Transparency “is really important to help protect the integrity of the program, ensure funds are reaching the communities they’re meant to serve,” said Maya Sandalow, director of health policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center, a nonprofit think tank.

The federal government and states are compelled by public records laws to share documents when requested. But those requests can take months to fulfill, making their release too late for meaningful oversight as states rush to spend their allotments under tight federal deadlines.

In the meantime, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 鈥� which oversees the Rural Health Transformation Program 鈥� and some states aren’t proactively sharing information about where the funding is going and how it will be used.

CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said the agency “will publish an annual report on state progress.”

States’ individual reports to CMS are “intended to be” shared upon request, but the agency won’t be proactively publishing the individual state reports, according to a CMS document.

Foster didn’t respond to questions about whether the agency will share examples of projects that are and aren’t working or create a tracker of funding recipients, award amounts, and what organizations plan to do with their funding 鈥� ideas that health and government transparency advocates have requested.

Instead, much of the program’s transparency thus far has been up to state governments, and “the level of details that states have publicized really varies,” said Sandalow, who co-wrote a on how the federal government can strengthen the rural health program, including through transparency.

Some states are sharing information with lawmakers, holding public meetings, and explaining where organizations plan to invest their money.

Others are more secretive, with multiple states declining to release public records in response to 吃瓜不打烊’ requests. Mississippi’s governor , West Virginia holds closed-door advisory meetings, and a South Dakota official wrote that he hoped CMS would keep its application from public view.

“I just don’t believe in all this secrecy,” said Mississippi state Sen. Hob Bryan, who chairs his chamber’s public health committee. “If they’re not up to something nefarious, why do they have to do it all in secret?”

Bryan, a Democrat, said there’s about the lack of transparency in his state.

Reaching Rural Patients

Congressional Republicans created the five-year Rural Health Transformation Program last summer as an eleventh-hour sweetener to President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The money was intended to offset concerns about the anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to by more than $900 billion over a decade.

Sandalow said some states may be struggling to share information since they’re busy rushing to hire staff and meet the program’s tight deadlines, including an annual report due Aug. 31.

In the meantime, a slew of media outlets, nonprofits, and businesses are stepping in to make it easier for the public to track the rural health program.

吃瓜不打烊 is collecting states’ applications and approved plans and budgets, not all of which have been posted on state websites.

Rural Health Payout

Tracking Applications聽for Rural Health Transformation聽Funds

吃瓜不打烊 is working to collect and post complete application materials, by state, here and will update this repository as new materials, released in response to public records requests, arrive.

Dec. 4, 2025

Rural Health Payout

Tracking State Rural Health Transformation Plans

吃瓜不打烊 is working to collect and post approved plans as more states respond to emails and public records requests for their documents.

July 27, 2026

And several and have created trackers that , post funding opportunities, or list award recipients. But some resources are available only through paid services, aimed at helping businesses interested in applying for money.

Sandalow said previous federal programs “tend to draw attention for gaps in transparency and oversight rather than for doing it well.”

As an example, she pointed to the lack of oversight and transparency with the CARES Act and other covid relief programs, which saw .

In March, CMS published proposed quarterly and annual state reporting requirements for the rural health program, and a . At least three groups replied with letters expressing concerns about transparency.

CMS should share states’ progress reports, funding recipients, and what organizations plan to do with their awards, , the Bipartisan Policy Center’s vice president for health policy.

Sharing this information would make it easier to track progress, identify successful programs that other states may want to replicate, and “ensure funds reach the rural communities they are intended to serve,” he wrote.

Molly Smith, group vice president for public policy at the American Hospital Association, “to be as detailed as possible” about the “final destinations of these funds, given the complexity of the grant funding process.”

In , Charlene MacDonald, who leads the Federation of American Hospitals, noted that some funding recipients, such as large health systems and academic medical centers, will be distributing their awards to other entities.

CMS should collect those “downstream subrecipients,” wrote MacDonald, whose group represents for-profit hospitals and healthcare systems.

Without this information, she said, it will be difficult to know if “funding is reaching the rural hospitals, providers, and communities primarily intended to benefit from the program.”

It can also be difficult to know which for-profit companies are being paid with rural health money.

For example, and have listed hospitals and other health facilities that received funding to purchase telehealth, scanning devices, and other health technology. But the states list only some of the companies from which recipients will buy those products.

States won’t have to report “downstream” funding in their August reports to CMS but will have to do so for all future reports, according to the agency’s recently finalized .

The CMS documents say states must list subrecipients that receive subawards as well as vendors or contractors paid by an organization using rural health funding. Although states must report how much money these downstream recipients receive, they don’t have to describe which specific services or products the recipient is providing.

DIY Dashboards

As groups ask CMS to share more information, some states have created their own rural health spending dashboards or recipient lists, with varying levels of detail.

Alaska, , and other states list which organizations receive funding, their award amounts, and detailed descriptions of how recipients will spend the money.

and , however, are among the states that don’t share what awardees plan to do with their funding.

New Hampshire is that detail projects and their budgets on its Rural Health Transformation Program website. Some other states have uploaded contracts and grants on general procurement or award databases, which can be difficult to navigate.

, , and have used press releases to announce awards. But the announcements aren’t posted on their Rural Health Transformation Program websites, which could make it difficult to find this information.

Many states created advisory groups to provide transparency and accountability for their programs. Most committees host public meetings and upload minutes, recordings, or other materials from the discussions.

But the West Virginia Department of Health won’t share what’s discussed in its rural health advisory panel’s closed-door meetings, according to spokesperson Gailyn Markham.

“The panel is intended to serve as an informal forum for discussion and feedback among invited participants and program staff,” Markham said.

South Dakota, North Dakota, and Mississippi are among the states without advisory committees.

In response to public records requests, South Dakota released a nearly completely redacted version of its budget for the rural health program while Mississippi declined to release its budget.

Mississippi’s he vetoed a because it would “create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy” that would have slowed the award process, which could cause the state to lose out on future funds. Mississippi is “ in all this secrecy,” Bryan, the state lawmaker, told 吃瓜不打烊.

Sandalow said it’s important for states to publish the impact of their rural health projects, adding that CMS should share which rural health projects are and aren’t working.

She said national and state health organizations are creating networks and holding conferences to help spread this information. States should “be able to learn from each other, get a sense of lessons learned and best practices, and then be able to pivot their initiatives accordingly,” Sandalow said.

Michael Cannon, who oversees health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said people should know how their $50 billion in taxes is being spent on the rural health program, and whether state projects are making rural patients healthier.

If investors put that much money into a project, there is “no way” they “would let the recipients of those funds get away with the shoddy approach to transparency and accountability that the states are taking,” he said.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

That could change. In June, the Department of Justice issued saying federal disability rights laws don’t require states to provide services that allow people with disabilities to remain in their homes rather than institutions.

It’s a sharp reversal from 1999, when a held that unjustified institutionalization constituted discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Previous administrations have relied on that ruling to enforce civil rights for disabled people, but the Trump administration says that long-held interpretation is wrong.

Advocacy groups say legal protections for about and 5 million children who have disabilities could be undermined, and they worry that the new interpretation may herald a return to forced institutionalization.

The stage is also now set for a legal fight between advocates, states, and the federal government. Some states with ongoing lawsuits challenging disability rights requirements are already citing the DOJ opinion in hopes it will help them prevail.

In a case in Texas, for example, that a rule instituting a 1973 civil rights law that led to community and home integration of people with disabilities is costly and infringes on states’ rights.

People like DeSimone-Shabrack are especially worried because, they say, the opinion follows a spate of White House and Republican-led initiatives that have already begun eroding hard-won protections for people with disabilities.

“I’m worried. Am I going to have to put him in an institution, and what’s that going to be like for him?” said DeSimone-Shabrack, whose personal home care help was recently reduced from 30 to 18 hours a week by the state. “As he gets older, am I going to be able to care for him without this support?”

The Department of Health and Human Services remains steadfast in enforcing federal civil rights laws, agency spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email.

“Our commitment to ensuring that individuals with disabilities are treated with dignity, afforded equal opportunity, and are able to meaningfully access community services remains unchanged,” she said.

But advocacy groups say the DOJ opinion could have sweeping repercussions. The opinion doesn’t change existing law, but advocates worry that HHS and the DOJ could begin that mandate integration for people with disabilities.

They’re concerned that agencies will stop enforcing disability laws that ensure people aren’t. HHS, for example, has historically investigated disability discrimination claims at hospitals and in states that get federal funding, enforcing compliance with home and community integration through . Disability rights experts say those agreements could now be imperiled.

And some states facing financial pressures may roll back Medicaid services that enable people with disabilities to stay in their homes and communities 鈥� a trend that’s already happening following last year’s passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cuts a projected from the safety net program over a decade.

Democrats are seizing on the opinion, which was released in a DOJ memo, to portray President Donald Trump and Republicans as a threat to people with disabilities. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and other Senate Democrats led the calling on the DOJ to rescind the opinion.

“The Trump Administration’s memo is an outrageous attack on the rights and independence of the disability community,” Duckworth said in a statement.

The DOJ didn’t return emails seeking comment.

According to the DOJ’s interpretation, regulations that give disabled people the right to demand certain services for daily living 鈥� bathing, mental health counseling, and financial budgeting help, for instance 鈥� and that require states to extend to mentally disabled individuals are unlawful, a view the agency acknowledged “is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts.”

States may have legitimate reason to treat mentally disabled people in institutions, “including resource constraints, capacity limitations in community-based facilities, and safety concerns for both the patient and the community,” the memo reads.

The Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., has long shaped federal policy. And while it remains to be seen how courts will respond to the DOJ, some states seeking to curtail disability protections see the opinion as significant.

Consider the in federal court in the Northern District of Texas by Republican-led states arguing that an HHS rule about the integration mandate is unlawful. The lawsuit began with broader claims and 17 state plaintiffs. Following significant advocacy from the disability community, only Texas, Alaska, and Florida remain.

Following the new DOJ interpretation, the states filed documentation to inform the court about the memo as a new and relevant development. Similar documentation citing the memo has been filed in disability rights cases in Florida and New Hampshire, according to The Arc of the United States, a disability advocacy group.

Advocates for people with disabilities say the speed at which plaintiffs are citing the opinion underscores how it may be used to justify the erosion of protections.

“The administration’s attempt to dismantle decades of progress in community integration is alarming and inconsistent with federal disability rights laws and Supreme Court precedent as well as the critical enforcement work of prior administrations,” said , senior executive officer of legal advocacy and general counsel at The Arc.

Forced institutionalization led to human rights violations, segregation, and a eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that included involuntary sterilization.

Exposure of the abuses, legal battles, and an caused a major shift toward integration. Fewer than 1% of people with intellectual or developmental disabilities lived in state-run facilities in 2021, down from almost 30% in 1967, from the University of Minnesota’s , which maintains metrics on such long-term services and supports.

The Trump administration has already taken steps to reverse that trend, advocates say.

Trump signed that addresses homelessness by expanding involuntary treatment and institutionalization, reversing a championed by the Biden administration.

Much of the special education program office is moving from the Department of Education to HHS, raising concerns among advocates that the administration is reverting to a view that disabilities are a medical issue to be fixed rather than differences that can be accommodated.

And cuts in federal funding for Medicaid, a federal-state insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, also portend fewer resources and services. States have responded by reducing some optional benefits such as home health aides and support. In addition, qualifying for an exemption from the program’s work requirements, which take effect Jan. 1 in most states, will pose significant hurdles for people with disabilities.

The June DOJ opinion, advocates say, could accelerate the shift and result in court rulings that chip away at disability rights.

“While it doesn’t overnight change the law, it’s very troubling and very dangerous,” said , director of the Disability Rights Program at the American Civil Liberties Union. “It reflects a really deeply held disrespect for disabled people from this administration and a total lack of awareness of the lived experiences of people with disabilities who are living in their homes.”

Data shows there can be benefits to involuntary institutionalization. Relative to those voluntarily admitted, people with psychiatric illness who were involuntarily admitted “experienced greater improvements in symptoms and function,” according to a in Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Deinstitutionalization has created new challenges. More hospitals have been forced to board people with psychiatric illness in emergency rooms because of a dearth of available beds. And moving people into home- and community-based living was supposed to be accompanied by an increase in outpatient care and treatment that never materialized, creating gaps in support.

But advocates for the disabled community say involuntary institutionalization and poses a higher risk of neglect and abuse.

, 57, of Cleveland, spent two years in a nursing home. She has spinal muscular atrophy, a genetic disease that kills motor neurons, leaving her able to move only part of her left arm and her head.

At the institution, she said, she felt bored and trapped and developed intense itching from scabies, which is caused by microscopic mites.

For more than a decade, however, she has lived in an apartment with the help of caregivers who come in the morning to get her dressed and ready and return to put her to bed. She works at a disability rights group, and her care is covered by Medicaid.

“The two years I lived in the nursing home, it was the most horrible time in my life,” said Kucera, who worries about the DOJ opinion on Olmstead. “My future is a shaking floor beneath me. With the stroke of a pen, they could get rid of everything I’ve built for myself.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Source: <a href=”; target=_”blank”>Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services</a>

---

吃瓜不打烊 will update this database as more states respond to emails and public records requests for their documents.

Note: Data collected as of Aug. 18, 2026. 吃瓜不打烊 reporters searched state websites, requested documents, and filed public records requests. 吃瓜不打烊 continues to collect documents.

Sources: Documents publicly posted online or released in response to 吃瓜不打烊 requests; <a href=”; target=_”blank”>Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services</a>

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Now she worries the cost of those drugs could rise 鈥� not because of price increases, but because of a tax system revamp put on the ballot by the state’s Republican-dominated legislature and backed by the Republican governor.

Prescription drugs and doctor visits are currently exempt from taxes in the state. But in August, Missouri voters will weigh in on a proposed constitutional amendment to give the legislature the power to replace the state’s income tax with expanded sales taxes, including on goods and services currently exempt.

“Politicians want Missourians to trust them when they say not to worry about our medications and healthcare being up for grabs,” Ortbals said at a June press event organized by Progress MO, a progressive advocacy group.

“I have spent enough time in Jefferson City to know better,” said Ortbals, who works for a Democratic state legislator but was speaking in her personal capacity. “I have watched them speak about protecting life while making lifesaving healthcare less accessible.”

Taxes on healthcare are unusual in the United States but not unprecedented. Most states over-the-counter drugs. Illinois, Missouri’s neighbor, prescription drugs. Delaware, Hawai鈥榠, New Mexico, and Washington all on services by physicians, dentists, out-of-hospital nursing providers, and medical laboratories.

Critics of the amendment to eliminate income tax in Missouri say it’d be difficult to make up the lost revenue without also imposing taxes on healthcare. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s general revenue budget comes from income taxes, about $8.7 billion in 2026. Failing to make up that revenue could lead to steep cuts in state services.

The proposed tax cut comes at an already precarious time for the state budget. Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe in spending in this year’s budget over concerns of lagging revenues. The state legislature has passed a since 2022, including . Federal covid aid has propped up the budget in recent years, but the that the surplus is dwindling. And the state is projected to in federal Medicaid funding over 10 years due to cuts from President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Proponents of the Missouri income tax proposal, such as of the Show-Me Institute, a conservative think tank, say the cut would in the state, both of which have been flat in recent years. He doubts healthcare would be among the things subject to sales tax. But even if it were, he said, it could be done in ways that wouldn’t target lower-income residents. New Jersey, for example, (excluding reconstructive surgeries), which tend to be performed on wealthier people.

In a statement to 吃瓜不打烊, Kehoe spokesperson Gabby Picard said the governor “will never support extending sales taxes on agriculture, healthcare, or real estate,” noting that the legislature would have to decide what to exempt if the ballot measure passes.

Federal law already prohibits states from imposing taxes on many healthcare services covered by government programs such as Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors, and Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, Picard wrote. More than were insured through those two programs in 2024.

But Jay Hardenbrook, advocacy director for AARP Missouri, argued that raising taxes on healthcare, real estate, and agriculture is the for the amendment, considering the legislature doesn’t need special permission to cut income taxes. He cautioned that because the amendment opens the door to new taxes on anything, it could unleash a “weird feeding frenzy” with special-interest groups lobbying for exemptions.

“Let’s say we do protect prescription drugs from a tax increase; does that mean that the cost of food goes up?” Hardenbrook said.

And if the Missouri measure passes and the legislature exempts healthcare and real estate from new taxes, Hardenbrook worries about cuts to state-funded services like home and community-based care.

“When I talk about taxes going up, and the price of every good and services going up, that’s the best-case scenario,” Hardenbrook said. “The worst-case scenario is that the income tax just goes away, and we just don’t have the money to do the things that we need to do.”

have no income tax, and Washington taxes only capital gains, but of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank, said the way Missouri is going about its elimination is nearly unprecedented. Only Alaska has repealed a broad-based personal income tax that had previously accounted for a significant portion of the state budget, Davis said.

“The situation in Alaska was they struck oil, and they had this gusher of economic activity and tax revenue that resulted from that,” Davis said. “Missouri has not struck oil.”

A 2012 tax cut in Kansas that reduced income taxes for individuals and eliminated them for some types of businesses created a large budget hole, prompting lawmakers there to the cuts five years later.

Tsapelas of the Show-Me Institute said Missouri’s income tax elimination wouldn’t happen overnight but would instead be more akin to in the state: phased in and tied to revenue targets that would shield the state from massive budget gaps.

“It’s not as doom and gloom as some people are worried about,” Tsapelas said.

But Ortbals, the healthcare advocate, said too many Missourians are already delaying medical care because of costs.

“I want a Missouri where young people can afford to stay, where families can afford to grow, where chronic illness does not become financial ruin,” Ortbals said.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

“They’re the folks that work at restaurants. They’re the teacher’s aides,” said Starr, a registered nurse who became Open Door’s chief executive more than six years ago. Those patients, he said, are “really the heart and soul of rural America.”

He said if his remote health centers don’t get a share of the billions of dollars Congress earmarked to transform health care in rural America, patients may soon lose services. About 50% of Open Door’s 60,000 patients are on Medicaid, the joint state and federal insurance program that, together with the related Children’s Health Insurance Program, covers with low incomes or disabilities.

When Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer, it cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade. Now, Starr hopes the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, which was part of the same bill, will help keep his patients covered.

Yet, small community health care providers, such as Open Door, may find they are sharing the billions with an army of corporate giants before it reaches their patients.

Months after federal leaders announced that all 50 states won first-year awards, ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas, state plans reveal that a heavy dose of prescribed spending will go to companies that can increase the use of electronic health records, strengthen cybersecurity, and improve state and health system technology platforms.

And at least four large-scale coalitions of companies are now pitching multipronged services to the states. Many of the companies already work with regional health systems and states through Medicaid contracting or mobile and telehealth operations.

How those services will help improve the health care of rural Americans at places such as Open Door remains an open question.

States Stare Down Reporting Deadlines

Federal regulators were “really interested in seeing digital health investments” when they crafted the five-year rural health program rules last year, said Maya Sandalow, an associate director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. She co-authored a recent report on how the 50 states plan to invest in technology, including modernizing health care infrastructure and expanding virtual care options such as telehealth and remote patient monitoring.

“The rural health fund isn’t really designed to directly replace or offset the lost Medicaid funding,” Sandalow said, noting that the federal staffers in charge of the program 鈥� money that could help rural hospitals and clinics pay for patient care 鈥� at 15% of the total funding awarded to a state.

Federal regulators also established tight reporting deadlines, forcing states to move quickly.

States must file progress reports and obligate all first-year funding , according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency overseeing the program. States could see their awards decreased or terminated at any time if they fail to follow federal requirements, according to the .

As of early April, CMS had not approved or had only partially approved some state budgets, including those of Wyoming, Colorado, and Vermont, according to state officials. CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden, who declined to say which states still needed revised budgets approved, said the agency does not provide “state-by-state updates.”

In Alaska, the budget is approved but the state has not announced when it will release full grant proposals and awards, said Tricia Franklin, program coordinator for Alaska’s rural health transformation.

“Early summer was the target,” Franklin said. But the response from vendors and applicants has been “much greater than expected, so it may take us a little longer.”

Working with consulting companies is an established way for states to “quickly and effectively” meet federal deadlines and roll out grant money, said , national director for population health at the Milbank Memorial Fund, a nonprofit focused on state health policy work.

Upgrading Technology, Modernizing Rural Health

Science Applications International Corp., a Fortune 500 government contractor, pulled together the . SAIC does a variety of technology work such as cybersecurity and engineering support. The alliance also includes Walgreens and Mission Mobile Medical, which turns RVs into primary care clinics. A data analytics company, a telemedicine and software company, and a company that helps place medical graduates in health systems are also part of the coalition.

The SAIC alliance offers “an ecosystem” of companies that can coordinate the work states have promised, said , SAIC’s Rural Health Transformation Program lead and a former chief information officer for the Virginia Department of Health. Each of the companies has representatives focused on the rural program, he said.

A lack of digital infrastructure 鈥� such as electronic health records at different clinics and hospitals that can talk to one another 鈥� has been a consistent barrier for rural medical care teams, said the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Sandalow.

“The funding hasn’t always been there in order for rural areas to create the infrastructure that’s needed to fully adopt remote patient monitoring, telehealth, artificial intelligence in ways that will really be supportive,” Sandalow said. “It takes things like updating infrastructure, changing workflows.”

Sandalow’s found that Maine and Utah are investing in cybersecurity; Indiana, Missouri, and New Mexico plan to modernize their electronic health records; Oklahoma plans to buy hardware and software, subsidize subscriptions, and give technical support to rural providers; and states such as Arizona and South Carolina will use funds to create telehealth hubs or buy remote patient monitoring equipment.

Federal regulators, when creating the rural program’s spending rules, also said no more than 5% of a state’s total funding awarded could be used to replace electronic medical records systems that already meet federal standards. Sandalow said that means states will focus on enhancements and upgrades to their current systems.

Gainwell Technologies, which operates the systems for dozens of state Medicaid programs, is spearheading . Rushil Desai, a Gainwell senior vice president, said states’ detailed spending plans are “changing in real time.”

Maine’s Medicaid plan contracts with Gainwell, and the state’s initial application listed four contracts worth more than $16 million over five years for the company. The state confirmed it has received federal approval for only its first year of spending, which includes a to implement changes to the state’s Medicaid claims system.

James Lomastro, a senior-care advocate in rural Massachusetts with the nonprofit , said he worries that large vendors and health systems will get the state’s transformation dollars.

Clinics, home care agencies, and nursing homes that “actually provide day-to-day support in the community are mostly on the margins” of state discussions about how to spend the money, he said. A spokesperson for Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Health and Human Services, Olivia James, said state officials would “ensure that everyone has a seat at the table” with training, financial incentives, and direct investments.

Arizona’s rural fund budget, which is $167 million for the first year, allocates for medical diagnostic equipment and technology upgrades, including to electronic health records, specifically for rural health care facilities.

But it also for county public health departments, said Pima County Public Health Director Theresa Cullen. The approved budget includes up to $4 million for grants to support community health workers.

“In these rural communities, you need to be present,” Cullen said.

Alina Czekai, director of the CMS rural health transformation office, said her team plans to visit all 50 states. She spoke at the National Rural Health Association’s policy conference in Washington, D.C., in February and told the audience that her team wants “the money to go to rural communities, rural providers, rural patients.” The association’s members include rural hospitals and clinics, which are expected to suffer big losses under the Medicaid cuts.

In California, Open Door’s Starr said he provided input on his state’s initial application, which won $234 million in first-year funding, but he is not clear on what the next steps will be for getting money from the program.

For his patients, Starr said, money is needed for technology upgrades. After all, he said, updated electronic health systems could operate seamlessly and store the documentation needed to keep a patient enrolled in Medicaid.

Updated technology could be exactly what Open Door and other area clinics need to “help keep people covered,” Starr said.

吃瓜不打烊 senior correspondent Phil Galewitz and rural health care correspondent Arielle Zionts contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

More than 80 of his customers who were enrolled in the same Medicare supplemental plan from the insurer Chubb got hit last August with a 45% increase.

“In my 49 years of doing biz as a broker, I’ve never seen a premium increase be effective immediately on everyone, instead of on their policy anniversary,” said Jaggi, whose brokerage scrambled to find more affordable options for clients. The policies pick up deductibles and other costs not covered in traditional Medicare, and without one there is no upper limit on how much a consumer might owe each year.

While 45% was an unusually big jump, Jaggi and other brokers say double-digit premium increases for Medicare supplemental, or Medigap, policies are becoming the norm.

A Chubb spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment on the increase.

More than 12 million people 鈥� of those in traditional Medicare 鈥� buy a Medigap policy. Others rely on some sort of retiree employer coverage or a different backup. About 13% of people in traditional Medicare don’t have supplemental coverage, according to KFF, meaning they could be vulnerable to large costs if they have a serious illness.

In the supplemental market, following big increases last year, rates appear to be rising again. In early 2026 filings with state insurance commissioners from Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, Mutual of Omaha, and UnitedHealthcare, rate increases for Plan G policies 鈥� the most commonly purchased supplement type 鈥� ranged from just in the first quarter, according to Nebraska-based consulting firm Telos Actuarial.

“While this is a small dataset across a select number of states, it’s an indication that carriers are looking to correct their premium rates in light of upward pressure on their claims experience,” said Brett Mushett, a consulting actuary with Telos.

Climbing Numbers

Premium rates vary based on the type of coverage chosen, where a beneficiary lives, and their age. For Plan G coverage, beneficiaries paid an in 2023, according to KFF. That amount has likely risen since.

“In some states, like Ohio, Medicare supplements for years would have a 3% to 5% year-over-year increase. Now it’s 10% to 15%,” said Amanda Brewton, owner of Medicare Answers Now, a marketing organization whose clients are sales agents.

In Alaska, Premera Blue Cross raised the premiums on its Plan G policies by nearly 12% for this year, according to rate sheets provided to 吃瓜不打烊 by insurance agent Patricia Mack, who said another insurer raised rates by nearly 13%.

For example, a 65-year-old woman who last year would have been charged $172 a month for a Plan G policy would now face a monthly rate of $192, said Mack, who owns Alaska Insurance Benefits in Wasilla.

Premera spokesperson Courtney Wallace said in an email that Medicare makes changes to deductible and copayment rates each year, which affects supplemental plans that cover those increasing amounts.

Wallace also noted that the insurer saw higher medical service use among its members, “which further drove claims costs and ultimately impacted premiums.”

Agents and policy experts blame a range of factors for rising premiums: an increase in the use of medical services by beneficiaries; the aging of the population; increases in labor and medical costs; rules in some states governing Medigap plans; and people’s enrolling in 鈥� or getting out of 鈥� private Medicare Advantage plans.

“Five years ago, it was exceedingly uncommon to have a carrier with a rate increase of more than 10%. Now it’s very uncommon to see a rate increase below 10%, and it’s not uncommon to see it over 20%,” said Chalen Jackson, vice president for government affairs at Integrity, a Dallas-based company that sells life and health insurance.

Jaggi, who co-owns Jaggi Petry Insurance & Investments in Forsyth, Illinois, along with his daughter, said he eventually found other options for many of those 80-plus clients with the large increase, which came from an insurer that had previously been the lowest-cost option. But it wasn’t easy 鈥� and continuing increases are expected.

“These are unbelievable increases,” said Jaggi, who said he is seeing premium hikes exceeding 15% this year across a range of insurers.

Policy experts have outlined possible solutions, including for Congress to cap out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries or subsidize the purchase of Medigap coverage.

“Traditional Medicare is the only federal health insurance program without an out-of-pocket cap,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote in an email, adding that the program “needs to be updated and strengthened to protect the Medicare guarantee for American seniors.”

But making changes to Medicare that require congressional approval is unlikely in the current legislative environment, especially because adding an out-of-pocket cap would add costs to the federal budget.

How This Plays Out

People generally qualify for Medicare when they turn 65. Beneficiaries after they initially enroll in the traditional fee-for-service program to purchase a Medigap plan at standard rates without having to answer health-related questions.

Strict rules then kick in around when beneficiaries can enroll in or switch Medigap coverage and options become much more limited, with each one generally involving trade-offs or tough choices.

have what’s known as a “birthday rule,” which requires insurers once a year to allow people enrolled in a Medigap plan to change to different supplemental coverage 鈥� usually around their birthdays 鈥� without being medically underwritten. Those rules can help consumers, including those with health conditions, to switch.

An additional 鈥� Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, and New York 鈥� require insurers to offer at least one Medigap policy to all applicants either year-round or during an annual enrollment period, depending on the state. Changes are allowed no matter the person’s health.

Another option for those facing high Medigap costs is to leave traditional Medicare and enroll in a private-sector Medicare Advantage plan, which have out-of-pocket caps. But joining one means beneficiaries must generally rely on a set of in-network doctors and hospitals. And if they change their mind and want to go back to traditional Medicare, they have only a 12-month window in which to purchase a Medigap plan without passing health questions. After that, it can be more difficult.

“A lot of people don’t know that if they are in Medicare Advantage for a year, they can get turned down by a Medigap plan or charged really high premiums because of a preexisting condition, which for many people effectively traps them in MA plans,” said , a research associate at the liberal Center for American Progress and co-author of a on the issue.

There are some exceptions. For example, if a Medicare Advantage plan withdraws from a market or leaves the Medicare program, its enrollees can qualify for a supplemental plan without being asked health questions or charged more for having preexisting conditions.

For this year alone, about 2.6 million people when their insurer pulled out of their markets, according to KFF, and more than a million lost coverage for 2025. Many switched to other MA plans, but “somewhere around 440,000 of those people did go to a Medicare supplement policy,” sometimes because there was no other MA plan in their area, said George Dippel, president of Deft Research, a Minneapolis-based market research organization focused on insurance for older people. Deft is part of Integrity, the Dallas company.

Some Medicare experts note that anytime insurers enroll people whose health status they can’t consider 鈥� whether because of birthday rules or because their Medicare Advantage plan left the market and thus qualified them for an exemption from medical underwriting 鈥� it potentially exposes them to more health care utilization and higher costs, making them more likely to increase premiums across the board to offset the possible financial hit.

Another option mentioned by brokers for people looking to lower their costs is to consider one of the two types of Medigap plans that come with a deductible, which is currently just under $3,000 for a year. Those plans charge far lower monthly premiums than Medigap plans that pick up a much larger portion of annual amounts people must pay toward their Medicare services.

Still, “a lot of people are not comfortable with a $3,000 deductible,” Mack said.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Within a few days, Reynolds became so desperate that she and her husband had to physically restrain Jonah, dumping pain medication down his throat as he screamed in pain.

“It broke our hearts,” said Reynolds, who lived in Georgetown, Kentucky, at the time. “And I remember just thinking that it shouldn’t have to come to that.”

Reynolds couldn’t find a dentist with an opening who could treat Jonah, who is autistic and often resists dental exams due to hypersensitivity and anxiety. Over the course of five days, Reynolds took Jonah twice to a nearby emergency room as he struggled with persistent pain and a fever due to a likely infected tooth with an exposed nerve. The ER had no dentists; both times, the family was sent home with only pain medication and an ice pack.

Across the nation, more children are entering ERs for preventable tooth problems. Dentists, hygienists, and researchers attributed that trend to a shortage of pediatric dental care professionals in and worsening oral hygiene since the covid-19 pandemic. Tens of thousands of kids end up in the hospital for dental emergencies each year, according to Melissa Burroughs, senior director of policy and advocacy at the national health nonprofit CareQuest Institute for Oral Health.

ER visits for tooth problems unrelated to physical injuries for children under 15 years old from 2019 to 2022, according to a report released late last year by CareQuest. And local data reflects that national trend: At Children’s Hospital Colorado in the Denver area, nontraumatic dental cases, such as cavities or gum infections, in its ER increased 175% from 2010 to 2025, according to hospital spokesperson Sarah Bonar. In Kentucky, where Jonah lives, children’s visits to the ER for dental problems rose 72% from 2020 to 2024, according to the state.

Policy changes under the Trump administration are poised to worsen the trend. President Donald Trump’s 2025 federal budget reconciliation law, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, called for billions in cuts from Medicaid, which may force states to limit or drop dental coverage from the public insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities. New eligibility requirements for Medicaid in some states could affect kids’ access to dental care, even though children are guaranteed dental coverage under the program. Research shows that when parents lose Medicaid, even kids with coverage are more likely to have and to go to a dentist.

The Trump administration has also promoted skepticism about fluoride. show that fluoride in drinking water and topical fluoride treatments dramatically reduce tooth decay and prevent cavities. In recent months, the Food and Drug Administration against the use of fluoride supplements and the Environmental Protection Agency of “potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called fluoride a “” and “.” A 2025 study in JAMA Pediatrics linked high levels of fluoride with lower IQ in children 鈥� but only at concentrations the recommended level in public drinking water.

, a pediatric dentist at the University of Washington who studies fluoride hesitancy, worries that these anti-fluoride stances will further erode trust in fluoride treatment. Since the start of 2026, lawmakers in at least 15 states have introduced bills prohibiting or limiting fluoride in public drinking water. Utah and Florida in 2025 became the first states to enact fluoride bans.

“Will that have an effect on cavity rates?” Chi asked. “Absolutely.”

Severe Dental Cases Rise

Pediatric dentists Katherine Chin and Chaitanya Puranik said they are treating more patients like Jonah at Children’s Hospital Colorado. More severe cases have become more common, too. Puranik said he used to typically see patients with only one cavity, but now his patients are often coming in with tooth decay throughout their mouth.

During the pandemic, many dental offices , and studies show children also increased , a major risk factor for cavities. Severe cavities that lead to tooth extraction can affect , sometimes causing long-term problems with or .

Millions of people live in in the U.S., with scant dentists within driving distance. On top of that, only treat Medicaid patients, due to low reimbursement rates, which are on average of their typical dental charges, according to the American Dental Association.

Children with intellectual or developmental disabilities may especially struggle to access quality dental care. Few general dentists have sufficient pediatric training to care for kids with disabilities such as Jonah, who are easily overwhelmed or need to be sedated for an exam, , a health information nonprofit that includes 吃瓜不打烊. Over have special health care needs, and those children are to have unmet dental needs. Their parents are also to finding a dentist.

When he was younger, Jonah would not let his parents brush his teeth, which led to cavities in his baby teeth, his mother said. After Jonah’s first visit to the ER, Reynolds found a general dentist with an opening. But unlike a trained pediatric dentist, she said, the dentist did not know how to examine Jonah in a way he could tolerate and wasn’t prepared to provide sedation. Jonah left without treatment and was soon back in the ER when his fever returned.

ERs Rarely Provide Solutions

, a pediatrician in Washington County, Maine, said he is fielding “the most horrifying cavities” at Down East Community Hospital.

ERs are often ill-equipped to treat dental concerns, Weitz said. Similar to the ER Jonah went to in Kentucky, Down East has no dentists on staff. Weitz often finds himself prescribing antibiotics as a temporary measure.

“But a month later, they’re back again because it’s flaring up again,” Weitz said.

As a potential solution, states such as Maine and Alaska are proposing to use money from the $50 billion to develop the oral health workforce or to create specialized dental care centers, which can better serve children with special health care needs on short notice. But those initiatives won’t address the loss of coverage anticipated from Medicaid cuts. California last year in state grants to develop or expand over 120 dental facilities to serve patients with special health care needs.

Jonah’s dental emergency cost Reynolds a week of work from her job as a dog groomer and Jonah three days of third grade, plus hundreds of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.

Eventually, Reynolds found an oral surgeon who extracted the tooth. But even that went poorly, she said. When Jonah became upset over a needle stick, the surgeon threatened to hold him down, Reynolds said. She said the surgeon left quickly after the procedure and never gave her a clear diagnosis of what caused Jonah’s pain. The procedure did resolve his toothache, but Reynolds said more professionals should know how to handle cases like Jonah’s, with sensitivity to the families. Four years later, forcing Jonah to take his pain meds still lives fresh in her memory.

“That will never leave my mind,” Reynolds said.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Then 25 years old and six months pregnant, she drove herself to the emergency room in Ronan, Montana, on the Flathead Indian Reservation, where an ambulance transferred her to a larger hospital 60 miles away in Missoula. Once she arrived, the staff couldn’t detect her baby’s heartbeat. Swaney began to bleed heavily. She delivered a stillborn baby and was hospitalized for several days. At one point, doctors told her to call her family. They didn’t expect her to survive.

“It certainly changed my life 鈥� the experience 鈥� but my life has not been a bad life,” she told 吃瓜不打烊.

Though her experiences were nearly 50 years ago, Swaney, a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, said Native Americans continue to receive inadequate maternal care. The data appears to support that belief.

In 2024, the most recent year for which data for the population is available, Native American and Alaska Native people had the among major demographic groups, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In response to this disparity, Native organizations, the CDC, and some states are working to boost tribal participation in state maternal mortality review committees to better track and address pregnancy-related deaths in their communities. Native organizations are also considering ways tribes could create their own committees.

State maternal mortality review committees investigate deaths that occur during pregnancy or within a year after pregnancy, analyze data, and issue policy recommendations to lower death rates.

According to 2021 CDC data, compiled from 46 maternal mortality review committees, 87% of maternal deaths in the U.S. were deemed preventable. Committees reported that , deaths among Native American and Alaska Native people were considered preventable.

Our matriarchs, our moms, are what carries a nation forward.

Kim Moore-Salas

State committees have received federal money through the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, which President Donald Trump signed in 2018.

But the money is scheduled to dry up on Jan. 31, when the short-term spending bill that ended the government shutdown expires.

Funding for the committees is included in the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2026. That bill must be approved by the House, Senate, and president to take effect.

Native American leaders said including members of their communities in maternal mortality review committee activities is an important step in addressing mortality disparities.

In 2023, tribal leaders and federal officials met to discuss four models: a mortality review committee for each tribe, a committee for each of the 12 Indian Health Service administrative regions, a national committee to review all Native American maternal deaths, and the addition of Native American subcommittees to state committees.

Whatever the model, tribal sovereignty, experience, and traditional knowledge are important factors, said Kim Moore-Salas, a co-chair of the Arizona Maternal Mortality Review Committee. She’s also the chairperson of the panel’s American Indian/Alaska Native mortality review subcommittee and a member of the Navajo Nation.

“Our matriarchs, our moms, are what carries a nation forward,” she said.

Mental health conditions and infection were the leading underlying causes of pregnancy-related death among Native American and Alaska Native women as of 2021, according to the CDC report analyzing data from 46 states.

The CDC found an estimated 68% of pregnancy-related deaths among Native American and Alaska Native people happened within a week of delivery to a year postpartum. The majority of those happened between 43 days and a year after birth.

The federal government has a responsibility under signed treaties to provide health care to the 575 federally recognized tribes in the U.S. through the Indian Health Service. Tribal members can receive limited services at no cost, but the agency is underfunded and understaffed.

A that analyzed data from 2016 to 2020 found that approximately 75% of Native American and Alaska Native pregnant people didn’t have access to care through the Indian Health Service around the time of giving birth, meaning many likely sought care elsewhere. More than 90% of Native American and Alaska Native births occur outside of IHS facilities, . For those who did deliver at IHS facilities, a from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General found that 56% of labor and delivery patients received care that did not follow national clinical guidelines.

The 2024 study’s authors also found that members of the population were less likely to have stable insurance coverage and more likely to have a lapse in coverage during the period close to birth than non-Hispanic white people.

Cindy Gamble, who is Tlingit and a tribal community health consultant for the American Indian Health Commission in Washington, has been a member of the state’s maternal mortality review panel for about eight years. In the time she’s been on the state panel, she said, its composition has broadened to include more people of color and community members.

The panel also began to include suicide, overdose, and homicide deaths in its data analysis and added racism and discrimination to the risk factors considered during its case review process.

Solutions need to be tailored to the tribe’s identity and needs, Gamble said.

“It’s not a one-size-fits-all,” Gamble said, “because of all the beliefs and different cultures and languages that different tribes have.”

Gamble’s tenure on the state committee is distinctive. Few states have tribal representation on maternal mortality review committees, according to the National Indian Health Board, a nonprofit organization that advocates for tribal health.

The National Council of Urban Indian Health is also the participation of Urban Indian health organizations, which provide care for Native American people who live outside of reservations, in state maternal mortality review processes. As of 2025, the council had connected Urban Indian health organizations to state review committees in California, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

Native leaders such as Moore-Salas find the current efforts encouraging.

“It shows that state and tribes can work together,” she said.

In March 2024, Moore-Salas became the first Native American co-chair of Arizona’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee. In 2025 she and other Native American members of the committee developed guidelines for the American Indian/Alaska Native subcommittee and reviewed the group’s first cases.

The subcommittee is exploring ways to make the data collection and analysis process more culturally relevant to their population, Moore-Salas said.

But it takes time for policy changes to create widespread change in the health of a population, Gamble said. Despite efforts around the country, other factors may hinder the pace of progress. For example, maternity care deserts are growing nationally, caused by rapid hospital and labor and delivery unit closures. Health experts have raised concerns that upcoming cuts to Medicaid will hasten these closures.

Despite her experience and the ongoing crisis among Native American and Alaska Native people, Swaney hopes for change.

She had a second complicated pregnancy soon after her stillbirth. She went into labor about three months early, and the doctors said her son wouldn’t live to the next morning. But he did, and he was transferred about 525 miles away from Missoula to the nearest advanced neonatal unit, in Salt Lake City.

Her son, Kelly Camel, is now 48. He has severe cerebral palsy and profound deafness. He lives alone but has caregivers to help with cooking and other tasks, said Swaney, 73.

He “has a good sense of humor. He’s kind to other people. We couldn’t ask for a more complete child.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

But there are strings attached.

In late December, President Donald Trump’s administration announced how much all 50 states would get under its new Rural Health Transformation Program, assigning them to use the money to fix systemic problems that leave rural Americans without access to good health care. Now, the clock is ticking.

Within eight months, states must submit revised budgets, begin spending, and show the money is going to good use. Federal officials will begin reviewing state progress in late summer and announce 2027 funding levels by the end of October.

The money — divided into unique allocations for each state, ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas — represents the first $10 billion installment from the five-year, $50 billion program. Congress created the fund as a last-minute sweetener in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer to offset the anticipated in rural communities from the statute’s nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid spending cuts over the next decade.

Federal officials crafted the fund to give states “space to be creative,” Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said on a call with reporters after announcing the funding Dec. 29. “Some states will fail, and we will learn from that.”

The money was divided according to a complicated formula.

In 2026, each state will receive an equal $100 million share for the first half of the money, plus additional funding from the second half. Oz’s staff steered payouts from the second portion based on each state’s rural score, as well as results from a “technical” scoring system for project proposals.

Within hours of the announcement, academics and researchers began to parse the awards to better understand why some states received more than others, including whether the awards reflected any partisanship or political favoritism.

At first glance, total awards do not appear to favor states governed by either Republicans or Democrats. But teased out the amount awarded for each state’s technical score, which is the part determined by the discretion of agency officials.

The analysis was performed at the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, which specializes in rural health. A 吃瓜不打烊 review of the Sheps Center data found that states with Republican governors tended to receive more money for the parts of their application based on the technical score. Democratic-controlled states crowded the bottom quarter of those technical score awards.

Overall, though, the state awards reveal wild variation in how much money each state will get per rural resident, almost a hundredfold difference between the top and bottom.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

In Alaska and Michigan, legislators are nonetheless advancing bills to keep medical debt off consumer credit reports.

The attorneys general of California and Colorado said they would stand behind credit reporting laws enacted in those states in recent years, even as Colorado faces a lawsuit from debt collectors contesting such laws.

Indiana and Ohio lawmakers have dropped proposals to remove medical debt from credit reports but are pushing legislation that would extend other protections to patients who cannot pay their medical bills.

“ of Alaska voters don’t think credit reports should include medical debt,” said state Rep. , a Democrat there. “I’m not going to wait on the courts on the medical debt issue.”

An estimated 100 million Americans are saddled with health care debt. And a growing number of red and blue states have enacted laws to protect patients.

But federal policy on such debt boomeranged this year when President Donald Trump’s administration chose not to defend federal regulations that would have removed medical debt from all Americans’ credit scores. And in October, Trump’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau do not have the authority to regulate consumer credit reports.

“It’s sort of a head-spinning, 180-degree reversal,” said , an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, which advocates for people with low incomes. She called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, now led by Project 2025 architect , the “evil twin” of its predecessor under President Joe Biden.

The bureau did not respond to requests for comment.

Eight days after the new federal guidance, debt collectors filed a lawsuit contesting Colorado’s 2023 medical debt credit reporting law, the first to require removal of some or all medical debt from credit reports.

Scott Purcell, CEO of , which is a debt collection trade group and a plaintiff in the Colorado suit, said removing the debt makes it harder to gauge creditworthiness, which he said would lead creditors to assume everyone is a riskier bet.

His also argues the Colorado law violates the First Amendment by suppressing “truthful commercial speech.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, called the lawsuit outrageous in a statement to 吃瓜不打烊. His office, he said, “will strongly oppose all efforts to strip away critical medical debt protections.”

In California, Attorney General Rob Bonta, too, is standing firm on his state’s law regardless of how federal officials now interpret state rights. The Democrat told constituents in a : “Let me be clear: This remains the law in California.”

In other states still contemplating credit reporting laws, legislators are adjusting their strategy to account for the lawsuit and the Trump administration’s moves, by either ditching the plan to remove medical debt from credit reports or modifying such legislation.

Wu said her organization saw the federal change coming and had already urged state lawmakers to make pending legislation on credit reporting more lawsuit-proof by looking upstream and downstream of the credit reporting agencies. For example, Wu said, states can tell landlords, employers, or other credit report perusers that they cannot use a person’s medical debt history in their decision-making. And states can require health providers to include, in their contracts with debt collectors, limits on what they can tell credit reporting agencies about the bills they’re collecting.

“You’ll often hear providers say, 鈥極h, well, we don’t want to hurt our patients’ credit,’” she said. “Tell the debt collectors, 鈥楧on’t report this.’”

Alaska’s legislation has both elements: It bars landlords from making decisions about potential renters based on their medical debt history, and it bars providers and collectors from telling credit reporting agencies about patient debt.

Elsewhere, state lawmakers have opted out of trying to pass credit reporting provisions in proposed legislation. Indiana state Sen. , a Democrat, that tries to, among other things, cap interest rates, limit wage garnishment, and keep people from losing their homes over unpaid bills from medically necessary procedures. But he and his colleagues made a tactical decision to leave out credit reporting, after unsuccessfully including it in a similar bill last year.

“It’s out of legislative pragmatism,” Qaddoura said. “We want to be sure that you don’t get a piece of legislation killed with many benefits to tens of thousands of families just because one provision can’t go in.”

In Ohio, Democratic state Rep. made a similar calculation. She has been working on to ban wage garnishment over medical debt, cap interest rates for such debt at 3%, and scratch it from credit reports. She said she and other lawmakers recently removed the credit reporting portion.

“It’s better to pass something than nothing at all,” Grim said. “It still bans wage garnishment, which is a very aggressive, more-common-than-you-think practice. And it caps the interest rate.”

A recent investigation by 吃瓜不打烊 found that, in Colorado alone, thousands of people each year have their wages garnished to pay back medical bills, and some people taken to court for medical debts never actually owed the money.

Legislative efforts to protect people from the effects of medical debt are often bipartisan, but that doesn’t mean they pass easily. Even before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reversed its stance on credit reports, several measures hit obstacles in conservative states this year, and legislation failed in Wyoming and South Dakota that aimed to take medical debt off credit reports.

Americans are largely protected from having their credit scores dinged by small medical debts. In 2023, the three big credit bureaus 鈥� TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian 鈥� to remove medical debts under $500 from their credit reports, and the Consumer Data Industry Association, a trade group for the companies, confirmed they are still doing so.

Even so, lawmakers in several states said they are deciding whether and how to get ahead of the federal guidance with legislation that tackles additional, larger medical debt on credit reports.

“We know that this will need to get beefed up,” said , a Democratic state senator in Michigan, of . She isn’t sure what that will look like, though consumer advocates including Libby Benton hope to see the measure follow Wu’s strategy.

“These aren’t debts that people choose to take on. People might choose to buy a huge pickup truck and that’s a bad financial decision,” said Benton, director of the Michigan Poverty Law Program. “People don’t choose to have emergency heart bypass surgery.”

Yet both can end up on a credit report.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .