But if approved by voters in November, it’s unclear how much money the ballot initiative would raise, how quickly the funding would become available, and how lawmakers would spend it.

The measure would steer proceeds from a first-in-the-nation wealth tax to a state healthcare fund, giving the governor and lawmakers the power to decide how to spend what California’s nonpartisan legislative analyst “tens of billions of dollars.” Backers say it could raise up to $100 billion over five years to keep hospitals and emergency rooms open and preserve insurance coverage for millions of Californians. Yet, community health centers, doctors, and other healthcare entities that might benefit from such a cash infusion argue that the union spearheading the measure has readied a blank check for politicians.

“I’m not sure that you can say, with full security, that this will stop clinics from being closed or healthcare workers from being laid off, or people from losing their healthcare,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget & Policy Center, a left-leaning nonprofit.

Can’t see the audio player? Visit kffhealthnews.org to listen.

Taxing the Ultrarich

Put on the ballot by one of California’s largest healthcare unions, Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on with a net worth of at least $1 billion, including most of their stock holdings, yachts, and artwork. It would apply to those who were residents of California on Jan. 1, 2026. Real estate, pensions, and retirement accounts would generally be exempt.

The revenue raised is intended to offset the roughly in anticipated losses to the Golden State from congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Over the next four years, state and federal funding cuts are projected to nearly double California’s uninsured population, which stands at , according to the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center.

Securing additional tax revenue is essential because state lawmakers have yet to come up with a way to pay for healthcare services that will be affected by the cuts, said Dave Regan, president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which represents hospital workers and got the wealth tax on the ballot. It would earmark 90% of the tax revenue for healthcare, while the remaining 10% would be split between food assistance and education at lawmakers’ discretion. Regan said such broad categories would give politicians flexibility to be more responsive to the looming cuts.

“Figuring out or predicting exactly what the fallout will be, of where reductions and cuts get made, in a complicated healthcare system, it’s just too difficult to predict,” Regan said.

Among the choices the next governor and lawmakers will face are whether to provide healthcare to people cut off by the new federal Medicaid work requirements, reverse state rollbacks limiting coverage for immigrants with legal status, or raise the low physician reimbursement rates that make some providers reluctant to accept patients enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

Lawmakers could also shore up subsidies on Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace, whose enrollees have seen their premiums skyrocket after losing millions in federal assistance after Congress last year let enhanced subsides expire.

Most of the money must be spent on health, but healthcare experts said the measure’s ambiguous language could allow lawmakers to use the new billionaire health fund to replace existing state dollars, contrary to the text of the proposition.

“A lot of times these propositions are written in a way to get attention and get support,” said Glenn Melnick, a healthcare economist at the University of Southern California. “But in fact, they can be used for other things later.”

Instead, the healthcare industry is pushing for a long-term funding plan. René Bravo, a pediatrician in San Luis Obispo County and the president of the California Medical Association, worries that a one-time infusion of tax dollars “is going to run out.”

“We need to work on a more sustainable, durable funding mechanism for the Medi-Cal system,” he said.

At the same time, doctors are asking him what will happen when the biggest Medi-Cal eligibility cuts begin to take effect next year. Even if voters approve the ballot measure, the money wouldn’t be available for at least a few months while the state collects the tax. And billionaires could spread their payments over five years.

Californians Divided

Pasadena resident Lynne Wines, a 72-year-old retired banker, knows the state needs the money. But she worries that wealthy investors will see the measure as a precedent and flee the state. Even though the ballot measure is clear that it’s a one-time tax, Wines said it’s a slippery slope.

“Taxes have a way of being needed over and over, and politicians have a way of finding those needs,” Wines said. “So, I don’t really feel secure that this is just a one-time thing.”

She noted that Google co-founder and billionaire Sergey Brin bought a home in Nevada and moved some of his businesses to the Silver State late last year. He is backing ad campaigns opposing the measure. Brin has given more than $100 million to a nonprofit promoting two competing measures, Propositions 41 and 42, designed to blunt or block it, according to contributions filed with the secretary of state’s office. One would count some new state taxes toward California’s overall spending limit and require the state auditor to review new state tax proposals before voters weigh in. The other would prohibit new state taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts, and other assets.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, warned on CNN in June that just the threat of the tax “has sent trillions of dollars, by some estimates, of wealth leaving the state.” A March study by the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University projected that the billionaire tax would , citing, in part, the lost revenue from billionaires who have already left the state.

California voters appear torn over departing billionaires. Two independent September polls suggested voter support for Proposition 40 varied from a to a .

Pasadena resident Steve Erler, 74, works full-time as a building manager because he can’t afford to retire. He worries that federal cuts will hurt children and seniors.

“These people who are making all this money, they can never spend it all. What are they going to do, buy another house in the Hamptons, buy another jet? They don’t need that,” Erler said while out walking his dog in August. “They need to be able to say when they go to bed at night, ‘I helped a child with healthcare. I helped a senior get fed.’ That’s what’s important,” he said.

Democrats are divided — one of many ideological fights playing out nationwide this election cycle as progressives take on more centrist candidates. U.S. Sen. (I-Vt.) and the have endorsed Proposition 40, while Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is exploring a presidential bid, and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Xavier Becerra oppose it while saying that ultrawealthy or high-earning people should pay more. “It’s time for an economic reset, a true minimum tax on billionaires that, well, ensures the people at the very top pay at least the tax rate their own workers pay,” said Newsom, who supports a , although legislation for a federal has stalled.

If voters approve the ballot measure, political analysts said, it could show other states that taxing the wealthy may help close budget gaps and pay for essential services. Already several Democratic states, including , , , and , have approved millionaire taxes, but those have been limited to income, not overall wealth. Voters in Washington state will decide this fall whether to .

“I do think this is just the beginning of these proposals nationwide,” said Melnick, the USC healthcare economist.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Then Medicare launched an 18-month pilot program that offers GLP-1 medications to some enrollees for only $50 a month. La Marca thought he might finally be able to afford the drug.

“I thought, ‘Thank God, there’s a path,’” said La Marca, who lives in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, and has tried numerous diets and exercise regimes.

But the 68-year-old’s celebration was short-lived.

His application to the pilot program was denied.

La Marca has severe obstructive sleep apnea, one of several diagnoses that exclude patients from the Bridge program’s $50 monthly price. The notification didn’t say why he was rejected. He thinks that if he didn’t have that diagnosis, he would qualify due to his weight.

“I’m obese, morbidly obese, BMI 42. I had quadruple heart bypass surgery. I’m at risk for stroke. I’m prediabetic. And yet I can’t get it. I’m livid,” he said.

A Temporary Patch for a Long-Standing Gap

About 1 in 5 American adults have taken a GLP-1 medication, and most of them, including those with health insurance, say the drugs are . Federal law has long barred Medicare from covering drugs prescribed solely for weight loss, which is why the Medicare GLP-1 Bridge program made a big splash when it launched in July.

It’s a short-term pilot program in which Medicare is offering coverage of three GLP-1s for weight loss and management, to see if that would save Medicare money later. Eligible patients must be enrolled in Medicare Part D, a prescription drug coverage add-on to Medicare. Even though people must have Part D insurance to qualify, the preauthorization request doesn’t go through the insurer; it’s instead submitted to a separate system run by a contractor for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The pilot includes Wegovy, the KwikPen formulation of Zepbound, and the oral medication Foundayo.

Under the pilot, many Medicare beneficiaries with a body mass index of 35 or higher — the — qualify for coverage of one of those drugs, if prescribed. Those otherwise eligible who have a BMI of 27 to 34 can qualify if they also have certain health conditions, such as prediabetes or cardiovascular disease.

But buried in the fine print is a distinction that’s tripping up patients like La Marca: The $50 price under Bridge applies only to people using the drug solely for weight loss. Anyone who has a qualifying medical condition that the Food and Drug Administration has approved GLP-1s to treat, such as Type 2 diabetes or moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea, is instead routed back to their Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, which can require copays of hundreds of dollars a month for GLP-1s.

“The Bridge program was designed to target those people who can’t get GLP-1 coverage through Part D but would benefit from taking one for weight loss,” said Juliette Cubanski, who directs the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

The cost to Medicare of subsidizing the drugs will depend largely on how many people use the program, and the federal government hasn’t released an estimate.

Cubanski that 3.8 million people qualify and that, if a quarter of them enroll in Bridge and remain on treatment for the program’s full 18 months, it will cost Medicare about $3.3 billion. If three-quarters enroll, costs could rise to $10 billion.

If the government expanded the program to include the additional 5.9 million people who are overweight and already eligible for GLP-1 coverage through Medicare Part D, it would add billions more to the program’s cost.

The demonstration’s initial weeks have been positive, and most prior authorization requests have been completed in under 12 hours, CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said.

“This has allowed thousands of eligible beneficiaries to access GLP-1 medications for weight loss at pharmacies nationwide,” Foster said.

GLP-1s Aren’t Covered

Patients like La Marca are left in a tough spot, qualifying for Part D coverage of a GLP-1 but facing much higher cost sharing.

“‘Coverage’ doesn’t always mean ‘affordable,’” said primary care physician , who describes herself as a “big proponent” of GLP-1s and practices at Sunflower Medical Group in Roeland Park, Kansas.

The Bridge program is leaving behind patients with the greatest medical need, she said. She noted that many Medicare patients already must navigate prior authorization and spend months trying alternate, often cheaper treatments, a process known as step therapy, before finally getting approval — only to arrive at the pharmacy counter and discover that their GLP-1 copays will run them $200 to $600 a month, if not more.

Researchers studying how Medicare insurers cover GLP-1s that recipients have faced increases in out-of-pocket costs and that almost all plans now require prior authorization, which can make getting the drugs more difficult.

Chris Bond, a spokesperson for insurance industry trade group AHIP, blamed drugmakers’ prices, “which they alone set and they alone can lower.”

La Marca’s insurer declined to answer specific questions about La Marca’s case.

Left Waiting

For now, La Marca’s GLP-1 prescription remains unfilled. The severe sleep apnea diagnosis that helps establish his medical need is also what excludes him from the discount program that would bring the cost within his reach.

As he reflected on his appeals and the dead ends, La Marca paused, his eyes filling with tears of frustration.

“This is now my quest, because it’s my only chance to improve my health,” he said. “It’s the only thing left. I’ve tried everything.”

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Can’t see the audio player? Visit kffhealthnews.org to listen.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom, using his , refused to extradite a physician accused of prescribing and mailing abortion pills to a Louisiana woman, he said California would “not ever” allow “extremist politicians” to punish its doctors.

Newsom, who is considering a run for president, has long championed reproductive rights, but state lawmakers in the Democratically controlled California legislature know future governors might not have the same political beliefs.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host endorsed by President Donald Trump, has vowed to honor these types of extradition requests from other states if he’s elected, Louisiana “is trying to uphold what its people voted for, and California is undermining it.” His opponent, Democrat Xavier Becerra, has said he would deny the requests.

Legislation advancing in Sacramento is the latest chapter in a tit for tat that’s been happening between conservative and liberal states since 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending federal legal protections for abortion.

by state Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, which is being heard in committee, would take some decisions out of the governor’s hands, requiring governors to deny extradition requests for healthcare providers who prescribe abortion medication or administer gender-affirming care. It would also shield anyone in California who helped patients travel to California or another state to receive legal care. While opponents cast “shield laws” as an incursion on other states’ authority, supporters of the bill view it as insurance — even with Becerra leading Hilton 52% to 31%, according to by the University of California-Berkeley Institute of Government Studies.

Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said the governor doesn’t comment on pending legislation. Hilton and Becerra didn’t return calls for comment.

“Protecting providers from prosecution should not rely on shifting political winds or a single person’s decision,” said Alyssa Sherer, a nurse practitioner who spoke in support of the bill at a Senate committee hearing in June. Sherer is also the medical director at Hey Jane, a telehealth medication abortion provider. 

Thirteen states have banned abortion outright, and 28 other states ban abortion somewhere between six weeks and viability. At the same time, other states that allow abortion have enacted shield laws to protect doctors and nurses from liability when they prescribe across state lines.

People living in states with total abortion bans are increasingly getting abortion pills prescribed via telehealth, from 74,000 abortions in 2024 to 92,000 abortions in 2025, according to the Guttmacher Institute, citing numbers from its Monthly Abortion Provision Study.

Critics of shield laws say that states have a legitimate interest in enforcing their own statutes and that such laws represent an attempt by some states, like California, to nullify the legal decisions of others.

“If California says, ‘We’re not going to honor any other state’s laws. We’re going to ship abortion pills into your states. You can’t have a law that says abortion is illegal,’ I don’t know — that doesn’t seem like a workable situation,” said Greg Burt, who is vice president of the California Family Council and has spoken in opposition to shield laws at the State Capitol.

Twenty-one other states and Washington, D.C., have similar shield laws, but Arizona, California, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania’s rely on an executive order, which could be reversed by a successor, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Amanda Barrow, a senior staff attorney at the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at UCLA Law, said passing extradition protections would put California on firmer footing, because an executive order “could be revoked by a governor who is anti-abortion or anti-gender-affirming-care.”

Hilton has said he would do just that if elected.

“Just as I wouldn’t want to see Louisiana coming in and undermining something that we voted for here in California,” the GOP candidate told KQED in January. 

During a , Becerra said he was strident about protecting reproductive rights as the state’s attorney general. “Absolutely no,” Becerra said of allowing California physicians to be extradited. 

This year, ±á²¹·É²¹¾±â€˜i to its existing shield laws. And Oregon , including banning law enforcement from cooperating with out-of-state or federal investigations into care that’s legal in the state.

But Republican legislators in conservative states have cast telehealth visits as an end run around their laws. And some have moved to restrict abortion pill access.

The governors of , , and have signed bills this year that criminalize the sale, purchase, or distribution of medication that induces an abortion. Those states make it a felony to provide medication abortion drugs to people who are seeking to end a pregnancy. The laws impose up to 10 years in prison with potentially tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

Mississippi amended the state’s controlled substances code to add abortion pills as a criminal category. Although the state already prohibits abortion broadly, the measure specifically addresses distribution, which could subject out-of-state providers to prosecution.

In January, Louisiana a California doctor, Remy Coeytaux, mailing abortion pills to a patient. Newsom denied the request. Likewise, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul denied Louisiana’s February 2025 extradition request for a .

Texas has taken a slightly different legal tact. Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate, obtained a default judgment of more than $100,000 against the New York doctor targeted by Louisiana, but a , citing New York’s shield law. Neither Paxton nor Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill responded to requests for comment. 

Fear of being charged with a crime for providing quality medical care is contributing to physicians leaving medicine, said Sacramento emergency room doctor Kamara Graham, who is vice president of the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, which is supporting the bill.

“It’s really conflicting and hard for us to weigh that concern of: Will I get extradited and charged and potentially be taken away from my family? Or do I do the right thing for my patient?” Graham said.

The availability of medication used in most abortions could soon change nationwide. Under the leadership of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Food and Drug Administration it is conducting a safety review of mifepristone, one of two medications in pill form that is used in most U.S. abortions. The FDA maintains the drug is safe and effective.

If the FDA were to decide that mifepristone is not safe, such a ruling would supersede state laws, even in states where abortion is legal. If mifepristone is restricted, many telehealth groups have said they would switch to using only the other medication, misoprostol.

“The elephant in the room is whether the Trump administration, particularly after the midterms, makes some kind of move to put national limits on access to abortions,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at UC-Davis who has written several books on reproductive health law.

“Not everything is something that the legislature can solve for,” Ziegler said, “because there’s some uncertainty about how the federal courts are going to react to all of this.”

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Can’t see the audio player? Visit kffhealthnews.org to listen.

---

When Congress allowed covid-era subsidies for health insurance to expire, California used its own funds to offset the hike in Obamacare premium costs for residents with low incomes.

But the reach has been limited.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom negotiates his last budget with the legislature, the Democrat wants to offer financial help to more than 1 in 4 enrollees in Covered California, the nation’s largest state-run health insurance marketplace. Democratic lawmakers, who hold a supermajority, are still debating the plan.

“My budget proposal would KEEP $0 monthly plans for low-income Californians to help clean up the financial disaster Trump created,” Newsom , where he often chides the president and GOP Congress.

have put up their own funds to keep Affordable Care Act plans affordable and residents insured as the rising cost of healthcare has emerged as a among voters. Newsom’s $300 million proposal would make California’s program among the most generous, but even the nation’s richest state can’t patch a left by the expiration of enhanced subsides at the end of last year.

“The gap between what people can pay in their monthly budget and what health insurance costs is so big that it’s a lot for states to take on,” said , a senior research fellow at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “They’re going to have to figure out how they can finance that.”

New Mexico lawmakers have of the lost federal subsidies with state money. It seems to have worked; New Mexico saw in marketplace enrollment this year, but state analysts that the subsidy program isn’t sustainable.

and , which, like California, tax residents , are also spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to keep premium payments low. Their hope, healthcare experts say, is to avoid the exodus seen in states such as Georgia that didn’t offer enrollees help.

Since the enhanced subsidies expired, have seen their premium payments increase by $65 a month on average.

Conservatives including have long argued that the subsidy expansion was too generous to high-income enrollees and .

“There are never enough subsidies to make health insurance affordable because subsidies are the problem,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “They are causing people to turn a blind eye to fraud and waste and excessive prices because it’s someone else’s money that they’re spending, not their own.”

Helping the Poorest?

People who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid got relief starting in January after Newsom and legislators softened the blow for about 300,000 of the lowest-income enrollees. They offset lost federal premium tax credits for individuals who last year and partially filled the gap for those who earned up to $25,823.

The governor now wants to expand subsidies to those who earn up to $31,920 this year for an individual and $66,000 for a family of four — an estimated 218,000 additional people.

Veronica and William Walter, who live in the San Francisco Bay Area, earn less than $40,000 a year in one of the nation’s most expensive regions. They’re counting on a more generous state healthcare tax credit if they have to pay for health insurance next year.

A car accident two years ago left William temporarily disabled, qualifying the couple for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.

Now he’s back at work as a security guard, and Veronica said she’s worried they’ll be kicked off Medi-Cal. She’s even more worried about how they’ll get by with federal premium tax credits not nearly as generous as before.

“Without it, we’re going to be facing worse problems than we have now,” she said. Under Newsom’s proposal, Veronica and others in the highest eligible income bracket could receive an average monthly subsidy of $36 a person.

“For them, $36 a month is the sort of thing that can make a difference between keeping coverage and losing coverage,” said Peter Lee, former executive director of Covered California. “We can’t fix everything with that gap, but we can focus the dollars on those who need it most.”

The Walter family, though, may still face a nearly $200 monthly premium payment to cover both of them, $130 more than they previously paid for healthcare and prescriptions through Covered California.

“I can’t afford that, not really,” said Veronica, a pet sitter who works part-time at a school. “A giant state like this with this many people, and this many resources? You can’t just leave the people with nothing for healthcare or healthcare they can’t afford.”

California policy researchers and health advocates acknowledge the limits of a partial subsidy but say that concentrating funds on those who earn less is the most efficient way to maximize impact. People who drop coverage are , healthier, and less likely to have high healthcare costs — all factors that help stabilize the insurance risk pool. Without coverage, Lee said, they’re also more likely to experience debt from medical emergencies or leave unpaid hospital bills that strain the .

Cary Sanders, senior policy director at the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, a health advocacy group, said the state’s move last year kept low-income enrollment in Covered California steady and reduced racial disparities in coverage.

“It’s working; it’s just that it’s not enough,” Sanders said. “We need the federal subsidies back.”

Still No Help for Many

When Congress passed enhanced subsidies in 2021, it capped monthly premium payments for even the highest earners at 8.5% of income. Those temporary enhancements allowed about 8 million Americans to choose robust plans with no monthly premium payment last year and helped double Obamacare enrollment to of 24 million.

At the end of last year, 22 million of them lost that help when the GOP-led Congress blocked the extension.

The pressures on Obamacare enrollees don’t stop at premiums. Federal legislation Republicans passed last summer known as the also shortens enrollment windows, tightens income verification requirements for subsidies, and requires enrollees who earn more than they projected to pay back the full amount.

Even if Newsom’s proposal passes, most Covered California customers won’t get state help. Nearly 1 million enrollees — 52% — earn above the $31,300-a-year individual earning cutoff.

Victoria Garzouzi was one of many middle-income retirees hit with one of the most extreme premium increases: The monthly payment for her low-level bronze plan jumped eightfold to $1,600.

To make ends meet, she came out of retirement and dipped into her savings. “I’m working to pay for my insurance,” she said. “I am an army of one.”

Despite a $6,000 deductible, her health insurance premium payment is more than the mortgage on her two-bedroom house. She’s putting off a needed cataract surgery until October, when she turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare.

While GOP leaders have not publicly weighed in on the state subsidies, some Democratic lawmakers have questioned why more help hasn’t been proposed.

Assembly member Dawn Addis, who chairs the chamber’s budget subcommittee on health, suggested Newsom could tap an additional $230 million from a fund for healthcare cost relief — money raised from a state penalty levied on those who can afford to enroll in health insurance but choose not to.

Lawmakers have previously criticized state officials for socking away much of the penalty revenue, which was supposed to go toward healthcare affordability. After California discontinued its premium subsidies thanks to increased federal assistance, the Newsom administration said the state was saving to help consumers once those temporary subsidies expired. Instead, California borrowed from the subsidy fund to cover state budget shortfalls, to the tune of $771 million. Starting this year, the subsidy fund should see an influx of cash as the state pays back the loan.

At a May legislative hearing, Joseph Donaldson, then a Department of Finance analyst, said maintaining the reserve was a prudent and financially sustainable approach.

Dylan Roby, a public health professor at the University of California-Irvine who consults for Covered California, said the focus on lower-income enrollees is deliberate. They qualify for federal subsidies that higher earners don’t, maximizing federal investment and strengthening the broader system.

“You end up with more advanced premium tax credits flowing into the state that you would have been leaving on the table,” he said.

State lawmakers have until June 15 to pass a state budget. Then, Covered California’s board would decide eligibility and benefit amounts, a decision that could come this summer, with new subsidies starting Jan. 1.

Even with the extra help, Walter and her husband worry they won’t be able to afford a potential $200 monthly premium payment. Walter said she’d likely have to rely on free clinics or ration medications.

“I take so many pills, I rattle,” she said. “That, on top of the $200? For us, it really adds up.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and share your story.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Read more coverage from our “Bill of the Month,” “Health Care Helpline,” and “Priced Out” series:

• “How To Make a High-Deductible Health Plan Work for You,” by Jackie Fortiér.
• “To Avoid Care Disruptions, Know When the Clock Runs Out on Your Prior Authorization,” by Sarah Boden.
• “So Your Insurance Dropped Your Doctor. Now What?” by Bram Sable-Smith.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

The drugs, such as Wegovy and Zepbound, are effective but can be expensive without insurance coverage. They’re available in injection or pill form. Even with discounts, current cash prices typically range from $149 to $699 per month.

About half of GLP-1 users say these drugs were difficult for them to afford, according to . A quarter said they were “very difficult” to afford.

But the new Medicare benefit comes with caveats, particularly around clinical guidelines and what happens when the short-term program ends.

What Is This Program?

The initiative, announced by the , is a short-term pilot program known as the Medicare GLP-1 Bridge. It will run from July 1, 2026, through Dec. 31, 2027. It’s meant to “bridge” the gap before a longer-term program that might — or might not — begin in 2028.

The pilot program will offer coverage for the following GLP-1 medications approved for weight loss: the pill and injectable formulations of Wegovy, the KwikPen formulation of Zepbound, and the Foundayo pill.

Who Can Participate?

To get access to these weight loss medications, you must be enrolled in a Medicare Part D plan, which covers prescription drugs. After that, eligibility is based mainly on body weight and health status. People will qualify if they have a of 27 or higher and have a condition such as heart disease or prediabetes, among others. People with BMIs of 35 or higher automatically qualify. About are clinically obese, with a BMI of 30 or higher, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

How the Program Works (It’s a Bit Unusual)

This is not your typical Medicare benefit. Even though Part D enrollment is required, the Bridge program itself works differently.

Instead of going through your regular Part D plan, you will need prior authorization. Your doctor will send the prescription to a central system run by CMS contractor Humana, using a system already in place for another Medicare drug program. Doctors don’t need to be enrolled as Medicare providers to write a prescription or submit a prior authorization request under this program. Once they get approval, patients will pay the flat $50 copayment at the pharmacy when they pick up the prescription.

What Are the Benefits?

The cost savings could make these drugs accessible to patients who simply couldn’t afford them before. Even with discounts, the prices can be daunting without insurance coverage. TrumpRx, a new government website, provides links to direct-to-consumer prescription drug discounts for patients not using their health insurance. On that site, Wegovy injectables range in price from $199 for a lower dosage for the first two months to $399 for a higher dosage. The KwikPen formulation of Zepbound costs up to $699 per month. At the highest dosages, the daily Wegovy pill costs up to $299 while Foundayo tops out at $349.

Most people who use these drugs will need a higher dose to maintain weight loss. The Bridge program is unique in that it offers a predictable $50 copayment that does not go up as dosages increase.

What Are the Downsides?

Like many pilot programs, there are trade-offs. The $50 copay will not count toward the Part D deductible, nor does it count toward the $2,100 annual out-of-pocket cap on prescription drug costs. The pilot program will also end in December 2027. Most that many people who stop using the GLP-1 drugs regain weight they lost while taking them.

Still Obstacles for Those With Low Incomes

If you receive the low-income subsidy, also known as the Medicare program, you cannot use that assistance for the drugs covered by the GLP-1 Bridge program. For beneficiaries accustomed to paying a $5 or $10 copay for their pharmaceuticals, a $50 copay could still be a big financial barrier.

“Fifty dollars a month sounds like a great deal compared to paying the discounted prices through TrumpRx and these other direct-to-consumer options, but it’s a lot of money for somebody who’s living on a $750-a-month Social Security check,” said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

The $50 Copay Is Only for Weight Loss

If you’re already taking one of these medications for a qualifying condition such as Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease risk reduction, or sleep apnea, you’ll continue to get it through your regular Part D plan. That means you’ll pay your plan’s price, which may be higher than the $50 Bridge copay, meaning the same drug could cost different amounts depending on the reason it is prescribed.

If you’re already on a GLP-1 for weight loss, you may qualify for the Bridge program. Your prescriber will need to attest that you met the clinical criteria when you first started the medication. For example, if you started a GLP-1 in September 2024 with a BMI of 37 but in July 2026 you’ve lost weight and now have a BMI of 34, the prescriber should attest in the prior authorization request that you met the BMI criteria of 35 or over when the GLP-1 therapy started.

What Happens After 2027?

The Trump administration had proposed a two-step approach to expand coverage of GLP-1s for obesity in Medicare. The Bridge program was initially planned to last six months — after that, the idea was to launch a longer-term program that would shift the cost of the drugs from the government to insurers. A found the long-term program would have cost insurance companies billions of dollars in the first year. Not enough insurers signed on for the voluntary plan by the April deadline, so CMS instead announced it would extend the Bridge program to 18 months, with a new end date of December 2027.

The move will give insurance companies more data on how many people with Medicare get GLP-1 drugs during the Bridge program and more time to negotiate with the Trump administration.

But extending the Bridge program will be “really expensive” for Medicare, Cubanski said, because the program heavily subsidizes the cost of the drugs.

“There’s no sense right now of the cost of the Bridge model, but it is likely to be billions of dollars a year in additional spending for Medicare,” Cubanski said.

The cost to Medicare will depend largely on how many people use the Bridge program. CMS has not provided any projections publicly, but a estimated that in 2020 close to 14 million Medicare beneficiaries were overweight or obese.

“This will just cost additional money, and we don’t know how much, because they haven’t disclosed it,” Cubanski said.

Are you on Medicare and interested in getting a GLP-1 for weight loss? Is a $50 copay manageable? Click here to contact ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ reporting team.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

After some federal financial aid expired, many Americans found that high-deductible health plans were the only option they could afford.

In a new episode of NPR’s Life Kit podcast, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ reporter Jackie Fortiér and podcast host Marielle Segarra discuss what these plans are, and why they can feel so confusing. Imagine paying $100 out-of-pocket for a routine doctor visit that used to cost you $20. Imagine shouldering thousands of dollars in bills before your insurance pays a cent.

Still, for some people — especially those who rarely need medical care — high-deductible plans work. Listen to the episode to explore how timing your care and taking advantage of free preventive services can help you make the most of your coverage.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

An elementary school teacher chose a low-price health insurance plan but soon realized she wasn’t clear about what it would mean for her family’s finances.

“Once I got the insurance card, I compared our old plan to our new plan, and that’s when I really got worried, because I didn’t really understand what a deductible was. It got me thinking, how do I use this insurance?”

— Madison Burgess, 31, of San Diego

When enhanced federal subsidies expired at the end of 2025, a lot of people buying their own health insurance on the state and federal exchanges saw their expected monthly rates jump. To keep costs down, many switched to a high-deductible health plan. These plans offer lower monthly payments, but in exchange patients can face steep out-of-pocket costs when they need care.

The plans are pretty common. In 2023, 30% of people who got insurance through their employer had a high-deductible plan, up from only 4% in 2006.

Madison Burgess, a teacher in San Diego, gets health insurance through her teaching job. But when she investigated adding her husband to her plan, it was just too expensive, so she started shopping on the exchange for a cheaper option for him.

The longer she scrolled through the plan options, the more overwhelming it felt. Insurance jargon made it hard to tell what her family would owe if her husband got sick.

“I didn’t know what a deductible was, so I just went with what was cheap, and now I have regret,” she said.

In exchange for that lower monthly premium payment, her husband’s coverage won’t kick in for most care until they’ve paid $5,800 in medical bills. Burgess didn’t know that the deductible must be met before insurance picks up part of the tab.

Deductible:

The amount you as the patient have to pay before insurance picks up part of the tab

Premium:

The monthly bill for your policy, paid to the insurance company

How do you prepare for thousands of dollars in upfront costs? One option is a health savings account, or HSA, which lets you save pretax money and is now available to people enrolled in lower-tier state and federal exchange plans, including bronze and catastrophic coverage. These plans generally have the lowest premiums on the exchange but the highest out-of-pocket costs when you need care.

Burgess had chosen a bronze plan and didn’t know HSAs were an option.

“I’ve never thought about having to put money away for a deductible,” she said.

Burgess and others are often more worried about socking away money for unexpected car and house repairs or vet bills.

If, like Burgess, you chose cheaper health coverage for this year only to discover you’re on the hook for meeting a high deductible, these tips can help you prepare.

1. You might qualify for an HSA and not know it.

If you’re enrolled in a bronze or catastrophic plan, you qualify to open a health savings account. Think of it as a medical piggy bank with tax perks. You put in pretax money, which lowers your taxable income. The money grows tax-free, and when you spend it on , those transactions are also tax-free. That’s what people call a “triple tax advantage.”

These accounts build a cushion for future health costs, such as doctor visits, prescriptions, and even products like over-the-counter medicine, tampons, and sunscreen.

The money typically can’t be used for monthly premiums, but the account is yours to use for qualified medical expenses for yourself, your spouse, or your dependents anytime in the future. The money in the account is yours, even if you change jobs or health plans.

An HSA is not the same as a flexible spending account, or FSA. FSAs are tax-advantaged too but are offered only through employers. The money expires annually and you lose any remaining money when you leave that job.

2. HSA-curious? Here’s how to open one.

You open a health savings account through a bank or other financial institution. The institution will issue you a debit card so you can make purchases from the HSA.

You can at any point during the year as long as you’re covered by an eligible plan. You can choose where to open the account, but be sure to check for any fees financial institutions charge and shop around.

If you get insurance through your job, your employer may require you to use a specific IRS-approved company.

Many people decide they can’t afford to contribute to an HSA. For some households, the desire to set aside money for medical expenses competes with the need to pay rent and buy groceries.

But there’s a detail that can make it feel more manageable. Contributions don’t have to be large. Just a few dollars a month can get you started.

There is, however, a limit. The IRS sets an annual cap on how much you’re allowed to contribute to an HSA. In 2026, an individual is limited to $4,400, or $8,750 for a family plan. Under that ceiling, the amount is up to you.

3. Preventive services should be covered at no cost to you.

All plans sold on marketplaces must cover at no cost to the patient as long as the care is provided in-network. Those services include routine immunizations and cancer screenings.

Beyond preventive care, understanding what different services cost can help you decide which type of medical appointment works best for your health needs and your wallet. For example, some plans charge less for a telehealth visit than to see your primary care doctor in person.

Check out your for more details.

4. Seek care early in the year.

Most deductibles reset on Jan. 1. Scheduling appointments or surgeries early in the year can be strategic if you discover a condition that requires ongoing care. If you can afford it, meeting your deductible sooner can make the rest of the year significantly cheaper, said Caitlin Donovan, a senior director at the Patient Advocate Foundation.

5. Consider paying cash instead of spending down your deductible.

Some hospitals, clinics, or other providers offer cheaper prices if you pay cash. You have the and explanation of how much a health service would cost if you paid out-of-pocket. Ask for the estimate before you get care. Then, compare that price with what your insurance company tells you it would cost if you used your insurance. If you decide to go with a cash payment, you’ll need to pay while you’re still at the doctor’s office, before charges get submitted to your insurance company.

Paying cash may save you money, but the amount you pay generally won’t count toward your deductible or out-of-pocket maximum.

“If you don’t think you’re ever going to hit your deductible — you’re that young invincible, and your deductible is $10,000 — negotiate the cash price,” Donovan said.

6. On an ACA plan? Update your income and use an HSA to avoid a tax surprise.

If you’re on an ACA plan and you’re eligible for subsidies, be aware: If your and you don’t update your marketplace application, you could owe thousands of dollars at tax time. The . Report raises, new jobs, or side gigs as they happen. If your income goes up, stashing money in an HSA can help because the money you put in the account doesn’t count toward your taxable income.

As soon as you report an increase in your income, that could mean higher premiums (if you no longer qualify for the same subsidy), but experts say it’s better to pay now than owe a big bill that you have to pay all at once.

“One of the biggest problems I see is someone is newly unemployed and they sign up for coverage, they say that they’re not making any money, and then eventually they get a job and don’t report it, and then they have this huge tax bill at the end,” Donovan said.

She advises updating your marketplace profile as soon as your income changes, which could newly qualify you for Medicaid or a plan that contributes more toward your medical bills.

Taylor Cook contributed to this report.

Healthcare Helpline helps you navigate the health system hurdles between you and good care. Send us your tricky question and we may tap a policy sleuth to puzzle it out. Share your story. The crowdsourced project is a joint production of NPR and ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Just three of the six immunizations the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says it will no longer routinely recommend — against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and rotavirus — have prevented nearly 2 million hospitalizations and more than 90,000 deaths in the past 30 years, according to .

Vaccines against the three diseases, as well as those against respiratory syncytial virus, meningococcal disease, flu, and covid, are now recommended only for children at high risk of serious illness or after “shared clinical decision-making,” or consultation between doctors and parents.

The CDC maintained its recommendations for 11 childhood vaccines: measles, mumps, and rubella; whooping cough, tetanus, and diphtheria; the bacterial disease known as Hib; pneumonia; polio; chickenpox; and human papillomavirus, or HPV.

Federal and private insurance will still cover vaccines for the diseases the CDC no longer recommends universally, according to a Department of Health and Human Services ; parents who want to vaccinate their children against those diseases will not have to pay out-of-pocket.

Experts on childhood disease were baffled by the change in guidance. HHS said the changes followed “a scientific review of the underlying science” and were in line with vaccination programs in other developed nations.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine activist, pointed to Denmark as a model. But the schedules of most European countries are closer to the U.S. standard upended by the new guidance.

For example, Denmark, which does not vaccinate against rotavirus, registers around 1,200 infant and toddler rotavirus hospitalizations a year. That rate, in a country of 6 million, is about the same as it was in the United States before vaccination.

“They’re OK with having 1,200 or 1,300 hospitalized kids, which is the tip of the iceberg in terms of childhood suffering,” said Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a co-inventor of a licensed rotavirus vaccine. “We weren’t. They should be trying to emulate us, not the other way around.”

Public health officials say the new guidance puts the onus on parents to research and understand each childhood vaccine and why it is important.

Here’s a rundown of the diseases the sidelined vaccines prevent:

RSV. Respiratory syncytial virus is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants in the U.S.

The respiratory virus usually spreads in fall and winter and produces cold-like symptoms, though it can be deadly for young children, causing tens of thousands of hospitalizations and hundreds of deaths a year. According to the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, roughly 80% of children younger than 2 who are hospitalized with RSV have no identifiable risk factors. Long-awaited vaccines against the disease were introduced in 2023.

Hepatitis A. Hepatitis A vaccination, which was phased in beginning in the late 1990s and recommended for all toddlers starting in 2006, has led to a more than 90% drop in the disease since 1996. The foodborne virus, which causes a wretched illness, continues to plague adults, particularly people who are homeless or who abuse drugs or alcohol, with of 1,648 cases and 85 deaths reported in 2023.

Hepatitis B. The disease causes liver cancer, cirrhosis, and other serious illnesses and is particularly dangerous when contracted by babies and young children. The hepatitis B virus is transmitted through blood and other bodily fluids, even in microscopic amounts, and can survive on surfaces for a week. From 1990 to 2019, vaccination resulted in a 99% decline in reported cases of acute hepatitis B among children and teens. Liver cancer among American children has also plummeted as a result of universal childhood vaccination. But the hepatitis B virus is still around, with 2,000-3,000 acute cases reported annually among unvaccinated adults. More than 17,000 chronic hepatitis B diagnoses were reported in 2023. The CDC estimates about half of people infected don’t know they have it.

Rotavirus. Before routine administration of the current rotavirus vaccines began in 2006, about 70,000 young children were hospitalized and 50 died every year from the virus. It was known as “winter vomiting syndrome,” said Sean O’Leary, a pediatrician at the University of Colorado. “It was a miserable disease that we hardly see anymore.”

The virus is still common on surfaces that babies touch, however, and “if you lower immunization rates it will once again hospitalize children,” Offit said.

Meningococcal disease. Vaccines have been required mainly for teenagers and college students, who are notably vulnerable to critical illness caused by the bacteria. About 600 to 1,000 cases of meningococcal disease are reported in the U.S. each year, but it kills more than 10% of those it sickens, and 1 in 5 survivors have permanent disabilities.

Flu and covid. The two respiratory viruses have each killed hundreds of children in recent years — though both tend to be much more severe in older adults. Flu is currently on the upswing in the United States, and last flu season the virus killed 289 children.

What is shared clinical decision-making?

Under the changes, decisions about vaccinating children against influenza, covid, rotavirus, meningococcal disease, and hepatitis A and B will now rely on what officials call “shared clinical decision-making,” meaning families will have to consult with a health care provider to determine whether a vaccine is appropriate.

“It means a provider should have a conversation with the patient to lay out the risks and the benefits and make a decision for that individual person,” said , a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

In the past, the CDC used that term only in reference to narrow circumstances, like whether a person in a monogamous relationship needed the HPV vaccine, which prevents a sexually transmitted infection and certain cancers.

The CDC’s new approach doesn’t line up with the science because of the proven protective benefit the vaccines have for the vast majority of the population, Handy said.

In their report justifying the changes, HHS officials Tracy Beth Høeg and Martin Kulldorff said the U.S. vaccination system requires more safety research and more parental choice. Eroding trust in public health caused in part by an overly large vaccine schedule had led more parents to shun vaccination against major threats like measles, they said.

The vaccines on the schedule that the CDC has altered were backed up by extensive safety research when they were evaluated and approved by the FDA.

“They’re held to a safety standard higher than any other medical intervention that we have,” Handy said. “The value of routine recommendations is that it really helps the public understand that this has been vetted upside down and backwards in every which way.”

, a pediatrician in Orange County, California, said the change in guidance will cause more confusion among parents who think it means a vaccine’s safety is in question.

“It is critical for public health that recommendations for vaccines are very clear and concise,” Ball said. “Anything to muddy the water is just going to lead to more children getting sick.”

Ball said that instead of focusing on a child’s individual health needs, he often has to spend limited clinic time reassuring parents that vaccines are safe. A “shared clinical decision-making” status for a vaccine has no relationship to safety concerns, but parents may think it does.

HHS’ changes do not affect state vaccination laws and therefore should allow prudent medical practitioners to carry on as before, said , an attorney and a George Washington University lecturer who is leading litigation against Kennedy over vaccine changes.

“You could expect that any pediatrician is going to follow sound evidence and recommend that their patients be vaccinated,” he said. The law protects providers who follow professional care guidelines, he said, and “RSV, meningococcal, and hepatitis remain serious health threats for children in this country.”

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Working out of a in Anchorage, Alaska, liver specialist Brian McMahon has spent decades treating the long shadow of hepatitis B. Before a vaccine became available in the 1980s, he saw the virus claim young lives in western Alaskan communities with stunning speed.

One of his patients was 17 years old when he first examined her for stomach pain. McMahon discovered she had developed liver cancer caused by hepatitis B, just weeks before she was set to graduate from high school as valedictorian. She died before the ceremony.

McMahon thinks often of an 8-year-old boy who showed no signs of illness until he complained of pain from what turned out to be a rapidly growing tumor on his liver.

McMahon can still hear his voice.

“He was moaning in pain, saying, ‘I know I am going to die soon,’” he recalled. “We were all crying.” The boy died at home a week later.

The hepatitis B virus is transmitted through blood and bodily fluids, even in microscopic amounts, and the virus can survive on surfaces for a week. Like many of his patients, McMahon said, both children contracted hepatitis B at birth or in early childhood.

That outcome is now preventable. A birth dose of the vaccine, recommended for newborns since 1991, is up to in preventing infection from the mother if given in the first 24 hours of life. If babies receive all three doses, have immunity from the incurable virus, with the protection lasting at least .

In the communities of western Alaska, years of targeted testing and widespread vaccination efforts led to .

“Liver cancer has disappeared in children,” McMahon said. “We haven’t seen a case since 1995. Nor do we have any children under 30 that have gotten infected that we know of.”

He worries those hard-won gains could soon be rolled back.

Pushing Back the Dose?

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine advisory panel appointed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is scheduled the hepatitis B birth dose recommendation during its two-day meeting starting Dec. 4, potentially limiting children’s access.

On Tucker Carlson’s podcast in June, Kennedy falsely claimed that the hepatitis B birth dose is a “likely culprit” of autism.

He also said the hepatitis B virus is not “casually contagious.” But shows the virus can be transmitted through indirect contact, when traces of infected fluids like blood enter the body when people share personal items like razors or toothbrushes.

The committee’s recommendations carry weight. Most private insurers must cover the vaccines the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices endorses, and many state vaccination policies are directly linked to its guidelines.

Neither ACIP nor the CDC is regulatory. They cannot mandate immunizations. It’s to do that. But keeping the recommendation for a hepatitis B vaccine at birth preserves the widest range of options for families. They can choose to vaccinate at birth, wait until later in childhood, or not vaccinate at all, and insurance will continue to cover the cost of the shot as long as it remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Two senior FDA officials — Commissioner Marty Makary and top vaccine regulator Vinay Prasad — suggested at the end of November that the vaccine approval process may be coming. Vaccines must be approved by the FDA to be administered in the United States.

In obtained by and , Prasad questioned the routine practice of “giving multiple vaccines at the same time.” It’s not clear whether he was referring to combination vaccines that offer immunity against multiple diseases with a single shot. Three of the nine hepatitis B vaccines currently approved by the FDA are combination vaccines. The of the hepatitis B vaccine is given only as a stand-alone vaccine.

Contacted for comment, Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement that “ACIP will review the evidence at its meeting this week and issue recommendations based on gold standard, evidence-based science and common sense.”

‘Sowing Distrust’

If private insurers opt to still cover the shot, misinformation from the meeting still could lead families to falsely believe the vaccine could harm their babies, said , chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

“Whatever comes out of this disaster of a meeting in December is going to be mainly designed around sowing distrust and spreading fear,” he said.

President Donald Trump, Kennedy, and some newly appointed ACIP members have mischaracterized how the liver disease spreads, ignoring or downplaying the risk of transmission through indirect contact. The hepatitis B virus is than HIV. Unvaccinated people, including children, can get infected from microscopic amounts of blood on a tabletop or toy, even when the infected person is asymptomatic.

McMahon has cared for children who tested negative at birth and later became infected through indirect contact. In a , nearly a third of such children went on to develop chronic hepatitis B without ever showing symptoms, he said.

“It’s a very infectious virus,” McMahon said. “That’s why giving everybody the birth dose is the best way to prevent it.”

The CDC recommends that all pregnant people be screened for hepatitis B, but it estimates that up to 16% are not tested and fall through the cracks. O’Leary and other experts say testing mothers for the virus shortly before or after delivery is unfeasible, because most hospitals lack the staff and resources.

The three-dose vaccine has a of safety. Numerous studies show it is not associated with an increased risk of , , , or , and severe reactions are rare.

“We have an incredible safety profile,” O’Leary said. “No one expects to get in a car wreck, right? And yet we all put our seat belts on. This is similar.”

The CDC estimates that 2.4 million people in the U.S. have hepatitis B and that half they are infected. The disease can range from an acute infection to a chronic one, often with . If the disease is left untreated, it can lead to serious conditions such as cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer. There is no cure.

Expert’s Advice to Parents: Talk to a Doctor

, a professor of preventative medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and a former voting member of ACIP, said some parents struggle to understand why a healthy newborn needs a vaccine so soon after birth, especially for a virus they feel certain they don’t have and often wrongly associate only with risky behaviors. Those perceptions, he said, mix with declining trust in public health and rising skepticism about vaccines.

His advice to expectant parents who are on the fence is to talk to their doctor about the shots. Even if the pregnant woman has tested negative, he said, it’s still important to give the baby the birth dose, because false negatives are possible and because the virus can spread so easily from surface contact. Babies who receive the full vaccine series starting from birth have their chance of .

“If you wait a month and if the mom happens to be positive, or the baby picks it up from a caregiver, by that time the infection is established in that baby’s liver,” Schaffner said. “It’s too late to prevent that infection.”

He said that if fewer people get vaccinated, hepatitis B will circulate at higher rates in American communities and the risk of contracting the virus will rise for everyone who doesn’t get the shots.

And more hepatitis B cases could mean higher costs for patients and the broader health care system. The CDC estimates treating someone with a less severe form of the disease costs $25,000 to $94,000 per year. For patients who require a liver transplant, annual medical expenses can climb above $320,000, depending on their treatment.

Over the past 30 years, the parents have reported from their babies receiving the birth dose have been fussiness and crying, both of which pass quickly. Schaffner said that’s a very strong safety profile — for a newborn vaccine with a track record of protecting babies from an incurable disease.

“The data are so clear about this,” Schaffner said. “A whole array now of other countries have initiated this program. They’ve modeled it on us.”

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .