabricación y administración de psilocibina. 

La Oficina del Fiscal de Estados Unidos para el Distrito de Colorado no quiso comentar sobre su política hacia los programas de psicodélicos regulados por el estado o las disposiciones sobre el uso personal, pero Poinsatte espera que en Oregon y Colorado se adopte, para la psilocibina, el mismo tipo de enfoque federal de no intervención que rige para la marihuana. 

Winfield dijo que espera ansiosamente las próximas regulaciones y la posible incorporación de otras plantas psicodélicas, como la mescalina.

“Estamos hablando de que las industrias clandestinas salgan a la luz”, afirmó.

Esta historia fue producida por KFF Health News, conocido antes como Kaiser Health News (KHN), una redacción nacional que produce periodismo en profundidad sobre temas de salud y es uno de los principales programas operativos de KFF, la fuente independiente de investigación de políticas de salud, encuestas y periodismo. 

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Two months into the new administration, federal workers and contractors remain off-balance as the Trump administration ramps up its efforts to cancel jobs and programs — even as federal judges declare many of those efforts illegal and/or unconstitutional.

As it eliminates programs deemed duplicative or unnecessary, however, President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is also cutting programs and workers aligned with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Kennedy’s comments this week about allowing bird flu to spread unchecked through farms provided another example of the new secretary of health and human services making claims that lack scientific support and could instead undermine public health.
• The Trump administration is experiencing more pushback from the federal courts over its efforts to reduce and dismantle federal agencies, and federal workers who have been rehired under court orders report returning to uncertainty and instability within government agencies.
• The second Trump administration is signaling it plans to dismantle HIV prevention programs in the United States, including efforts that the first Trump administration started. A Texas midwife is accused of performing illegal abortions. And a Trump appointee resigns after being targeted by a Republican senator.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “The Free-Living Bureaucrat,” by Michael Lewis.

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “Her Research Grant Mentioned ‘Hesitancy.’ Now Her Funding Is Gone.” by Carolyn Y. Johnson.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KFF Health News’ “Scientists Say NIH Officials Told Them To Scrub mRNA References on Grants,” by Arthur Allen.

Jessie Hellmann: Stat’s “NIH Cancels Funding for a Landmark Diabetes Study at a Time of Focus on Chronic Disease,” by Elaine Chen.

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

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