Category: Rehab News

DENVER — Seven years ago, Erica Green learned through a Facebook post that her brother had been shot.

She rushed to check on him at a hospital run by Denver Health, the city’s safety-net system, but she was unable to get information from emergency room workers, who complained that she was creating a disturbance.

“I was distraught and outside, crying, and Jerry came out of the front doors,” she said.

Jerry Morgan is a familiar face from Green’s Denver neighborhood. He had rushed to the hospital after his pager alerted him to the shooting. As a violence prevention professional with the At-Risk Intervention and Mentoring program, or AIM, Morgan supports gun-violence patients and their families at the hospital — as he did the day Green’s brother was shot.

“It made the situation of that traumatic experience so much better. After that, I was, like, I want to do this work,” Green said.

Today, Green works with Morgan as the program manager for AIM, a hospital-linked violence intervention program launched in 2010 as a partnership between Denver Health and the nonprofit Denver Youth Program. It since has expanded to include Children’s Hospital Colorado and the University of Colorado Hospital.

AIM is one of dozens of hospital-linked violence intervention programs around the country. The programs aim to uncover the social and economic factors that contributed to someone ending up in the ER with a bullet wound: inadequate housing, job loss, or feeling unsafe in one’s neighborhood, for example.

Such programs that take a public health approach to stopping gun violence have had success — one in San Francisco reported a fourfold reduction in violent injury recidivism rates over six years. But President Donald Trump’s executive orders calling for the review of the Biden administration’s gun policies and trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans have created uncertainty around the programs’ long-term federal funding. Some organizers believe their programs will be just fine, but others are looking to shore up alternative funding sources.

“We’ve been worried about, if a domino does fall, how is it going to impact us? There’s a lot of unknowns,” said John Torres, associate director for Youth Alive, an Oakland-based nonprofit.

Federal data shows that gun violence became a leading cause of death among children and young adults at the start of this decade and was tied to more than 48,000 deaths among people of all ages in 2022. New York-based pediatric trauma surgeon Chethan Sathya, a National Institutes of Health-funded firearms injury prevention researcher, believes those statistics show that gun violence can’t be ignored as a health care issue. “It’s killing so many people,” Sathya said.

Research shows that a violent injury puts someone at heightened risk for future ones, and the risk of death goes up significantly by the third violent injury, according to a 2006 study published in The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection and Critical Care.

Benjamin Li, an emergency medicine physician at Denver Health and the health system’s AIM medical director, said the ER is an ideal setting to intervene in gun violence by working to reverse-engineer what led to a patient’s injuries.

“If you are just seeing the person, patching them up, and then sending them right back into the exact same circumstances, we know it’s going to lead to them being hurt again,” Li said. “It’s critical we address the social determinants of health and then try to change the equation.”

That might mean providing alternative solutions to gunshot victims who might otherwise seek retaliation, said Paris Davis, the intervention programs director for Youth Alive.

“If that’s helping them relocate out of the area, if that’s allowing them to gain housing, if that’s shifting that energy into education or job or, you know, family therapy, whatever the needs are for that particular case and individual, that is what we provide,” Davis said.

AIM outreach workers meet gunshot wound victims at their hospital bedsides to have what Morgan, AIM’s lead outreach worker, calls a tough, nonjudgmental conversation on how the patients ended up there.

AIM uses that information to help patients access the resources they need to navigate their biggest challenges after they’re discharged, Morgan said. Those challenges can include returning to school or work, or finding housing. AIM outreach workers might also attend court proceedings and assist with transportation to health care appointments.

“We try to help in whatever capacity we can, but it’s interdependent on whatever the client needs,” Morgan said.

Since 2010, AIM has grown from three full-time outreach workers to nine, and this year opened the REACH Clinic in Denver’s Five Points neighborhood. The community-based clinic provides wound-care kits; physical therapy; and behavioral, mental and occupational health care. In the coming months, it plans to add bullet removal to its services. It’s part of a growing movement of community-based clinics focused on violent injuries, including the Bullet Related Injury Clinic in St. Louis.

Ginny McCarthy, an assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at the University of Colorado, described REACH as an extension of the hospital-based work, providing holistic treatment in a single location and building trust between health care providers and communities of color that have historically experienced racial biases in medical care.

Caught in the Crossfire, created in 1994 and run by Youth Alive in Oakland, is cited as the nation’s first hospital-linked violence intervention program and has since inspired others. The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, a national network initiated by Youth ALIVE to advance public health solutions to gun violence, counted 74 hospital-linked violence intervention programs among its membership as of January.

The alliance’s executive director, Fatimah Loren Dreier, compared medicine’s role in addressing gun violence to that of preventing an infectious disease, like cholera. “That disease spreads if you don’t have good sanitation in places where people aggregate,” she said.

Dreier, who also serves as executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Gun Violence Research and Education, said medicine identifies and tracks patterns that lead to the spread of a disease or, in this case, the spread of violence.

“That is what health care can do really well to shift society. When we deploy this, we get better outcomes for everybody,” Dreier said.

The alliance, of which AIM is a member, offers technical assistance and training for hospital-linked violence intervention programs and successfully petitioned to make their services eligible for traditional insurance reimbursement.

In 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive action that opened the door for states to use Medicaid for violence prevention. Several states, including California, New York, and Colorado, have passed legislation establishing a Medicaid benefit for hospital-linked violence intervention programs.

Last summer, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared gun violence a public health crisis, and the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act earmarked $1.4 billion in funding for a wide array of violence-prevention programs through next year.

But in early February, Trump issued an executive order instructing the U.S. attorney general to conduct a 30-day review of a number of Biden’s policies on gun violence. The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention now appears to be defunct, and recent moves to freeze federal grants created uncertainty among the gun-violence prevention programs that receive federal funding.

AIM receives 30% of its funding from its operating agreement with Denver’s Office of Community Violence Solutions, according to Li. The rest is from grants, including Victims of Crime Act funding, through the Department of Justice. As of mid-February, Trump’s executive orders had not affected AIM’s current funding.

Some who work with the hospital-linked violence prevention programs in Colorado are hoping a new voter-approved firearms and ammunition excise tax in the state, expected to generate about $39 million annually and support victim services, could be a new source of funding. But the tax’s revenues aren’t expected to fully flow until 2026, and it’s not clear how that money will be allocated.

Trauma surgeon and public health researcher Catherine Velopulos, who is the AIM medical director at the University of Colorado hospital in Aurora, said any interruption in federal funding, even for a few months, would be “very difficult for us.” But Velopulos said she was reassured by the bipartisan support for the kind of work AIM does.

“People want to oversimplify the problem and just say, ‘If we get rid of guns, it’s all going to stop,’ or ‘It doesn’t matter what we do, because they’re going to get guns, anyway,’” she said. “What we really have to address is why people feel so scared that they have to arm themselves.”

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

A year ago, a new head of Social Security set out to stop the agency from financially devastating many of the people it was meant to help.

The agency had long made it a practice to reduce or halt benefit checks to recoup billions of dollars in payments it sent recipients but later said they never should have received.

Martin O’Malley, then the Social Security Administration commissioner, announced in March 2024 the agency would no longer cut off people’s monthly old-age, survivors, and disability checks to recoup money they had allegedly been overpaid — a pattern he called “clawback cruelty.” Instead, it would default to withholding 10% of monthly benefits. The new policy allowed people who already live on little to pay their rent and keep food on the table.

Last Friday, the Trump administration reversed that policy.

Beginning March 27, to recover new overpayments, the Social Security Administration will automatically withhold 100% of recipients’ monthly benefits, the agency announced.

The agency said it was acting in the interest of fiscal responsibility and that the reversal would save the government about $7 billion over a decade.

“It is our duty to revise the overpayment repayment policy back to full withholding, as it was during the Obama administration and first Trump administration, to properly safeguard taxpayer funds,” acting Commissioner Lee Dudek said in a news release.

Advocates for Social Security beneficiaries described the action as cruel and harmful.

“The results are predictable: more unnecessary suffering,” said Kathleen Romig, who worked at the Social Security Administration under O’Malley and is now director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Kate Lang of the advocacy group Justice in Aging said she was heartbroken.

“Those who are most vulnerable, with the fewest resources, are the ones who will feel the harsh impacts of this change,” she said. Many “are going to be unable to buy food or keep the roof over their head,” she said.

In 2023, after an investigation by KFF Health News and Cox Media Group cast a spotlight on overpayments and clawbacks, lawmakers from both parties called on the Social Security Administration to change its approach.

The policy change a year ago was inspired in part by the plight of people such as Denise Woods, who was sleeping in her Chevy in Savannah, Georgia, in December 2023 while contending with lupus and congestive heart failure after the government cut off her disability benefits. The government was demanding she repay almost $58,000.

Many overpayments are the result of government error. It can take the government years to figure out it has been paying someone too much, and by then, the amount the government says it is owed can grow far beyond a beneficiary’s ability to repay. And it has often demanded that recipients repay the full amount within 30 days.

As of October, the SSA was withholding at least a portion of monthly benefit payments from hundreds of thousands of people, according to data the SSA provided last fall to KFF Health News and Cox Media Group. The agency said it was withholding up to 10% from 669,903 people to recoup an overpayment. Asked whether those numbers covered all types of benefits administered by the SSA, the agency’s press office didn’t say.

“Under Trump’s leadership, Social Security has reinstated a cruel policy of clawing back Social Security overpayments with no regard for an American’s ability to pay or whether the overpayment was an error by the agency,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

The new plan to completely withhold monthly benefits from recipients who were allegedly overpaid does not extend to the Supplemental Security Income program, one of two Social Security programs for people with disabilities. SSI, as the agency explains, covers “people with disabilities and older adults who have little or no income or resources.”

The government’s estimate that cutting people off completely will save $7 billion over a decade implies it expects many more overpayments in the years ahead.

The SSA’s March 7 announcement was part of a broader dismantling of Biden-era policies under President Donald Trump. It was also part of a broader upheaval at the Social Security Administration, which announced In February that it would cut its staff from about 57,000 to 50,000.

In an interview Monday, O’Malley predicted that the public will experience much longer wait times trying to get through to the agency by phone and longer waits for disability determinations.

Social Security runs on a very old computer system, he said, and driving people out of the agency who understand it “can only result in system collapse.”

“The risk of totally shutting down the agency is greatly increased by people mucking around that don’t know what they’re doing,” O’Malley said.

On the PBS NewsHour last week, he advised recipients to save money to prepare for an interruption of benefits.

Trump deputy Elon Musk has boasted of taking a chainsaw to the federal government and has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. In a signed declaration filed in federal court last week, a recently retired SSA official, Tiffany Flick, said she “witnessed a disregard for critical processes” as members of DOGE — the Department of Government Efficiency, which Trump established by executive order — demanded access to sensitive Social Security systems, including files that contain beneficiaries’ banking information.

New management at the SSA called its workforce “bloated.” But, under the previous administration, the agency was telling a starkly different story.

A year ago, O’Malley told lawmakers that, as the number of people receiving benefits increased, “historic underfunding and understaffing” at the agency had created a “service delivery crisis.”

Late last year, the agency provided data to KFF Health News showing that in September its workforce was near a 50-year low. As of last month, applicants for disability benefits were waiting an average of more than seven months for a decision, according to the SSA website.

The staffing cuts will lead to more overpayments than ever and will make it harder for the people affected to clear up mistakes, said Jen Burdick, an attorney at Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.

As KFF Health News and Cox Media Group revealed in 2023, about 2 million people a year were receiving notices from the SSA that they were overpaid and owed money back.

People can appeal overpayment notices, request a lower withholding rate, or ask the SSA to waive collection altogether, the agency said. The SSA does not pursue recoveries while an initial appeal or waiver request is pending, it said.

Shortly before O’Malley left the SSA in November, the agency implemented changes that made it easier for beneficiaries to get overpayments waived. The agency spelled out grounds for determining the beneficiary was not at fault — for instance, if the agency continued to issue overpayments after the beneficiary reported a change in their financial circumstances that should have led to a reduction in benefits. Those policy changes remain intact.

Several Republicans who expressed concern about clawbacks in the aftermath of 2023 news coverage did not respond to inquiries for this article or declined to comment. One of them was Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who is now chair of the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging.

“Hardworking American taxpayers pay into Social Security all of their lives so that they can depend on it in the time they need it most,” Scott said in a 2023 letter to the agency. “The fact that the SSA’s actions are leaving some of them worse off, through no fault of their own, is absolutely unacceptable.”

Do you have an experience with Social Security overpayments you’d like to share? Click here to contact our reporting team.

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 congressional Republicans in 2017 pushed to repeal the Affordable Care Act and slash Medicaid, dozens of physician groups, patient advocates, hospitals, and others rallied to defend the law and the safety-net program.

Eight years later, two industry groups have been notably restrained as GOP lawmakers consider sweeping new Medicaid cuts: the American Medical Association and the American Health Care Association, which represents nursing homes.

At the same time, the two groups are lobbying Republicans, seeking support on other priorities.

The AMA is lobbying lawmakers to reverse a nearly 3% cut in Medicare’s fees for physicians. And the AHCA has pushed Congress to roll back regulations enacted under President Joe Biden that mandate better staffing ratios at nursing homes.

Representatives of the two groups declined to comment on the record about any connections between the Medicaid fight and their other legislative priorities.

But AHCA spokesperson Rachel Reeves said the nursing home group, which has issued a statement defending Medicaid, is communicating with lawmakers about the importance of the program for people with low incomes and disabilities. “We will make sure that the voices of our community are heard and that the message is loud and clear: Congress must protect our seniors who rely on Medicaid,” she said. Medicaid is the primary payer for nursing home care, covering more than 6 in 10 nursing home residents.

Nevertheless, other advocates and congressional Democrats said they’re frustrated by the two groups. “The time to speak out is now,” Sen. Ron Wyden, the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, told KFF Health News. “Americans will know which organizations stood up against harmful cuts to Medicaid when this fight is over.”

Medicaid, a state-federal insurance plan that together with the related Children’s Health Insurance Program covers about 80 million Americans, is in the crosshairs as congressional Republicans seek to trim several trillion dollars in federal spending to offset the $4.5 trillion cost of extending tax cuts enacted in President Donald Trump’s first term.

Medicaid cuts on the scale being contemplated would put coverage for millions of Americans at risk. That has alarmed advocates who work with people covered by the program, including children, Americans with disabilities, and low-income older adults. Other advocacy organizations who work with these patients have been much more active.

Last week, more than 400 pediatricians traveled to Washington, D.C., to speak to members of Congress about the importance of Medicaid. More than 100 leaders of safety-net hospitals that serve low-income patients around the country did the same.

Patients’ advocates such as the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network have defended Medicaid. Last month, state medical societies sent a letter to congressional leaders warning of dire consequences if Medicaid cuts are enacted. And this week, more than 750 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are expected in Washington, where the group says they’ll be lobbying to preserve Medicaid funding.

“Slicing hundreds of billions of dollars from federal funding will force states to cut the care children and families depend on or raise taxes on hard-working Americans,” said Chip Kahn, chief executive of the Federation of American Hospitals, another trade group fighting to defend Medicaid.

Building coalitions was critical in previous health care debates, said Ron Pollack, the former head of patient advocacy group Families USA. Pollack helped lead the push for the 2010 Affordable Care Act. “We succeeded in the past because we stuck together,” he said.

Eight years ago, the AMA and AHCA were key members of the coalition that turned back Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare.

The AMA, the nation’s largest physician group, sent multiple letters to Congress throughout 2017, warning lawmakers in a March 17, 2017, letter that they should “keep upmost in your mind the potentially life altering impact your decisions will have on millions of Americans.”

And the AHCA’s president was a leading voice opposing repeal, which at one point he called “the biggest threat that the sector has faced in at least 20 to 25 years.”

This year, the AMA hasn’t sent a single letter or issued any news releases opposing Medicaid cuts. By contrast, the group has issued seven news releases since January on the lack of congressional action on physician fees.

The AHCA issued its first public defense of Medicaid in this year’s debate — a document it called a fact sheet — only the day after House Republicans adopted a budget resolution that threatens the program’s funding. When the group issued its 2025 policy priorities last week, “Priority #1” focused on staffing, including repealing the Biden-era staffing mandate. “Protecting Medicaid” was “Priority #2.”

The Medicaid debate will likely drag on for months as GOP leaders in the House and Senate try to cobble together a bill to extend tax cuts.

Medicaid’s defenders say they’re still looking for more voices to speak up.

“Republicans have said outright that silence is consent,” Wyden said. “If health care organizations don’t speak out against the GOP’s plans to cut health care, Republican lawmakers are going to assume those organizations are on board with their agenda.”

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 issued its first major set of proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act on Monday that federal officials said are intended to crack down on fraud in the program. Policy experts said they will make it harder for consumers to sign up for coverage, potentially reducing enrollment.

Details were released Monday after a draft press release was inadvertently posted earlier.

About 24 million Americans signed up for insurance plans sold under the ACA, known popularly as Obamacare, for 2025. The Biden administration achieved record enrollment levels after increasing premium subsidies for many lower-income people, which resulted in reducing the monthly cost of some plans to $0. It also made it easier for some very low-income people to sign up at any time of year, instead of waiting for an enrollment period each fall. But the program became plagued by fraudulent enrollment last year, generating about 274,000 consumer complaints through August, most focused on rogue insurance agents and other bad actors, to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The Trump administration said in a statement Monday that the new regulations include “critical and necessary steps to protect people from being enrolled in Marketplace coverage without their knowledge or consent, promote stable and affordable health insurance markets, and ensure taxpayer dollars fund financial assistance only for the people the ACA set out to support.”

Policy experts said the changes, though, will impose new paperwork burdens likely to hamper enrollment.

“Under this banner of trying to crack down on the bad actions of some insurance brokers, they are penalizing consumers, particularly low-income consumers, with more burdensome requirements and more limits on their access to coverage,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and the co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

Among other new requirements, consumers would have to provide more information proving their eligibility for special enrollment periods and for premium subsidies when they enroll. The regulation would also shorten the annual enrollment period by a month. And it touches on social issues, limiting eligibility for “Dreamers” — a nickname for immigrants in the country illegally who were brought here as children, based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act.

The proposal would eliminate the year-round opportunity for a special enrollment period for people with very low incomes. But it would also set new requirements for the remaining special enrollment periods, which allow people to sign up after major life events, such as when their income changes, they lose their job-based coverage, or they get divorced, marry, or move. They would now have to provide evidence of their eligibility when applying under those special situations.

People auto-reenrolled into zero-premium plans during the regular enrollment period would be charged a small monthly payment until they confirm or update their information.

The ACA marketplaces, according to the proposal, would have to seek additional data from consumers, including the self-employed or gig workers, who estimate their income for the coming year but don’t have tax return data filed with the IRS for previous years.

The Biden administration made changes to reduce fraudulent enrollment last year including requiring three-way calls among insurance brokers, their clients, and the federal insurance marketplace, healthcare.gov, when certain sign-ups or coverage changes were made.

Some of the Trump administration’s proposed changes could help warn certain consumers that they’ve been unknowingly enrolled in an ACA plan, such as a requirement that some customers on even the least expensive plans receive a small, monthly premium bill.

However, the additional paperwork and other eligibility requirements “will probably have a downward effect on enrollment,” said Cynthia Cox, a vice president and the director of the Program on the ACA at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. “Some of that could be protecting enrollees who were fraudulently signed up or don’t realize they’re still signed up.”

Still, it could prove difficult for some people if they’re not able to document an expected change in income. “They might have a legitimate claim but have a hard time demonstrating it,” Cox said.

The annual open enrollment period would end Dec. 15, a month earlier than this year. The designated period is when most people sign up and is intended to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to enroll, a move that helps slow premium growth.

The Trump proposal also touches on social issues.

It would reverse the Biden administration policy that allows Dreamers to qualify for subsidized ACA coverage. That decision is already the subject of a court challenge brought by 19 states seeking to overturn it.

Also under the Trump proposal, gender-affirming care would not be considered part of the “essential health benefits” that all plans must cover.

According to an FAQ that accompanied the initial press release of the proposed regulations, the provision could “lead to increased out-of-pocket costs for individuals requiring sex-trait modification services, as they may need to seek plans that offer this coverage as a non-EHB or pay for services out-of-pocket.”

As a proposed rule, the measures now face a public comment period and potential revision before being finalized.

“None of it will go into effect right away,” said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University. “The question is how much will apply in 2025 versus 2026.”

The FAQ acknowledged that some of the proposed changes, including ending year-round enrollment for very low-income people, “may increase the administrative burden for consumers associated with enrollment and verification processes or could deter some eligible low-income individuals from enrolling.”

But, it continued, “we believe that enhancing program integrity and reducing improper enrollments outweighs these potential impacts on access to coverage.”

Some lawmakers and conservative groups have pointed to the concerns about unauthorized enrollment and the role, if any, that ACA subsidies or enrollment periods have in fueling the problem.

The right-leaning Paragon Health Institute, for example, released a report in June that, among other things, called for the Biden administration’s expansion of the special enrollment period for low-income people to be reversed.

“There is substantial amounts of fraud and waste in the ACA exchanges and the Biden administration pursued the enrollment-at-all costs strategy, and was tolerant of the waste, fraud and abuse,” said Brian Blase, a former health aide during Trump’s first presidency who is president of the Paragon Health Institute and influential within the current Trump administration. “Clearly a different approach to protect legitimate enrollees and taxpayers is needed.”

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

La administración Trump publicó el lunes 10 de marzo su primer conjunto importante de cambios propuestos a la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA). Funcionarios federales dicen que tienen como objetivo acabar con el fraude en el programa. Pero expertos aseguran que dificultará la inscripción, lo que terminará logrando que muchos consumidores no busquen cobertura.

Los detalles se dieron a conocer después que un borrador de la propuesta se hiciera público inadvertidamente.

Alrededor de 24 millones de estadounidenses se inscribieron en planes médicos para 2025 en los mercados de seguros de salud establecidos por ACA, conocida popularmente como Obamacare.

El gobierno de Biden logró niveles récord de inscripción después de aumentar los subsidios para pagar las primas para muchas personas de bajos ingresos, lo que resultó en reducir el costo mensual de algunos planes a literalmente $0.

También facilitó que algunas personas de ingresos muy bajos se inscribieran en cualquier momento del año, en lugar de esperar al período de inscripción cada otoño.

Pero el año pasado, el programa se vio afectado por inscripciones fraudulentas, lo que hizo que los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y& Medicaid (CMS) recibieran cerca de 274.000 quejas de consumidores, hasta agosto, la mayoría centradas en agentes de seguros deshonestos y otros actores de dudosa moralidad.

La administración Trump dijo en el comunicado del lunes que las nuevas regulaciones incluyen “pasos críticos y necesarios para proteger a las personas de ser inscritas en la cobertura del mercado sin su conocimiento o consentimiento, promover mercados de seguros de salud estables y asequibles, y garantizar que el dinero de los contribuyentes financie la asistencia financiera solo para las personas a las que ACA debe apoyar”.

Pero expertos en políticas dijeron que estos cambios impondrán nuevas cargas de papeleo que probablemente obstaculicen la inscripción.

“Bajo esta bandera de intentar acabar con las malas acciones de algunos corredores de seguros, están penalizando a los consumidores, particularmente a los de bajos ingresos, con requisitos más onerosos y más límites a su acceso a la cobertura”, dijo Sabrina Corlette, profesora de investigación y codirectora del Centro de Reformas de Seguros de Salud en la Universidad de Georgetown.

Entre otros nuevos requisitos, los consumidores tendrían que proporcionar al momento de inscribirse más información que demuestre su elegibilidad para períodos de inscripción especiales y para calificar para recibir subsidios.

La regulación también acortaría un mes el período de inscripción anual. Y toca temas sociales, limitando la elegibilidad de los “Dreamers” (el nombre dado a los inmigrantes que fueron traídos sin papeles al país cuando eran niños), en base en propuestas nunca aprobadas en el Congreso llamadas DREAM Act.

La propuesta eliminaría la oportunidad de poder inscribirse en cualquiera momento del año para personas con ingresos muy bajos. Pero también establecería nuevos requisitos para los períodos de inscripción especiales restantes, que permiten a las personas inscribirse después de experimentar eventos de vida importantes, como cuando sus ingresos cambian, pierden su cobertura basada en el trabajo o se divorcian, se casan o se mudan. Ahora tendrían que proporcionar más evidencia de su elegibilidad al presentar la solicitud en esas situaciones especiales.

A las personas que se reinscriban automáticamente en planes de primas cero durante el período de inscripción regular se les cobraría un pequeño pago mensual hasta que confirmen o actualicen su información.

Según la propuesta, los mercados de ACA tendrían que buscar datos adicionales de los consumidores, incluidos los trabajadores autónomos o por encargo, que estiman sus ingresos para el año siguiente pero no tienen datos de declaraciones de impuestos presentados ante el IRS para años anteriores.

El año pasado, la administración Biden implementó cambios para reducir las inscripciones fraudulentas, entre ellos, la exigencia de llamadas tripartitas entre los corredores de seguros, sus clientes y el mercado de seguros federal, cuidadodesalud.gov, cuando se realizaban ciertas inscripciones o cambios en la cobertura.

Algunos de los cambios propuestos por el gobierno de Trump podrían ayudar a advertir a ciertos consumidores de que han sido inscritos sin saberlo en un plan de ACA, como el requisito de que algunos clientes, incluso en los planes menos costosos, reciban una pequeña factura de sus primas mensuales.

Sin embargo, el papeleo adicional y otros requisitos de elegibilidad “probablemente tendrán un efecto en bajar la inscripción”, dijo Cynthia Cox, vicepresidenta y directora del Programa sobre ACA en KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro de información de salud que incluye a KFF Health News.

“Parte de eso podría proteger a los inscritos que se inscribieron de manera fraudulenta o que no se dan cuenta de que todavía están inscritos”, agregó Cox.

Aun así, podría resultar difícil para algunas personas si no pueden documentar un cambio esperado en los ingresos. “Pueden tener una reclamación legítima, pero que les resulta difícil demostrarlo”, dijo Cox.

El período anual de inscripción abierta finalizaría el 15 de diciembre, un mes antes que este año. Esa ventana anual es cuando la mayoría de las personas se inscriben y tiene como objetivo evitar que las personas esperen hasta enfermarse para inscribirse, una medida que ayuda a frenar el aumento de las primas.

La propuesta de Trump también impacta en cuestiones sociales.

Revertiría la política de la administración Biden que permite a los Dreamers calificar para la cobertura subsidiada de ACA. Esa decisión está siendo desafiada en los tribunales, en una demanda presentada por 19 estados que buscan revocarla.

También bajo la propuesta de Trump, la atención de afirmación de género no se consideraría parte de los “beneficios de salud esenciales” que todos los planes deben cubrir.

Según una sección de preguntas frecuentes que acompañó al comunicado de prensa inicial de las regulaciones propuestas, la disposición podría “llevar a mayores gastos de bolsillo para las personas que requieren servicios de modificación de rasgos sexuales, ya que podrían necesitar buscar planes que ofrezcan esta coberturas, como un plan sin beneficios esenciales o pagar los servicios de su bolsillo”.

Como regla propuesta, las medidas ahora enfrentan un período de comentarios públicos y una posible revisión antes de finalizarse.

“Nada de esto entrará en vigencia de inmediato”, dijo Katie Keith, directora del Centro de Política y Derecho de Salud en la Universidad de Georgetown. “La pregunta es cuánto se aplicará en 2025 en comparación con 2026”.

En las preguntas frecuentes se reconoció que algunos de los cambios propuestos, incluida la eliminación de la inscripción durante todo el año para las personas de ingresos muy bajos, “puede aumentar la carga administrativa para los consumidores asociada con los procesos de inscripción y verificación o podrían disuadir a algunas personas de bajos ingresos elegibles de inscribirse”.

Pero, continuó, “creemos que mejorar la integridad del programa y reducir las inscripciones indebidas supera estos posibles impactos en el acceso a la cobertura”.

Algunos legisladores y grupos conservadores han señalado las preocupaciones sobre la inscripción no autorizada y el papel que podrían tener los subsidios o los períodos de inscripción de ACA en que este problema se agudizara.

Por ejemplo, el Paragon Health Institute, de tendencia derechista, publicó un informe en junio que, entre otras cosas, pedía que se revirtiera la expansión del período de inscripción especial para personas de bajos ingresos que impulsó la administración Biden.

“Hay cantidades sustanciales de fraude y despilfarro en los mercados de ACA y la administración Biden siguió la estrategia de inscripción a cualquier costo y fue tolerante con el despilfarro, el fraude y el abuso”, dijo Brian Blase, ex asistente de salud durante la primera presidencia de Trump, quien es presidente del Paragon Health Institute y tiene influencia dentro de la actual administración Trump.

“Es evidente que se necesita un enfoque diferente para proteger a los inscritos legítimos y a los contribuyentes”, concluyó Blase.

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

BOLIGEE, Ala. — Green lights flickered on the wireless router in Barbara Williams’ kitchen. Just one bar lit up — a weak signal connecting her to the world beyond her home in the Alabama Black Belt.

Next to the router sat medications, vitamin D pills, and Williams’ blood glucose monitor kit.

“I haven’t used that thing in a month or so,” said Williams, 72, waving toward the kit. Diagnosed with diabetes more than six years ago, she has developed nerve pain from neuropathy in both legs.

Williams is one of nearly 3 million Americans who live in mostly rural counties that lack both health care and reliable high-speed internet, according to an analysis by KFF Health News, which showed that these people tend to live sicker and die younger than others in America.

Compared with those in other regions, patients across the rural South, Appalachia, and remote West are most often unable to make a video call to their doctor or log into their patient portals. Both are essential ways to participate in the U.S. medical system. And Williams is among those who can do neither.

This year, more than $42 billion allocated in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is expected to begin flowing to states as part of a national “Internet for All” initiative launched by the Biden administration. But the program faces uncertainty after Commerce Department Secretary Howard Lutnick last week announced a “rigorous review” asserting that the previous administration’s approach was full of “woke mandates.”

High rates of chronic illness and historical inequities are hallmarks of many of the more than 200 U.S. counties with poor services that KFF Health News identified. Dozens of doctors, academics, and advocates interviewed for this article unanimously agreed that limited internet service hinders medical care and access.

Without fast, reliable broadband, “all we’re going to do is widen health care disparities within telemedicine,” said Rashmi Mullur, an endocrinologist and chief of telehealth at VA Greater Los Angeles. Patients with diabetes who also use telemedicine are more likely to get care and control their blood sugar, Mullur found.

Diabetes requires constant management. Left untreated, uncontrolled blood sugar can cause blindness, kidney failure, nerve damage, and eventually death.

Williams, who sees a nurse practitioner at the county hospital in the next town, said she is not interested in using remote patient monitoring or video calls.

“I know how my sugar affects me,” Williams said. “I get a headache if it’s too high.” She gets weaker when it’s down, she said, and always carries snacks like crackers or peppermints.

Williams said she could even drink a soda pop — orange, grape — when her sugar is low but would not drink one when she felt it was high because she would get “kind of goozie-woozy.”

‘This Is America’

Connectivity dead zones persist in American life despite at least $115 billion lawmakers have thrown toward fixing the inequities. Federal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 133 funding programs administered by 15 agencies, according to a 2023 federal report.

“This is America. It’s not supposed to be this way,” said Karthik Ganesh, chief executive of Tampa, Florida-based OnMed, a telehealth company that in September installed a walk-in booth at the Boligee Community Center about 10 minutes from Williams’ home. Residents can call up free life-size video consultations with an OnMed health care provider and use equipment to check their weight and blood pressure.

OnMed, which partnered with local universities and the Alabama Cooperative Extension System, relies on SpaceX’s Starlink to provide a high-speed connection in lieu of other options.

A short drive from the community center, beyond Boligee’s Main Street with its deserted buildings and an empty railroad depot and down a long gravel drive, is the 22-acre property where Williams lives.

Last fall, Williams washed a dish in her kitchen, with its unforgiving linoleum-topped concrete floors. A few months earlier, she said, a man at the community center signed her up for “diabetic shoes” to help with her sore feet. They never arrived.

As Williams spoke, steam rose from a pot of boiling potatoes on the stove. Another pan sizzled with hamburger steak. And on a back burner simmered a mix of Velveeta cheese, diced tomatoes, and peppers.

She spent years on her feet as head cook at a diner in Cleveland, Ohio. The oldest of nine, Williams returned to her family home in Greene County more than 20 years ago to care for her mother and a sister, who both died from cancer in the back bedroom where she now sleeps.

Williams looked out a window and recalled when the landscape was covered in cotton that she once helped pick. Now three houses stand in a carefully tended clearing surrounded by tall trees. One belongs to a brother and the other to a sister who drives with her daily to the community center for exercise, prayers, and friendship with other seniors.

All the surviving siblings, Williams said, have diabetes. “I don’t know how we became diabetic,” she said. Neither of their parents had been diagnosed with the illness.

In Greene County, an estimated quarter of adults have diabetes — twice the national average. The county, which has about 7,600 residents, also has among the nation’s highest rates for several chronic diseases such as high blood pressure, stroke, and obesity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows.

The county’s population is predominately Black. The federal CDC reports that Black Americans are more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes and are 40% more likely than their white counterparts to die from the condition. And in the South, rural Black residents are more likely to lack home internet access, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington-based think tank.

To identify counties most lacking in reliable broadband and health care providers, KFF Health News used data from the Federal Communications Commission and George Washington University’s Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity. Reporters also analyzed U.S. Census Bureau, CDC, and other data to understand the health status and demographics of those counties.

The analysis confirms that internet and care gaps are “hitting areas of extreme poverty and high social vulnerability,” said Clese Erikson, deputy director of the health workforce research center at the Mullan Institute.

Digital Haves vs. Have-Nots

Just over half of homes in Greene County have access to reliable high-speed internet — among the lowest rates in the nation. Greene County also has some of the country’s poorest residents, with a median household income of about $31,500. Average life expectancy is less than 72 years, below the national average.

By contrast, the KFF Health News analysis found that counties with the highest rates of internet access and health care providers correlated with higher life expectancy, less chronic disease, and key lifestyle factors such as higher incomes and education levels.

One of those is Howard County, Maryland, between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., where nearly all homes can connect to fast, reliable internet. The median household income is about $147,000 and average life expectancy is more than 82 years — a decade longer than in Greene County. A much smaller share of residents live with chronic conditions such as diabetes.

One is 78-year-old Sam Wilderson, a retired electrical engineer who has managed his Type 2 diabetes for more than a decade. He has fiber-optic internet at his home, which is a few miles from a cafe he dines at every week after Bible study. On a recent day, the cafe had a guest Wi-Fi download speed of 104 megabits per second and a 148 Mbps upload speed. The speeds are fast enough for remote workers to reliably take video calls.

Americans are demanding more speed than ever before. Most households have multiple devices — televisions, computers, gaming systems, doorbells — in addition to phones that can take up bandwidth. The more devices connected, the higher minimum speeds are needed to keep everything running smoothly.

To meet increasing needs, federal regulators updated the definition of broadband last year, establishing standard speeds of 100/20 Mbps. Those speeds are typically enough for several users to stream, browse, download, and play games at the same time.

Christopher Ali, professor of telecommunications at Penn State, recommends minimum standard speeds of 100/100 Mbps. While download speeds enable consumption, such as streaming or shopping, fast upload speeds are necessary to participate in video calls, say, for work or telehealth.

At the cafe in Howard County, on a chilly morning last fall, Wilderson ordered a glass of white wine and his usual: three-seeded bread with spinach, goat cheese, smoked salmon, and over-easy eggs. After eating, Wilderson held up his wrist: “This watch allows me to track my diabetes without pricking my finger.”

Wilderson said he works with his doctors, feels young, and expects to live well into his 90s, just as his father and grandfather did.

Telehealth is crucial for people in areas with few or no medical providers, said Ry Marcattilio, an associate director of research at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. The national research and advocacy group works with communities on broadband access and reviewed KFF Health News’ findings.

High-speed internet makes it easier to use video visits for medical checkups, which most patients with diabetes need every three months.

Being connected “can make a huge difference in diabetes outcomes,” said Nestoras Mathioudakis, an endocrinologist and co-medical director of Johns Hopkins Medicine Diabetes & Education Program, who treats patients in Howard County.

Paying More for Less

At Williams’ home in Alabama, pictures of her siblings and their kids cover the walls of the hallway and living room. A large, wood-framed image of Jesus at the Last Supper with his disciples hangs over her kitchen table.

Williams sat down as her pots simmered and sizzled. She wasn’t feeling quite right. “I had a glass of orange juice and a bag of potato chips, and I knew that wasn’t enough for breakfast, but I was cooking,” Williams said.

Every night Williams takes a pill to control her diabetes. In the morning, if she feels as if her sugar is dropping, she knows she needs to eat. So, that morning, she left the room to grab a peppermint, walking by the flickering wireless router.

The router’s download and upload speeds were 0.03/0.05 Mbps, nearly unusable by modern standards. Williams’ connection on her house phone can sound scratchy, and when she connects her cellphone to the router, it does not always work. Most days it’s just good enough for her to read a daily devotional website and check Facebook, though the stories don’t always load.

Rural residents like Williams paid nearly $13 more a month on average in late 2020 for slow internet connections than those in urban areas, according to Brian Whitacre, an agricultural economics professor at Oklahoma State University.

“You’re more likely to have competition in an urban area,” Whitacre said.

In rural Alabama, cellphone and internet options are limited. Williams pays $51.28 a month to her wireless provider, Ring Planet, which did not respond to calls and emails.

In Howard County, Maryland, national fiber-optic broadband provider Verizon Communications faces competition from Comcast, a hybrid fiber-optic and cable provider. Verizon advertises a home internet plan promising speeds of 300/300 Mbps starting at $35 a month for its existing mobile customers. The company also offers a discounted price as low as $20 a month for customers who participate in certain federal assistance programs.

“Internet service providers look at the economics of going into some of these communities and there just isn’t enough purchasing power in their minds to warrant the investment,” said Ross DeVol, chief executive of Heartland Forward, a nonpartisan think tank based in Bentonville, Arkansas, that specializes in state and local economic development.

Conexon, a fiber-optic cable construction company, estimates it costs $25,000 per mile to build above-ground fiber lines on poles and $60,000 to $70,000 per mile to build underground.

Former President Joe Biden’s 2021 infrastructure law earmarked $65 billion with a goal of connecting all Americans to high-speed internet. Money was designated to establish digital equity programs and to help low-income customers pay their internet bills. The law also set aside tens of billions through the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program, known as BEAD, to connect homes and businesses.

That effort prioritizes fiber-optic connections, but federal regulators recently outlined guidance for alternative technologies, including low Earth orbit satellites like SpaceX’s Starlink service.

Funding the use of satellites in federal broadband programs has been controversial inside federal agencies. It has also been a sore point for Elon Musk, who is chief executive of SpaceX, which runs Starlink, and is a lead adviser to President Donald Trump.

After preliminary approval, a federal commission ruled that Starlink’s satellite system was “not reasonably capable” of offering reliable high speeds. Musk tweeted last year that the commission had “illegally revoked” money awarded under the agency’s Trump-era Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.

In February, Trump nominated Arielle Roth to lead the federal agency overseeing the infrastructure act’s BEAD program. Roth is telecommunications policy director for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Last year, she criticized the program’s emphasis on fiber and said it was beleaguered by a “woke social agenda” with too many regulations.

Commerce Secretary Lutnick last week said he will get rid of “burdensome regulations” and revamp the program to “take a tech-neutral approach.” Republicans echoed his positions during a U.S. House subcommittee hearing the same day.

When asked about potentially weakening the program’s required low-cost internet option, former National Telecommunications and Information Administration official Sarah Morris said such a change would build internet connections that people can’t afford. Essentially, she said, they would be “building bridges to nowhere, building networks to no one.”

‘That Hurt’

Over a lunch of tortilla chips with the savory sauce that had been simmering on the stove, Williams said she hadn’t been getting regular checkups before her diabetes diagnosis.

“To tell you the truth, if I can get up and move and nothing is bothering me, I don’t go to the doctor,” Williams said. “I’m just being honest.”

Years ago, Williams recalled, “my head was hurting me so bad I had to just lay down. I couldn’t stand up, walk, or nothing. I’d get so dizzy.”

Williams thought it was her blood pressure, but the doctor checked for diabetes. “How did they know? I don’t know,” Williams said.

As lunch ended, she pulled out her glucose monitor. Williams connected the needle and wiped her finger with an alcohol pad. Then she pricked her finger.

“Oh,” Williams said, sucking air through her teeth. “That hurt.”

She placed the sample in the machine, and it quickly displayed a reading of 145 — a number, Williams said, that meant she needed to stop eating.

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. 

Click to open the Methodology

Methodology

Here’s how KFF Health News did its analysis for the “Dead Zone” series, which pinpointed counties that lag behind the rest of the United States in access to broadband service and health care providers.

To identify “dead zones,” KFF Health News consulted two main data sources.

• The Federal Communications Commission National Broadband Map was used to identify broadband deserts as of June 2024. We used the FCC’s minimum speed standard of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload, and followed its definition of reliable broadband: service accessible via wired (fiber optics, cable, DSL) or licensed fixed wireless technology. It’s the standard for grants awarded through the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, known as BEAD. The FCC data shows whether such service is available, and not necessarily whether households subscribe to it.
• Data from George Washington University’s Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity was used to determine counties with health provider shortages. GWU’s data on primary care providers (family and internal medicine doctors, pediatricians, obstetricians and gynecologists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) reflects providers who serve at least one person enrolled in Medicaid. We used the most recent years available: 2020 for 44 states, and 2019 data for Texas. Five states — Delaware, Florida, Maine, Minnesota, and New Hampshire — were excluded from analysis because they lacked reliable data for either year.

GWU’s data for behavioral health providers reflects psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, therapists, and addiction medicine specialists, regardless of whether their patients receive Medicaid. We used data from 2021, the most recent year available.

We classified counties as “dead zones” if they met these criteria:

• Fewer than 70% of homes had access to fast, reliable broadband.
• They ranked in the bottom third of Medicaid primary care providers, defined as the number of Medicaid enrollees per provider.
• They ranked in the bottom third of behavioral health providers, defined as the number of residents per provider.

A total of 210 counties met those criteria. At the other extreme, we defined 203 counties as “most served” if they had the most residences with broadband access (at least 96.7%) and ranked in the top third of Medicaid primary care and behavioral health provider ratios.

We also compared the health outcomes and demographics of dead zone counties relative to others using several data sources:

Related Topics

Contact Us

Submit a Story Tip

Researchers racing to develop bird flu vaccines for humans have turned to a cutting-edge technology that enabled the rapid development of lifesaving covid shots.

There’s a catch: The mRNA technology faces growing doubts among Republicans, including people around President Donald Trump.

Legislation aimed to ban or limit mRNA vaccines was introduced this year by GOP lawmakers in at least seven states. In some cases, the measures would hit doctors who give the injections with criminal penalties, fines, and possible revocation of their licenses.

Some congressional Republicans are also pressing regulators to revoke federal approval for mRNA-based covid shots, which President Donald Trump touted as one of the signature achievements of his first term.

The opposition comes at a critical juncture because vaccines using mRNA have applications well beyond avian flu and covid. They hold the promise of lifesaving breakthroughs to treat many diseases, from melanoma to HIV to Zika, according to clinical trials. The proposed bans could block access to these advances.

MRNA is found naturally in human cells. It is a molecule that carries genetic material and, in a vaccine, trains the body’s immune system to fight viruses, cancer cells, and other conditions. An advantage of mRNA technology is that it can be developed more quickly to target specific variants and is safer than developing a vaccine made from inactivated virus.

“Right now, if we had a bird flu pandemic, we would have a shortage of the vaccine we need,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. “The one thing that could save us is mRNA vaccine. The challenge would be if mRNA is banned. This is truly dangerous policy.”

The pushback conflicts with innovations championed by Trump. He assembled tech tycoons at the White House just after his inauguration to announce Stargate, a $500 billion artificial intelligence initiative that could help transform cancer treatment by creating tumor-targeting mRNA vaccines. The fledging partnership between Oracle, SoftBank Corp., and OpenAI, co-founded by Elon Musk, envisions leveraging AI in part to improve health outcomes. Patients would undergo blood tests and AI would be used to find cancer.

Scientists would examine the DNA and RNA (RNA and mRNA serve different functions in a cell) of a specific patient’s tumor to create a vaccine to teach that person’s immune system to target and destroy cells driving cancer growth.

“Imagine early cancer detection, the development of a cancer vaccine for your particular cancer aimed at you, and have that vaccine available in 48 hours,” Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison said at the White House event.

Scores of mRNA clinical trials for cancer vaccines are underway and some have shown dramatic results, cutting the risk of death and recurrence roughly in half for certain patients. In research led by the Yale School of Medicine, for example, patients with advanced kidney cancer remained cancer-free about three years after an mRNA-based treatment in an early-phase trial.

But some politically conservative doctors, lawmakers, and researchers question the safety of mRNA vaccines, especially covid shots made with the technology. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unsuccessfully petitioned the FDA in 2021 to rescind approval for covid shots and called them “the deadliest vaccine ever made” — a controversial statement that has been refuted.

Now that he’s newly confirmed as Health and Human Services secretary, Kennedy is poised to oversee federal approvals of vaccines, with the power to shape policy such as immunization schedules and appoint vaccine opponents to committees that advise on the approval of shots.

Bloomberg reported late last month that Trump administration health officials were reevaluating a $590 million contract for bird flu shots that the Biden administration awarded to Moderna as part of its push to examine spending on mRNA vaccines.

HHS and White House spokespeople didn’t return emails seeking comment.

Support for an mRNA ban is coming from other sources too. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on March 5 urged the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending the covid-19 vaccine for children and called for a state ban on mRNA vaccine mandates. In February, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said on X that the “FDA should immediately revoke approval of these shots,” and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is leading an investigation into the safety of the vaccines. Trump in February signed an order to strip federal funds from schools that require covid shots for attendance.

Vaccine skepticism has become pronounced among Republicans since the pandemic. Four in 10 Republicans who responded to a KFF poll published in January said it was “probably” or “definitely true” that “more people have died from covid-19 vaccines than from the virus itself.” Just a quarter of Republicans reported holding that view in 2023.

The effort is also finding traction at the local level. A district health department outside Boise, Idaho, last year banned its health department from administering covid-19 vaccines, and local lawmakers in Franklin County, Washington, passed a resolution in February against mRNA vaccines.

The ABCs of mRNA

The CDC recommends covid vaccines for anyone 6 months and older, especially seniors and people who are immunocompromised. About 29 million doses had been administered to adults in the 2024-25 season in retail pharmacies and doctors’ offices through Feb. 8, based on federal data.

Given as a shot, mRNA enters muscle cells and teaches them to produce a spike protein found on the surface of a virus. The body’s immune system then targets the spike protein, priming it to identify and fight the virus — in this case, the coronavirus that causes covid. The body’s cells then break down the mRNA and remove it, according to federal health researchers.

More than 13 billion covid vaccines had been administered worldwide as of August 2024.

Researchers say the vaccinations saved countless lives — estimates for the first year alone go as high as 19.8 million — in the throes of a pandemic that had hospitals ordering refrigerated mobile morgues and deliberating over which patients to put on ventilators. Two University of Pennsylvania scientists credited with developing the mRNA technology behind the shots were awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2023.

The FDA says the covid vaccines are safe, with fewer than 1 in 200,000 vaccinated individuals experiencing a severe allergic reaction or heart problems like myocarditis or pericarditis, and the agency notes that “inaccurate information about these vaccines, particularly the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, continues to circulate.”

While many people hadn’t heard of the mRNA platform until the covid shots were rolled out, it was discovered in the 1960s. The first mRNA flu vaccines were tested in mice in the 1990s. A clinical trial involving direct injection of mRNA to fight cancer occurred in 2008. Clinical trials involving the covid mRNA vaccines involved tens of thousands of volunteers.

Reviews of mortality data showed “no unusual patterns of death were detected that might suggest a potential safety concern,” based on a September 2024 report by a technical working group that provided guidance to the CDC.

But those calling for a ban on all mRNA vaccines say there is a dearth of long-term safety data, and they say covid vaccines by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna were hastily approved without proper vetting. They assert without strong evidence that the vaccines cause serious injuries to the heart, nerves, and immune and reproductive systems, and can lead to cancer.

The vaccine has been linked to rare cases of heart inflammation and inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart, although the severity has varied and most patients fully recovered, the CDC says.

“The allegations are beyond reason,” said Anne Schuchat, a career scientist who worked on covid and who twice served stints as acting director of the CDC. “The mRNA covid vaccines were extensively studied after use and do not have those problems.”

“I’m concerned about the whole mRNA technology. I don’t trust anything that fools the body,” said Stephanie Seneff, a computer scientist and anti-vaccine activist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “I’m really glad people are waking up and realizing it’s not the thing to do anymore.”

Vaccines generally work by tricking the body into producing antibodies to fight illnesses.

Pfizer spokespeople didn’t return an email seeking comment. A Moderna spokesperson, Chris Ridley, said legislative efforts to ban or restrict mRNA medicines are largely driven by misunderstandings about their safety profile and mechanism of action. While mRNA-based shots do not modify DNA, for example, that misconception is frequently cited in support of restrictions, Ridley said.

“If enacted, these measures could hinder important research and limit patient access to innovative treatments, potentially delaying life-changing medical advancements,” Ridley said in a written statement.

Networks of Opposition

Groups opposed to the mRNA technology have built a vast and well-funded legal, marketing, and social media network. Members hold conferences to discuss strategies, fund lawsuits against vaccine mandates, and produce reports on the covid vaccines.

As for state legislative efforts, measures introduced this year have varied and their progress has been mixed. Montana’s measure, for instance, was blocked. Idaho lawmakers in February held a hearing on its bill, which calls for a 10-year moratorium on mRNA vaccines. Idaho’s proposal, likely to be amended, as well as Iowa’s and Montana’s have featured criminal penalties for providers who administer all or certain mRNA vaccines. In addition, some state bills, such as legislation in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, focused on the use of the vaccine in livestock and food production.

Various bills are pending in the Texas Legislature to restrict mRNA vaccines in both livestock and humans. South Carolina’s pending bill would require anyone administering certain covid mRNA vaccines to inform patients that the shot is contaminated with fragments of “bacterial plasmid DNA.”

Covid mRNA shots may have minute amounts of residual DNA from production processes but they are heavily degraded and pose no risk, according to the Global Vaccine Data Network, which evaluates vaccine safety concerns.

Speakers at some legislative proceedings have included representatives from Children’s Health Defense, an activist, anti-vaccine group founded by Kennedy.

The Florida surgeon general in January 2024 called for a halt in the use of covid mRNA vaccines. And in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton in January moved to appeal a lawsuit he filed claiming Pfizer misrepresented the safety of its mRNA shot.

Efforts to restrict the shots have raised the profile of groups such as the Independent Medical Alliance, which advocates for mRNA-based covid vaccines to be withdrawn from the market.

“We should stop it and test it more before we move forward,” said pediatric cardiologist Kirk Milhoan, a senior fellow at the alliance.

Groups opposed to mRNA shots are pointing to a recent study to urge more caution. Yale University researchers reported in February that they found spike protein still circulating in a subset of individuals with a debilitating, post-vaccination condition. Some of the individuals who experienced chronic illness after getting the shots had detectable levels of spike protein more than 700 days after vaccination. This study was small — 42 participants — and not peer-reviewed.

Its findings also don’t show the spike protein is a health risk or a cause of vaccine injury.

“It’s an initial, provocative study in which you can’t draw conclusions,” said William Schaffner, past medical director of National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “This is one of the most widely used vaccines around the globe. It’s the furthest thing from an experimental vaccine.”

But what this growing pushback shows, according to some researchers, is that distrust isn’t coming only from fringe groups anymore.

“There are truly amazing mRNA cancer vaccines out there,” said Kate Broderick, chief innovation officer at Maravai LifeSciences, which works on vaccine development. “My fear as a scientist is that it’s been tainted in the public.”

We’d like to speak with current and former personnel from the Department of Health and Human Services or its component agencies who believe the public should understand the impact of what’s happening within the federal health bureaucracy. Please message KFF Health News on Signal at (415) 519-8778 or get in touch here.

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

Joseph Shea, who sells athletic wear in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, wonders and worries about the food he eats.

The chemical ingredients with mystifying names. The references on product labels to unspecified natural or artificial flavors. The junk food that fits his budget but feels addictive and makes him feel unwell.

Shea, one of 1,310 people who responded to a poll the health policy research group KFF conducted on health care priorities, said he assumes the FDA is making sure the ingredients are safe.

In many cases, it is not.

The FDA’s restraints on food ingredients are limited and relatively feeble, especially compared with those in Europe, a KFF Health News examination found. There are at least 950 substances in our food that are not permitted in Europe, according to one expert’s estimate, and chemicals linked to health concerns show up in hundreds of products that line the shelves of American supermarkets.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new head of the Department of Health and Human Services, has railed about the risks of food additives for years and has said he wants to end “the mass poisoning of American children.” At a March 6 confirmation hearing, Marty Makary, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the FDA, expressed concern about foods “with a lot of molecules that do not appear in nature.”

“These are chemicals that the industry insists are safe, a subset of which are concerning,” he said.

But the Trump administration’s initial moves to reduce staff at the FDA led the director of its food safety unit, Jim Jones, to resign last month and raised fears among food safety specialists that the administration could weaken oversight.

To a great extent, the FDA leaves it to food companies to determine whether their ingredients and additives are safe. Companies don’t have to tell the FDA about those decisions, and they don’t have to list all ingredients on their product labels.

Though pharmaceutical companies are required to share research on humans with the FDA, the agency is largely blind to what food-makers know about their products.

“The food industry does massive amounts of research that we have no access to,” Robert Califf told a Senate committee in December on his way out as FDA commissioner.

As a result: The FDA’s oversight of food additives is much weaker than its oversight of prescription drugs.

“There is good reason to be concerned about the chemicals that are routinely included in much of our food,” Califf testified.

Food is a big business. American consumers spend almost $1.7 trillion annually on food and beverages, according to Circana, a research and advisory firm.

Yet American food companies keep secret much of what they put in their products.

KFF Health News asked nine of the largest food manufacturers — The Coca-Cola Co., Conagra Brands, General Mills, Kellanova (successor to Kellogg), The Kraft Heinz Co., Mondelēz International, Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Unilever — for the number of ingredients, if any, that go unnamed on their product labels and the names of those ingredients deemed safe without involvement by the FDA, and substances used in their products in the United States but not in Europe, and vice versa.

None provided answers to those questions.

“We focus on the quality of the ingredients that we use, and all comply with applicable regulatory requirements,” Nestlé spokesperson Dana Stambaugh said.

Chemicals such as titanium dioxide and potassium bromate, whose safety has been debated, are allowed in foods in the United States but not in Europe.

Corporations may turn a blind eye to potential dangers, a July 2024 FDA-funded report warned.

Potentially harmful ingredients “are not necessarily required to be named on a product label,” the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, an adjunct to the agency, said in the report, which was based largely on interviews with representatives of companies across the food supply chain.

“Companies may choose not to track the presence of these ingredients/compounds due to concern about future litigation,” the report said.

Some additives can remain hidden from the public behind such catchall terms as “spices” and “artificial flavors,” as the Center for Science in the Public Interest has reported, or shrouded by other exemptions from disclosure requirements.

And some ingredients that should have been listed on product labels — potential allergens such as milk, wheat, eggs, and dyes — have at times gone undisclosed, according to a series of food recalls. Gaps in oversight have alarmed political leaders on both sides of the aisle, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, watchdog groups such as the CSPI, and academic researchers.

Adding to the concern: the profusion of ultra-processed foods, which use a wide array of chemicals to add flavor and color, extend shelf life, reduce cost, control texture or consistency, and generally tempt people to eat more. Ultra-processed foods now make up 73% of the U.S. food supply, researchers have estimated. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, has said there’s growing evidence they are “deliberately designed to be addictive,” contributing to an epidemic of obesity — a rare point of agreement between him and Kennedy.

At his confirmation hearing, Makary said some ingredients cause a chronic, low-grade inflammatory reaction in the gastrointestinal tract. “And what are we doing? We are drugging our nation’s children at scale,” he said.

The KFF poll found that 58% of respondents want the Trump administration to prioritize setting stricter limits on chemicals in the U.S. food supply.

The Consumer Brands Association, which represents many of the largest food-makers, defends the regulatory system as “rigorous,” “evidence-based,” and “proven.” The system enables companies “to innovate to meet consumer demand,” Sarah Gallo, the association’s senior vice president of product policy, said in a statement to KFF Health News.

“Food manufacturers attest to the safety of an ingredient through the development of extensive scientific evidence and third-party expert review,” Gallo added.

More than a decade ago, Pew Charitable Trusts estimated that there were about 10,000 additives allowed in food in the United States — and that the FDA had not reviewed the safety of about 3,000 of them.

“The system is fundamentally broken,” said Thomas Neltner, one of the authors of the Pew study. “It’s so bad, nobody knows — not even FDA knows — what’s in our food.”

Banned Abroad

The FDA allows titanium dioxide to be used to enhance the appearance of foods, among other purposes. According to an Environmental Working Group database, it’s listed as an ingredient in more than 1,900 products, including many candies.

The European Union takes a more cautious approach. In 2021, an EU regulatory panel concluded that titanium dioxide “can no longer be considered as safe when used as a food additive.” The panel said it couldn’t rule out the possibility that titanium dioxide could damage chromosomes.

The FDA allows potassium bromate to be used in baking, and, according to the EWG database, it’s listed as an ingredient in more than 200 products, including bread, buns, and bagels.

Potassium bromate has been banned from food in many countries, including those of the European Union, Canada, India, and Peru. In 2023, California banned it from food effective in 2027. The United Kingdom prohibited it in 1990. The International Agency for Research on Cancer identified it as possibly carcinogenic more than 25 years ago. A joint committee of the United Nations and the World Health Organization identified it as a “genotoxic carcinogen” in 1992.

On its website, the FDA says it has worked with industry to minimize potassium bromate levels and is reviewing the chemical, among others.

The EWG says that it created the database to help consumers make healthier choices and that the raw data on product labels is supplied by Label Insight — which is owned by NielsenIQ, a major provider of data to industry. The EWG has called for tighter regulation of foods.

Based on a review of FDA and European Commission databases, it appears that at least 950 more additives are used in foods in the United States than are allowed in the European Union, said Erik Millstone, an emeritus professor at the University of Sussex in England who has been studying food safety policy since the 1970s.

Direct comparisons are difficult because the two regulatory systems and the way they keep their records differ greatly.

A definitive count is elusive because the FDA doesn’t require industry to inform it of everything used in foods in the United States.

“That kind of casual neglect totally would be unacceptable in Europe,” Millstone said.

‘Several Decades Behind Europeans’

When the FDA formally approves substances for use in food, it can let decades pass without reassessing them — even when subsequent research raises doubts about their safety.

In January, when the FDA banned Red Dye No. 3 from foods, it cited research published in 1987. (The FDA said it had no evidence the dye puts people at risk; invoking one of the stricter consumer protections, it said a law from 1960 prohibits the use of additives found to induce cancer in animals.)

In the European Union, substances used in foods must pass regulatory approval before being introduced. The EU has also required that its regulators reassess all additives that were on the market before Jan. 20, 2009, a process that is ongoing.

“In the FDA, although we have authorization to do post-market reviews, there’s no statutory mandate to do them,” Jones, the former deputy commissioner of the FDA’s Human Foods Program, told a Senate committee in December. “We are several decades behind Europeans and our Canadian counterparts because they have legal mandates to reevaluate chemicals that have been authorized at some point in the past.”

The FDA website lists 19 post-market determinations since 2010 that substances were not “generally recognized as safe.” Four involve chemical constituents of one mushroom and the mushroom itself. Others include an anabolic steroid, caffeinated alcoholic beverages, cannabidiol (CBD), Ginkgo biloba, melatonin, and partially hydrogenated oils.

Meanwhile, trichloroethylene, banned by the Environmental Protection Agency in December as “an extremely toxic chemical known to cause liver cancer, kidney cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” is still allowed under FDA rules for use as a solvent in the production of foods.

FDA spokesperson Enrico Dinges said the agency will work with new leadership at HHS “to safeguard the food supply through pre-market and post-market safety evaluations of chemicals in the food supply.”

‘The Loophole Swallowed the Law’

The biggest gap in the FDA’s oversight of foods goes back generations.

In 1958, Congress mandated that, before additives could be used in foods, manufacturers had to prove they were safe and get FDA approval. However, Congress carved out an exception for substances “generally recognized as safe,” which came to be known simply as GRAS.

As conceived, GRAS promised regulatory relief for standard ingredients like salt, sugar, vinegar, and baking powder — along with many chemicals.

Over time, “the loophole swallowed the law,” said a 2014 report by Neltner and Maricel Maffini for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Companies can unilaterally decide their ingredients are already recognized as safe and use them without asking the FDA for permission or even informing the agency.

A better translation of GRAS would be “Generally Recognized as SECRET,” the Natural Resources Defense Council report said.

A federal watchdog reached a similar conclusion. “GRAS substances can be marketed without FDA’s approval or even its knowledge,” the Government Accountability Office warned in 2010.

That spared the FDA from spending time reviewing countless substances.

For advice on whether ingredients are GRAS, companies may convene panels of specialists. The FDA has noted that panel members could be paid by the companies commissioning the review, but, in guidance to industry, it says “such compensation is not itself an unacceptable conflict.”

About 3,000 flavoring ingredients have been deemed GRAS by a panel of scientists working for an industry group, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United States, known as FEMA, said George Southworth, the organization’s executive director.

The scientists on the FEMA panel “adhere to stringent conflict-of-interest policies,” and their GRAS determinations are submitted to the FDA, which includes them in an online database, Southworth said.

Southworth described the panel as independent, and the FEMA website says panel members have never been employees of companies in the food industry.

Asked how many times FEMA’s panel found that a flavoring didn’t meet the test, Southworth wouldn’t say. He indicated that some reviews are called off before a conclusion is reached.

“Publicly reporting these numbers without full context could lead to misinterpretations about the safety of substances,” he added.

Another Way

Food companies have another option: They can voluntarily notify the FDA that they believe their product is GRAS for its intended use and lay out their reasons — giving the FDA a heads up and essentially seeking its blessing.

If they take that route, they don’t have to wait for an answer from the FDA to begin marketing the product, the agency has said.

And they don’t risk much. If the FDA spots weaknesses in a company’s argument or reasons to worry about a chemical’s safety, it routinely calls off its review instead of declaring the substance unsafe.

FDA records posted on the agency’s website show that the FDA often coaches companies to ask the agency to cease its evaluation. That, too, leaves the company free to sell the product, food watchdogs said.

For companies that voluntarily run their products past the FDA, victory is a letter saying the agency has no questions.

But if companies market products as “generally recognized as safe” without firm grounds, they run the risk that the FDA could one day take enforcement action, such as issuing a warning or stopping sales. That’s if the FDA notices.

Psyched Out

On March 8, 2022, a Canadian company, Psyched Wellness, issued a news release saying it had a green light to market products in the United States.

An “independent review panel of scientific experts” concluded that an extract the company developed, AME-1, was “Generally Recognized As Safe,” paving the way for it to be sold in bulk and used as an ingredient, the company said.

The company described the panel’s judgment as a successful “certification” and “a key milestone.” The extract was derived from a hallucinogenic mushroom, Amanita muscaria, which the company said “has incredible healing and medicinal powers.” As the company later put it in a news release, it had obtained “self-Gras status.”

In June 2024, the company announced that it would soon release Amanita muscaria watermelon gummies.

However, the FDA later took issue with the company and its product.

In a memo dated Sept. 9, 2024, an FDA toxicologist said Psyched Wellness’ claim of GRAS certification was false. The firm failed to show that its extract was generally recognized as safe, the FDA memo said.

Speaking of the mushroom, its extracts, and its known “pharmacologically active constituents,” the FDA memo posted on the agency’s website said they have “potential for serious harm and adverse effects on the central nervous system.”

The FDA was focusing on the mushroom against the backdrop of a spate of medical problems linked to another company’s “Diamond Shruumz” brand chocolate bars, gummies, and infused cones. When it recalled those products in June 2024, that other company announced that a chemical found in Amanita mushrooms was a possible cause of symptoms, including seizures and loss of consciousness.

The FDA memo discussed that recall and said one death and 30 hospitalizations might have been related.

The memo did not connect Psyched Wellness to the outbreak or the Diamond Shruumz products.

The chief executive of Psyched Wellness, Jeffrey Stevens, did not respond to an interview request or written questions.

As recently as Feb. 1, Psyched Wellness said in a securities filing that it will “continue to market its products in the U.S. using the Self-GRAS designation.”

‘Probably Poisoning Us’

If food ingredients cause acute reactions — sending people to emergency rooms, for example — the potential dangers may be relatively easy to identify, and regulatory action might naturally follow. Some critics of the system say they worry more about health effects that could take years or decades to develop.

Then, when it’s too late, it could be hard to trace the harm to any particular ingredient.

All that leaves Joseph Shea of Myrtle Beach in a tough spot.

For a while, Shea tried shopping at a market that has a lot of organic offerings, he said in an interview. That proved too expensive.

Shea said the entire picture is “incredibly frustrating.”

“They’re probably poisoning us, and we don’t know,” he said. “We’ll figure it out 30 years down the road when we get sick.”

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

Panelists at a covid conference last fall were asked to voice their regrets — policies they had supported during the pandemic but had come to see as misguided. Covid contact tracing, one said. Closing schools, another said. Vaccine mandates, a third said.

When Marty Makary’s turn came, the Johns Hopkins University surgeon said, “I can’t think of anything,” adding, “The entire covid policy of three to four years felt like a horror movie I was forced to watch.”

It was a characteristic response for Makary, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration, who looks set to be confirmed after a Senate committee hearing on Thursday. A decorated doctor and a brash critic of many of his medical colleagues, Makary drew Trump’s attention during the pandemic with frequent appearances on Fox News shows such as “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” in which he excoriated public health officials over their handling of covid.

Many former FDA officials and scientists with knowledge of the agency are optimistic about Makary — to a degree.

“He’s a world-class surgeon, and he has health policy expertise,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, a Brown University professor of epidemiology and former colleague of Makary’s at Johns Hopkins. “If you have pancreatic cancer, he’s the person you want to operate on you. The university is probably losing a lot of money to not have him doing that work.”

His critics say he at times exaggerated the harms of the covid vaccine and undersold the dangers of the virus, contributing to a pandemic narrative that led many Americans to shun the shots and other practices intended to curb transmission and reduce hospitalizations and deaths.

Should he take the reins at the FDA, transitioning from gadfly to the head of an agency that regulates a fifth of the U.S. economy, Makary would have to engage in the thorny challenges of governing.

“Makary spent the pandemic raving against the medical establishment as if he were an outsider, which he wasn’t,” said Jonathan Howard, a New York City neurologist and the author of “We Want Them Infected,” a book that criticizes Makary and other academics who opposed government policies. “Now he really is the establishment. Everything that happens is going to be his responsibility.”

At his confirmation hearing, Makary sounded a lower-key tone, extolling the FDA’s professional staff and promising to apply good science and common sense in the service of attacking chronic disease in the U.S., including by studying food additives and chemicals that could be contributing to poor health.

“We need more humility in the medical establishment. You have to be willing to evolve your position as new data comes in,” he testified. What makes a great doctor “is not how much you know; it’s your humility and your willingness to learn, as you go, from patients.”

Colleagues have applauded Makary’s skill and intelligence as a surgeon and medical policy thinker. He contributed to a 2009 surgery checklist believed to have prevented thousands of mistakes and infections in operating rooms. He wrote a widely cited 2016 paper claiming that medical errors were the third-leading cause of death in the United States, although some researchers said the assertion was overblown. He’s also founded or been a director for companies and said in the hearing that a surgical technique he invented eventually could help cure diabetes.

Humility, however, has not been Makary’s most obvious trait.

During the pandemic, he took to op-eds and conservative media with controversial positions on public health policy. Some proved astute, while others look less prescient in hindsight.

In December 2020, Makary defied established scientific knowledge and said that vaccination of 20% of the population would be enough to create “herd immunity.” In a February 2021 Wall Street Journal piece, he predicted that covid would virtually disappear by April because so many people would have become immune through infection or vaccination. The U.S. death toll from covid stood at 560,000 that April, with an additional 650,000 deaths to come. In June 2021, he said he had been unable to find evidence of a single covid death of a previously healthy child. By then there were many reports of such deaths, although children were much less likely than older people to suffer severe disease.

In February 2023, Makary testified in Congress that the lab-leak theory of covid’s origin was a “no brainer,” a surprisingly unequivocal statement for a scientist discussing a scientifically unresolved issue.

Some public health officials felt Makary gratuitously attacked authorities working in difficult circumstances.

“He went from being a pretty reasonable person to saying a lot of things that were over the top and unnecessary,” said Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, who was the White House covid-19 response coordinator under President Joe Biden.

And while almost everyone involved in fighting covid has admitted to getting things wrong during the pandemic, Jha said, “I never had any sense from Marty that he did.”

Makary did not respond to requests for comment.

Makary accused Biden administration officials of ignoring emerging evidence that previous infection with covid could be as or more effective against future infection than vaccination. While he was probably right, Nuzzo said, his statements seemed to encourage people to get infected.

“It’s reasonable to say that vaccine mandates weren’t the right approach,” she said. “But you can also understand that people were trying to blindly stumble our way out of the situation, and some people thought vaccine mandates would be expedient.”

At Johns Hopkins, for example, Nuzzo opposed a booster mandate for the campus in 2022 but understood the final decision to require it. School authorities were intent on bringing students back to campus and worried that outbreaks would force them to shut down again, she said.

“You can argue that seat belt laws are bad because they impinge on civil rights,” Howard said. “But a better thing to do would be to urge people to wear seat belts.”

Makary’s statements had “no grace,” he said. “These were people dealing with an overwhelming virus, and he constantly accused them of lying.”

Several public health officials were particularly upset by the way Makary cast aspersions on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine safety program. In a Jan. 16, 2023, appearance on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, Makary said the CDC had “tried to quickly downplay” evidence of an increased risk of stroke in Medicare beneficiaries who got a covid booster. In fact, the CDC had detected a potential signal for additional strokes in one database, and in the interest of transparency it released that information, Nuzzo said. Further investigation found that there was no actual risk.

During Thursday’s hearing, Makary’s pandemic views were mostly left unexplored, but Democratic and Republican senators repeatedly probed for his views on the abortion drug mifepristone, which became easier to use without direct medical supervision because of a 2021 FDA ruling. Many Republicans want to reverse the FDA ruling; Democrats say there are reams of evidence that support the drug’s safety when taken by a woman at home.

[embedded content]

Makary tried to satisfy both parties. He told Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) he would be led by science and had no preconceived ideas about mifepristone’s safety. Questioned by Republican Bill Cassidy, chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and an abortion foe, he said he would examine ongoing data on the drug from the FDA’s risk evaluation system, which gathers reports from the field.

The abortion pill question exemplifies the kind of dilemmas Makary will face at the FDA, Jha said.

“He’s going to have to decide whether he listens to the scientists in his administration, or his boss, who often disagrees with science,” he said. “He’s a smart, thoughtful guy and my hope is he’ll find his way through.”

“The two most important organs for the FDA commissioner are the brain and the spine,” said former FDA deputy commissioner Joshua Sharfstein. “The spine because there’s attempted influence coming from many directions, not just political but also commercial and from multiple advocacy communities. It’s very important to stand up for the agency’s success.”

We’d like to speak with current and former personnel from the Department of Health and Human Services or its component agencies who believe the public should understand the impact of what’s happening within the federal health bureaucracy. Please message KFF Health News on Signal at (415) 519-8778 or get in touch here.

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

In Washington’s debate over enacting steep funding cuts to Medicaid, words are a central battleground.

Many Republican lawmakers and conservative policy officials who want to scale back the joint state-federal health program are using charged language to describe it. Language experts and advocates for Medicaid enrollees say their word choice is misleading and aims to sway public opinion against the popular, 60-year-old government program in a bid to persuade Congress to cut funding.

Republicans such as Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, are deploying provocative terms such as “money laundering,” rebranding a decades-old — and legal — practice known as provider taxes, which most states use to gain additional federal Medicaid funds.

They say it’s “discrimination” that the federal government matches state funding at a higher rate for adults covered by the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion than it does for other enrollees, including children, pregnant women, and disabled people.

And many Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, have described adults who gained Medicaid coverage through the ACA expansion as “able-bodied” as they push for federal work requirements.

The term implies they have less need for government assistance than other Medicaid recipients — even though some have health conditions or caregiving responsibilities that make holding full-time jobs difficult.

“Able-bodied adults without dependents are better off with jobs than with hand-outs, and so are their communities and American taxpayers,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said in a press release in February.

To be sure, political spin is a practice older than Washington, and Democrats are no spectators in the war of words. But what’s striking about the latest GOP effort is that it is focused on cutting a health program for the nation’s poorest residents to pay, in part, for tax cuts for wealthier Americans.

A KFF poll conducted last month and released Friday found that support for proposed changes to Medicaid can wax or wane depending on what individuals are told about the program.

For example, the poll found about 6 in 10 adults support work requirements, with the same portion of respondents believing incorrectly that most working-age adults on Medicaid are unemployed. In fact, about two-thirds work.

KFF’s poll also showed that support for work requirements drops to about 3 in 10 adults when those who initially supported them hear that most Medicaid enrollees are already working and that, if the requirements were implemented, many would risk losing coverage because of the burden of proving eligibility.

When respondents initially opposed to work requirements were told they could allow Medicaid to be reserved for groups like the elderly, people with disabilities, and low-income children, support for them increased to 77%.

Steven Mintz, a history professor at the University of Texas, said the Medicaid debate likely will be won not on the facts, but instead on which party can describe it in terms that gain the most public support. “Words are wielded as weapons,” he said.

Republicans’ word choices are designed to appeal to people’s prejudices about Medicaid, he said, adding that “loaded” terms help divert attention from a detailed policy discussion.

“Words help reinforce a position that people already lean toward,” he said.

Sara Rosenbaum, professor emerita of health law and policy at George Washington University, said conservatives who have long tried to shrink Medicaid have an obvious motivation.

“These people spend their lives trying to ruin the program by searching for the newest slogans, the newest quips, and the newest nonsensical monikers that they think somehow will persuade Congress to completely upend the program and take benefits away from tens of millions of people,” she said.

Medicaid and the closely related Children’s Health Insurance Program cover nearly 80 million low-income and disabled people — roughly 1 in 5 Americans. Enrollment and spending soared in the past decade due largely to the covid pandemic and the decision by more states to expand Medicaid under the ACA. Polling shows the program is nearly as popular as Medicare, the health program primarily for those 65 or older — with about 3 in 4 Americans holding a favorable opinion of Medicaid.

The House of Representatives’ budget resolution, a blueprint that narrowly passed Feb. 25 with no Democratic support, calls for cuts of at least $880 billion over a decade largely from federal health and energy programs. A separate Senate resolution with no such cuts — so far — is also in play. Any proposal would need to pass both chambers.

Democrats fear most of those cuts will come from Medicaid. Trump has vowed not to touch Medicare, leaving few if any alternatives. He has said he would “cherish” Medicaid and go after only waste, fraud, and abuse in the program without offering details on how those would be interpreted — and he endorsed the House’s blueprint calling for cuts.

States and the federal government share in the financing of Medicaid, with the federal government paying from 50% to 77% of the cost of providing services to most beneficiaries. The rate is 90% for beneficiaries receiving coverage through their state’s Medicaid expansion program.

The federal matching rate varies based on a state’s per capita income relative to the national average; states with lower per capita incomes have higher matching rates. The remaining share of program funding comes from state and local sources.

The words “discrimination” and “money laundering” have been used in reports from the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank led by a former Trump adviser, Brian Blase. Two former Paragon executives now advise Trump, and a former Paragon analyst advises Johnson.

Blase said there’s no ulterior motive in the group’s word choices. “This is us trying to describe the issue in a way that makes the most sense to members of Congress and policymakers,” he said.

Paragon analysts have argued for ending the federal government’s “discrimination” in matching state dollars for those covered under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion at a higher rate than for other enrollees. They also propose giving states a set amount of federal money per year for the program, rather than the open-ended federal funds that always have been a hallmark of Medicaid.

One way states raise funds for their share of Medicaid spending is through provider taxes that hospitals or nursing homes pay. States often reimburse the providers through the extra federal money.

Blase acknowledges that provider taxes used by states to draw down more federal money — which Paragon has referred to as “money laundering” — are legal. He said calling the practice a “tax” is misleading because the providers financially benefit from it.

“Money laundering is the best term we can think of for the schemes providers and states come up with to get federal reimbursement for artificial expenditures that benefits states and providers,” he said.

Joan Alker, executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University, defended provider taxes as a legal way states raise money to cover low-income people. She noted most states with provider taxes are controlled at least partly by Republicans.

Alker rejected the notion that enhanced funding to expand enrollment is “discrimination.” The ACA included the higher rates for covering more low-income enrollees because that was the only way states could afford it, she said.

Without providing a specific example, Blase said advocates have said cuts would “leave people dying in the streets.”

During a brief funding freeze to Medicaid providers in January, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said, “This is a blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans overnight and will get people killed.”

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