Not all of those kicked off were fraudulently enrolled, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ has learned. Insurance industry sources said the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has reinstated a small number of people whose coverage should not have been canceled. More could follow in the coming weeks if enrollees discover they are uninsured when they go to use their coverage.

Still, the sweep was long overdue, say supporters such as Brian Blase, whose Paragon Health Institute has of the cited by those who allege in the ACA. But other policy experts question how many legitimate consumers were caught in the dragnet, perhaps because they failed to open a letter from their insurer or answer a phone call.

Questions continue to swirl, even as a second phase of the anti-fraud effort is underway. An additional 419,000 sign-ups are being scrutinized. Insurers must let CMS know how many of those enrollees don’t respond to outreach efforts by “around mid-to-late November, after the midterm elections,” said David Merritt, senior vice president of external affairs at the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

He confirmed that some BCBS members are among those who have been reinstated. He also said that CMS has an expedited review process for those who discover they have been improperly disenrolled.

Overall, however, the administration is providing few details about the cancellations, such as how robust the outreach was to those it targeted, how long it takes for people to get reinstated after discovering their coverage was wrongly canceled, and how many such cancellations have been reversed.

“It may be true that some of those enrollments were not authorized, but it can be equally true that people got lost in the shuffle and have a valid enrollment. Without more information, it’s almost impossible to tell,” said , a director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown Law. “That they are not being very transparent is telling too,” she said of the administration.

The enrollment cut comes as part of a larger Republican strategy to focus on fraud in government programs, including and , which resonates with GOP voters.

At an Oct. 14 press conference, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz touted the removal this year of subsidies for with duplicate Medicare, Medicaid, or Children’s Health Insurance Program coverage, citing not fraud but a failure to look for concurrent enrollments or continued coverage for dead people. They credited an by the Trump administration to restore more frequent data matching checks than were done under the prior administration.

Unauthorized sign-ups by rogue insurance agents seeking commissions and other potential impropriety in the ACA marketplace — applicants’ providing incorrect income estimates, for example — has been a concern for several years, with much debate over the magnitude of the problem.

Even so, how the recent move to cancel the 760,000 enrollments will play out politically is uncertain. with gas prices as a top concern for voters. It is likely that many removed from the ACA are in red states, such as Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Those areas in ACA enrollment from 2020 to 2025, driven in part by now-expired enhanced subsidies put in place during Joe Biden’s presidency. Additionally, the cancellations target only enrollees in states that use , the federal ACA marketplace. The fully running their own marketplaces generally have programs, such as multifactor authentication, and have reported few or none of the kinds of unauthorized sign-ups plaguing the federal marketplace.

“To the extent there is a reaction depends on whether the government got it wrong, whether people try to get care and then find out their coverage is no longer active,” said Adrianna McIntyre, assistant professor of health policy and politics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

How It Played Out

According to information the agency provided to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, CMS in June selected for further review nearly 1.2 million enrollments that had all of what it deemed four warning signs for fraud:

• The application included no Social Security number or immigration document number.
• A broker was involved in the sign-up process.
• The plan had no monthly premium payment.
• The enrollee had had no contact with their insurer and no claims filed.

Then, as first reported by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, CMS sent lists of those ACA accounts to specific insurers, instructing the carriers to review them and use at least two methods of contact — such as a phone call and a letter — to try to reach the enrollees. Policyholders were given 30 days to respond to the insurers’ outreach and provide the missing information. CMS disenrolled those who didn’t respond.

Johnny Wallin, chief operating officer of Texas-based Marketplace Insurance Exchange, which helps clients in about 35 states enroll in coverage, said insurers reached out to his organization for help contacting people on the CMS lists, prompting “an all-hands-on-deck” effort by agents to reach clients, some of whom were vacationing overseas.

“Getting them to answer the phone isn’t easy,” he noted, although he suspects his agents had a better chance of getting a reply than an insurer because their clients are familiar with their phone numbers. Still, they could not reach about 60 of them.

Additionally, his team has been asked by insurers to help contact those targeted in the second phase of CMS’ review. A recent case involved a client who needed to upload his new green card after his previous one expired, but language barriers meant that he had to take time off work to come in for agents to help with the process.

CMS would not provide a list of the insurers it contacted, but publicly available documents show that New York-based Oscar Health was one.

In an August earnings call with analysts and investors, CEO Mark Bertolini said the company was reviewing the files and that “there are a number of cases ” with people on the list. In other words, the company reached enrollees CMS had targeted over fraud concerns.

He did not specify how many it had reached. The company declined to comment for this article because it is in a voluntary “quiet period,” when publicly traded companies limit disclosing information before the release of an earnings report.

Still, in with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Oscar Health estimated that 250,000 to 300,000 of its members might be disenrolled because of the CMS effort. Nationally, the company had about 3 million members in the second quarter and reported strong profits.

A Smaller Patient Pool

Overall ACA enrollment has , falling by nearly 3 million in the first few months of the year, due in large part to the expiration at the end of last year of the enhanced subsidies. The Trump administration has also taken some credit, saying its focus on weeding out improper enrollments and other changes, such as eliminating a special year-round low-income enrollment period, led to the decline.

CMS has also suspended some brokers for improper activity and barred new brokers from enrolling clients in ACA insurance on the federal exchange during the upcoming open enrollment period.

CMS did not respond to requests for data on the reasons it canceled enrollments. What percentage of enrollees were deemed ineligible due to incorrect income reporting or because they had other health coverage, such as through their jobs? How many because their ACA applications lacked immigration documents or Social Security numbers?

“Currently, there is no additional data to share,” the agency’s press office said.

But people outside the administration have been vocal.

“This was clearly phantom enrollees,” said Paragon’s Blase. He thinks more than 99% of the cancellations are of zero-premium coverage that people were signed up for by rogue call centers without their knowledge, or for people who don’t exist at all.

Blase said the carriers had a big incentive to get hold of the enrollees because they would lose the subsidies they were being paid if the plans were canceled.

And for any people unfairly caught up, Blase and Trump administration officials say all they have to do to be reinstated is call the marketplace and provide their Social Security number or other missing information.

“Everyone has the political incentive for that process to be that easy,” Blase said. “We’re a month before the election.”

But, as prior reporting has shown, it isn’t always a quick process to get an ACA plan canceled or reinstated following an unauthorized sign-up or switch, even when a consumer discovers it themselves and reaches out to the marketplace.

Brokers and policy analysts note that some of the factors used to question enrollments — such as a plan’s having no claims filed in a year — are not that unusual because many people don’t visit a doctor or hospital in a given year.

Insurers “want those healthy people in the insurance pool to help bring down the rates,” said Ronnell Nolan, president and CEO of Health Agents for America, a trade group for health insurance agents. “We’re against fraud, and CMS has allowed a lot of fraud to happen. But we don’t want people who just didn’t go to the doctor to be canceled.”

And even with the outreach required by CMS, not everyone answers phone calls from unknown numbers or opens their mail or emails.

A found an average “open rate” on emails of 28.6%.

Policy experts also note that, while lack of a Social Security number on an ACA application could indicate a fake enrollee, it might also be an oversight, or the number might not be required, like for a child if the who is not seeking coverage for the child.

“There will be legitimate people who don’t have a claim or don’t respond to an inquiry from an insurer,” said , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “If the goal is to target fraudulent enrollment, what CMS did is better than tossing people at random, but is likely to miss the mark.”

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

Standing in line for U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s town hall in the state’s capital in September, she whipped out her phone to pull up a screenshot. It was of the $1,000 cashier’s check she’d picked up at the bank that day to pay down a chunk of her son’s dental bills. An early childhood special education paraprofessional, she still owed $389, even with good dental insurance. Her own cleaning a few weeks before cost $600.

She tried to talk herself down at the bank, to focus on being grateful for what she could afford.

“I’m like, ‘Tina, OK, you were in a position for this moment to do this,’” she said. “A lot of people couldn’t do what I had to do today. I couldn’t do it. But I did it. So I need to hear, how are you going to make this better for everyone?”

Many who waited in the hot sun that afternoon in a line stretching blocks through downtown Lansing shared similar anxieties. A man ahead of Starks-Clay talked about watching his brother rack up thousands of dollars in medical debt. A professor emeritus at nearby Michigan State University worried aloud about his grandkids’ medical care, because his adult kids were struggling to meet a $9,000 insurance deductible. Healthcare workers who’d turned up for the event described patients choosing between affording medication or food, or how they themselves had been financially devastated by a medical crisis.

They all knew Michigan Democrat El-Sayed’s rallying cry by heart, chanting it when the candidate took the stage: “Money out of politics! Money in your pocket! Medicare for All!”

Support for Medicare for All is at its highest in at least a decade, according to a . The survey found two-thirds of Americans now favor expanding the government health program that largely covers seniors (about are enrolled in private plans through Medicare Advantage).

But many people don’t actually know how to define Medicare for All. Traditionally, the idea has been to establish a single health insurance program, run by the federal government, that would guarantee coverage for Americans and minimize or even eliminate private insurance. How much people like the idea depends on what they’re told about it, pollsters have found.

Still, at a time when of Americans say they can afford their healthcare, Medicare for All has become a progressive shorthand for radical, systemic change.

“Too many people don’t have health insurance, too many people who do have insurance can’t afford medical care, and many people are terrified about the costs of being sick,” said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill who specializes in the politics of healthcare reform.

“And in an electorate that wants change, that is disenchanted with the status quo, Medicare for All is an important symbol,” he said.

That’s why Democrats running for Senate seats in the midterm elections in such states as Maine, Minnesota, and Florida tout their support for scrapping the current health insurance system in favor of broad Medicare coverage. But nowhere is the issue as central to a race as in Michigan, where Medicare for All has become synonymous with El-Sayed.

El-Sayed, who trained as a doctor and served as Detroit’s top public health official, has campaigned on Medicare for All since his unsuccessful bid for governor in 2018. To Starks-Clay, that means he has a plan and will “stick to it,” she said.

That’s appealing to voters right now, said Ashley Kirzinger, director of survey methodology at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. “When we ask people what do they want to hear from candidates in regards to healthcare, it’s a plan to bring down healthcare costs.”

American Dream or Pipe Dream?

Medicare for All has been the shiny object of progressive politics in previous campaigns, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid and the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. Its popularity rises and falls in cycles, Oberlander said. And today people are painfully aware their care is getting more expensive and harder to access.

In the first decade or so after the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the nation’s uninsured rate was cut . Insurance companies could no longer deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions. Since then, to cover more people, 40 states plus Washington, D.C., have expanded Medicaid, the government health program for those with low incomes or disabilities.

Now it feels as if we’re moving backward, Oberlander said. “We are now, in the past two years, in an era where the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have reversed that progress.”

Michigan, a battleground state that President Donald Trump won in 2024, saw some of the after the GOP-controlled Congress allowed enhanced tax subsidies, which helped people afford their premiums, to expire at the end of last year. Insurance companies in Michigan hiked individual marketplace rates by an average of 20%. And up to 355,000 Michiganders are expected to lose their Medicaid coverage in 2028 because of cuts included in Trump’s signature law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to estimates from the , a left-leaning think tank.

At El-Sayed’s town hall in Lansing, Darleana Ash said patients at the medical diagnostics lab where she works are increasingly skipping tests because they can’t afford them. Others drive hours from rural areas because their local labs have closed or are no longer in their insurance networks. She worries about the patients who must choose between their medications and groceries some months.

“If you got somebody that’s 75, 80 years old, guess what? They’re going to go without the medication, because they got to eat,” she said.

Packed in near the front of the crowded town hall was Cindy Lou Coolich, a boisterous retiree wearing a campaign T-shirt and cowboy hat. She spent years working for a company that helped uninsured people enroll in coverage, until she got sick herself. A bout of sepsis nearly killed her and left her disabled. Suddenly, she was the one enrolling in Medicaid and living on $900 a month from Social Security.

She lost the 15-acre horse farm she’d owned, and then everything else, she said. “Except my car.” The saving grace, oddly, was the death of her ex-husband. Because they’d been married for more than 10 years, she could benefit from his Social Security benefits. “So now I’m doing quite well!” she laughed. But to her, it hardly seemed like the mark of a functioning healthcare system that someone had to die for things to get better.

A Universal Response

Democrats aren’t the only ones responding to voters’ healthcare discontent. Republican Mike Rogers, a former Michigan congressman and El-Sayed’s opponent, recently .

“I just can’t think of a more important issue to the people of Michigan than healthcare and costs, the rising costs,” he said. At a announcing his health platform, he broadly attacked El-Sayed and Medicare for All.

“[If] the government’s going to give you something, they have to take it away from someone else,” Rogers said.

Under Medicare for All, millions of Michiganders with private health insurance would lose that coverage, he said. Pointing to estimates that Medicare for All would cost some $4 trillion per year, he said, “Guess what? People pay for that.” (A recent researchers found that the cost of implementing Medicare for All, estimated at $4.2 trillion, would save about $1 trillion in healthcare spending.) Rogers’ campaign declined an interview request from ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

Concerns about increased taxation, disruption to the current system, and reduced access to services can make Medicare for All a political liability in a close election, Oberlander said. “It doesn’t matter if the fears that they’re spreading are actually accurate,” he said. “Politically, what matters is if they can scare people.”

But even if El-Sayed wins in November, the chances of Medicare for All replacing the current system “remain very remote in the short to medium term,” Oberlander said.

Given the staunch opposition from Republicans and many moderate Democrats, not to mention the lobbying power of the healthcare industry, massively overhauling the U.S. health system won’t suddenly be achievable because of a single Senate candidate.

Thomas “Jermaine” Carey knows this. A self-described activist, he attended a recent El-Sayed town hall in Detroit feeling “kind of sold out” by what he calls the “straight-ticket” Democratic Party. Medicare for All sounds good, he said. “Do I believe it?” He shrugged.

“It’s still America,” he said. “You still have super PACs, the lobbyists that control everything.”

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

When Lori Baute first learned about precautionary full-body MRI scans, she dismissed the idea.

“ I heard Kim Kardashian got one, and some other wealthy people,” Baute said. But at 59, she was worried about her long-term health. She has a family history of cancer, and she’s a critical caregiver for her aging mom and her adult brother with special needs.

After a close friend was diagnosed with bladder cancer, Baute decided to make an appointment with a clinic that offers full-body scans near where she lives in Ocala, Florida. Her results came back a week later. One major finding: She has lesions on her pancreas. “When I got that, I was really petrified,” she said.

Worried about pancreatic cancer, Baute shared the results with her gastroenterologist, who ordered a targeted MRI scan as a follow-up. That test showed the lesions were benign cysts.

Baute’s experience is becoming more common as companies pitch body scans directly to consumers as a way to detect cancer and other diseases early. But no major medical association — including the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology — recommends these scans for people without a very high risk of certain cancers.

And even medical screenings that doctors do recommend can carry some of the same reasons for caution.

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

Many lawfully present immigrants will be among the first people to lose Medicaid coverage under congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is expected to cut spending by more than $900 billion through 2034 for the state-federal health program for people with low incomes or disabilities. The law will strip many more immigrants of their Affordable Care Act plan subsidies and Medicare coverage next year.

Those losing their health benefits who were previously eligible include refugees of war, asylees who fled persecution, victims of sex trafficking, and interpreters who risked their lives assisting U.S. service members in Afghanistan — all of whom are in the country with the federal government’s permission. The law does not affect coverage for a few groups, including those who hold green cards.

The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, estimated the law’s changes eliminating Medicaid eligibility for many noncitizen adults with legal status would lead to about 100,000 more immigrants being .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ asked several states how many Medicaid enrollees they had identified as being at risk of losing coverage under the provision. More than 281,000 immigrants from nine states and the District of Columbia are expected to lose Medicaid in October.

While some may be able to obtain coverage elsewhere, the state numbers suggest hundreds of thousands of immigrants nationally are at imminent risk of becoming uninsured.

The CBO declined to comment.

Florida alone identified nearly 177,000 immigrants who would no longer qualify for the state’s Medicaid program starting in October, said Anna Holaday, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. The agency verified the enrollees’ immigration status through government databases and sent notices to people to give them an opportunity to provide more information proving they remain eligible, Holaday said.

Arizona predicts nearly 28,000 could lose eligibility. New Jersey expects 15,000 to 25,000 of its noncitizen residents to lose their Medicaid coverage. In North Carolina, it’s about 29,000, and in Washington state it’s 11,000. Final numbers from states on how many Medicaid enrollees have been terminated from the program won’t be available until later this fall.

Lawmakers rely on the CBO to understand the budgetary and economic impacts of proposed legislation. Yet the federal agency did not publish estimates on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s impact on noncitizens enrolled in Medicaid until a month after Congress passed the bill and Trump signed it into law.

Much of the attention around Medicaid changes in the law has centered on implementation of work requirements as a new condition of eligibility for many enrollees starting in January. The CBO estimates the requirements will increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 5 million by 2034.

Without health coverage, immigrants are likely to lose access to doctors, prescription drugs, and most other medical services. They still could qualify for coverage of emergency care under a separate program known as Emergency Medicaid.

“I came here to live a better life,” said Ahin, a refugee who left war-torn Syria for Turkey in 2011 and came to the U.S. in October 2024. She spoke with ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ on the condition that she be identified by only her first name, out of concern for her privacy and security.

Soon after arriving in the U.S., she developed severe abdominal pain that required intestinal surgery. Those costs, along with ongoing visits to specialists, were covered by Medicaid.

“I’m really worried about this,” she said. “It’s truly a terrible situation.”

Ahin, 25, said she doesn’t know what she will do if she needs to go to the hospital — she wouldn’t be able to pay the bill. She lives in a small apartment in New Jersey with her mother. Medicaid has also been vital to her mother, who has asthma.

Health Benefits Wane for Immigrants

The federal government required states to notify immigrants who will soon lose coverage, but immigrant rights advocates say some states did not begin sending letters until September. That’s given enrollees little time to react, including to respond if the state was mistakenly ending their coverage.

Cutting off Medicaid coverage is just the first move to drop government health benefits provided to many lawfully present immigrants. Under a change starting in January, the CBO estimates, about 1 million will lose eligibility for government subsidies to buy individual health coverage on Affordable Care Act marketplaces by 2034. And they will also lose access to Medicare, a change expected to affect about 100,000 immigrants, the agency forecasts.

Trump has argued that taxpayer-funded programs should be reserved for American citizens. As Congress debated the legislation in May 2025, the White House with the misleading claim that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would remove Medicaid coverage for people who are in the country without authorization.

Under long-standing law, people who are in the country without authorization do not qualify for the general Medicaid program that is funded by state and federal dollars.

The health coverage cuts are part of a broader Trump strategy to send a message that immigrants are not welcome in the United States, said Ben D’Avanzo, senior strategist for federal advocacy at the National Immigration Law Center. The Trump administration has also moved to kick people with legal status off the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and tried to do the same with the children’s program Head Start until a federal judge intervened. 

In addition to green card holders, people under age 19 and immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, or certain Pacific Island countries their Medicaid coverage affected by the law.

A Few States Try To Fill in the Gaps

Some states are staving off the coverage loss using their own money. California expects about 148,000 immigrants to lose Medicaid coverage. But the state is spending $365 million for a separate program to keep them covered until July 2027, according to Tony Cava, a spokesperson for the California Department of Health Care Services.

New York and Pennsylvania also have state-funded health coverage for many of the immigrants who are affected.

Carlos Alarcón, health and public benefits policy manager with the California Immigrant Policy Center, an advocacy group, said taking away health coverage for immigrants will affect the health of the state as a whole. The fewer people who have access to healthcare, the easier it will be for contagious diseases to spread, as happened during the covid pandemic, he said.

Alarcón said he hopes the state-funded coverage will be extended under California’s next governor. Polling released in September showed Democrat Xavier Becerra, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, leading Republican Steve Hilton in the gubernatorial race. Becerra to issue an executive order to maintain health coverage for every Californian affected by federal cuts.

In California Governor’s Race, Voters Face Stark Choice on Immigrant Healthcare

California’s next governor will face tough decisions on a highly controversial piece of healthcare policy: what to do about health coverage for the more than 1.4 million low-income residents without legal status. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton present starkly different choices as public opinion wavers.

By Christine Mai-Duc July 6, 2026

“I believe there’s folks in the legislature that will really want to fight to make sure that we restore things as much as we can,” Alarcón said.

Refugee assistance groups say they have been trying to educate people in their communities and direct them to health clinics that are government-funded or free.

“We’ve just been scrambling trying to find free medical care,” said , co-founder of the . “To not be a welcoming place is the most un-American thing I’ve ever experienced.”  

Andrea Mendez Perez, director at Interfaith-RISE, a refugee resettlement organization in southern New Jersey, said the Trump administration has elongated the process for people to get green cards and is now taking away coverage from those without them. Before 2025, it typically took about six months to qualify for a green card, documentation that allows a foreign national to live and work permanently in the United States, she said. Today, it’s well over a year.

For many of these immigrants on Medicaid, losing their ability to get their prescribed medications “is a life-or-death situation,” Mendez Perez said.

Ahin, the Syrian refugee, applied for permanent residency soon after arriving in the U.S. two years ago. Mendez Perez said she should have her green card by now, which would have spared her from being dropped under the GOP law. “She is stuck in the middle and has no control.”

Colleen McCauley, policy and advocacy director at the Camden Coalition, a nonprofit that helps connect people to healthcare in southern New Jersey, said the loss of coverage is devastating.

“None of them did anything wrong,” McCauley said, “and they are losing coverage.”

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

This story describes a lethal injection procedure used in state executions.

In May, a group of healthcare workers spent about an hour trying to establish complete IV access so they could inject Tony Carruthers, an inmate at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, Tennessee, with a lethal dose of sedative.

Maria DeLiberato, an attorney for Carruthers, was in the room. She said the workers stuck his arms and feet with needles, to no avail. A doctor then tried to insert a central line through his collarbone and shoulder. That didn’t work, either.

Carruthers groaned in pain and blood oozed from puncture wounds, DeLiberato said in a news briefing.

After more than an hour, Gov. Bill Lee called the warden, ordering him to halt the execution attempt. He later granted Carruthers a one-year reprieve.

Now, as another approaches, doctors and nurses in the state say they want medical professionals removed from the execution process. They’ve also joined defense attorneys and nine Republican state lawmakers in demanding a moratorium on the death penalty and an overhaul of the state’s execution methods.

The doctors’ arguments echoed those the American Medical Association has made and in its code of ethics.

Tennessee is where the death penalty is legal, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that offers data and analysis on issues surrounding capital punishment.

Governors in four of those states have halted all executions, citing and , such as being unable to obtain lethal injection drugs amid pharmaceutical companies’ refusal to sell them for use in executions. Lethal injection is still the primary nationwide, but some states may use , a , or .

Since the beginning of 2020, 170 people have been executed in 17 states, with most occurring in Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma. In that time, six states have had , according to the , which defines those as executions that include a departure from the protocol because of unanticipated problems and that cause more pain for the prisoner than anticipated, whether they ultimately end with a death or not. Several of the stories read like Carruthers’ — protracted but ultimately failed attempts to establish IV access.

Tennessee Health Workers’ Concerns

The IV team gave up on trying to place a typical line into Carruthers after several failed attempts, according to DeLiberato’s account. , physician Mark Fowler, a contractor for the state’s prison system, then tried to place a central line in a deeper vein. That’s a quasi-surgical procedure in which a plastic tube is inserted in the chest, groin, or neck. Fowler used a series of syringes, trying to insert the tube under Carruthers’ collarbone and then through his shoulder.

In an , Fowler said he hadn’t done such a procedure in the 12 years since he had stopped working in an emergency room, and didn’t know that placing a central line could be among his execution duties.

Fowler told NPR by phone on Sept. 24 that “the doctor does not participate in the execution. The only thing the doctor does is declare the person dead.” He did not have further comment.

Two months after the halted lethal injection, more than 40 doctors and nurses to Lee, calling on the Republican governor to pause executions and redesign the protocol to omit health workers from the process.

The letter said that Tennessee’s rules requiring the participation of pharmacists, physicians, and other healthcare workers in executions are at odds with medical ethics, as well as guidelines explicitly laid out by groups such as the American Medical Association. The doctors are to preserve life when there is hope of doing so and bars participation in executions.

“This means that the health care professionals who agree to take part in Tennessee’s executions are those willing to set aside their professional ethics,” the letter to Lee reads. “The problems that we have seen, such as in Mr. Carruthers’s case, are the predictable result of working with such unscrupulous actors.”

John Greer, a retired Nashville hematologist, said in a news conference about the letter that he wasn’t surprised the central line placement went awry.

“Placing a central line is not just sticking a needle in a person’s arm,” he said.

Greer said the doctor has to tap a large vessel above the heart. He said that it’s a risky procedure in which an error could cause a collapsed lung or heavy bleeding — and that only those with specific training and routine practice should attempt.

“And I cannot imagine that there would be someone who’s doing these routinely who would be involved in this procedure,” Greer said.

Some Republican state senators also hold on executions and an overhaul of the process, saying that “incompetent administration” of capital punishment gives its critics more ammunition.

This summer, Lee said he didn’t want a pause.

“The Department of Correction did exactly what they should,” he said. “It should not affect executions in the future.”

“It’s one of the most difficult things that we do in this state,” Lee said later. “But I am committed to making sure that it is done in the way that it should be.”

The state’s lethal injection protocol orders the prison to keep a curtain over the media witnesses’ viewing window until the IVs are established, so none of them could offer a visual account of the failed execution attempt.

A has been filed has been filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and news outlets including NPR member station WPLN. The lawsuit argues the lack of transparency during the IV placement process obscures problems like the ones that happened in Carruthers’ case.

There’s a broad understanding in the U.S. that the medical establishment doesn’t participate in executions, said , director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado’s medical school.

“We came out of World War II with a whole bioethics and medical ethics enterprise that is really strongly opposed to medicine serving as an arm of the state and using specialized medical skills to hurt people or kill people,” Wynia said.

A history of medical abuses by government doctors — such as and unethical studies of in the U.S., and in Nazi Germany — forged that consensus, he said.

Wynia mentioned other nations where medical professionals still participate in executions.

“But they are, you know, Iran and Saudi Arabia and Russia, sort of authoritarian states, where medicine is an arm of the government,” Wynia said. “Medical involvement in executions ends up happening because medicine is unable to say, ‘No, we don’t do that.’”

Upcoming Execution

On Sept. 30, Tennessee is scheduled to execute Christa Pike, who was 18 years old when she and her boyfriend killed Colleen Slemmer.

Pike’s attorneys this year raised several concerns that the state’s lethal injection protocol would violate her rights. Among them is their contention that because she suffers from a platelet disorder, it’s likely she will need a central line placed. They also argued that she was at risk of needless suffering, alleging Carruthers’ execution showed that Fowler — who has that he will oversee Pike’s execution — is incompetent at placing central lines.

In June, they put all of those concerns to the Tennessee Supreme Court, asking for a special investigator to collect evidence and hold hearings to determine whether they warranted an order to delay her execution and design a method for only her.

The court did appoint a special investigator, Senior Judge Mark Ward. He held a series of hearings in Knoxville last month. Ward said he didn’t believe Pike’s rights would be violated by the process and submitted to the court.

On Sept. 23, the Tennessee Supreme Court , agreeing with Ward, saying none of the concerns amounted to a constitutional violation. On Sept. 28, Lee announced he would not grant her clemency.

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

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

Another ArchCare nursing home, on Staten Island, has shut down a full floor. North of the city, in Dutchess County, its Ferncliff Nursing Home has contracted from 309 available beds to 196.

The eight nursing homes owned by ArchCare, a nonprofit that provides eldercare through the Archdiocese of New York, have 269 fewer usable beds than they did 18 months ago, a nearly 12% decline, creating waiting lists for patients seeking long-term care.

Across New York state, 24 nursing homes have closed since 2020, resulting in a loss of more than 3,000 licensed beds, according to LeadingAge New York, which represents nonprofit senior living organizations.

That mirrors . In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services certified 15,648 nursing facilities. A decade later, that number had fallen by more than 900.

With the oldest baby boomers turning 80 this year, an age when the need for long-term care climbs sharply, researchers are sounding alarms. Will there be enough nursing home beds for a rapidly graying nation?

“We’re seeing a serious problem and it’s heading in the wrong direction,” said David Grabowski, a health policy researcher at Harvard Medical School. He is an author of a study in JAMA Internal Medicine that in national nursing home capacity from 2019 to 2024. “As you look at the demographics, this is only going to get worse, maybe a lot worse,” he said, especially given looming Trump administration policies on immigration and Medicaid financing.

The reasons for the shrinkage?

ArchCare blames inadequate state reimbursement for Medicaid, a perennial industry complaint. The primary payer for nursing home care, Medicaid provides less than the daily cost of care, said Clif Porter, chief executive of the American Health Care Association, an industry trade group.

“Before the pandemic and inflation, the losses were sustainable,” said Jason Hutchens, ArchCare’s chief operating officer. More recently, he said, “we were running at an unsustainable loss — we had no choice.”

Nursing homes, , try to compensate by attracting short-stay patients covered by Medicare, which pays higher rates than Medicaid. When they can’t, “unless you’re extremely rapacious or extremely efficient, you’re not going to make it,” said Vincent Mor, a health services researcher at the Brown University School of Public Health who is an author of an article, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, about reduced capacity. “The numbers don’t add up.”

Staff shortages, which have plagued nursing homes for decades, have also caused contractions and closures. Nursing home aides work stressful, low-paying jobs with historically high turnover rates. Their median hourly wage last year was $20.67, according to , a research and advocacy group for direct care workers. Although pay has risen over the past decade, about 40% of nursing home aides rely on some form of public assistance, such as Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, PHI reported.

The number of nursing home aides has rebounded from the covid pandemic, according to PHI, but fewer are working than in 2015. And while hiring and retention have improved, Porter said, “there’s still a significant gap between demand, especially future demand, and where the workforce currently is.”

National occupancy rates, which fell sharply during the pandemic, have returned to a more typical 80%.

That figure can be misleading; it doesn’t mean 1 bed in 5 sit empty, awaiting a patient. Occupancy counts state-licensed beds, but the more meaningful number is operating beds — how many are actually available depending on a facility’s staffing and other factors.

That number is usually lower and, in many cases, sinking. The American Health Care Association reported in 2024 that almost half of nursing homes were and 57% had waiting lists for new residents.

It’s possible, of course, that they also face financial losses because of lower demand. “Nursing homes close because people don’t want to go to nursing homes,” said Sam Brooks, director of public policy for the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, an advocacy group. “The quality is so low that people avoid them like the plague.”

Last year, Medicare inspectors found at least one quality violation serious enough to harm or jeopardize residents in 27% of nursing homes, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit.

In recent decades alternatives emerged that diverted patients from nursing homes. About a million older adults currently live in assisted living facilities. And among Medicaid recipients, the ongoing policy shift called “rebalancing” has enabled more people to receive services at home () rather than in nursing homes.

In 1988, only 10% of Medicaid expenditures for long-term services went to home- or community-based services; the rest paid for institutional care. By 2020, more than 60% of expenditures funded home and community care, said Priya Chidambaram, a KFF senior policy manager specializing in Medicaid, citing a staff analysis.

How big a problem these trends pose depends partly on geography. The decline in the number of nursing homes in rural locations — about 10% from 2015 to 2025 — than the national drop of about 6%.

“It’s more difficult to staff a rural nursing home,” Chidambaram said. “Labor pools are smaller, and it’s hard to get people to take lower-paid or part-time jobs if they have to travel long distances.”

Bed shortages are also creating bottlenecks at hospitals. Where nursing home capacity declined, Grabowski’s team found, patients stayed in hospitals longer because they couldn’t locate posthospital care. They often had to travel farther to find facilities. “It gums up the entire system,” Grabowski said.

On two fronts, Trump administration policies could make matters worse, experts said. Revoking legal status for certain immigrant groups .

So far, “we’re not seeing significant impact across the country,” Porter said. But the effects are being felt in specific locations, including Florida, New York, and Massachusetts, he confirmed. With further revocations and deportations, “a lot fewer older adults are going to have caregivers,” Grabowski said.

The administration’s more than $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid over a decade are also expected to exact a toll. As states grapple with reduced funding, analysts expect home and community services to take a greater initial hit than institutional care. But that could increase pressure on nursing homes if patients who lose home care turn to institutions instead.

Less of these services “means more nursing home entry,” Grabowski said.

As policy ideas circulate — with calls for better data tracking, special visas for immigrant health workers, and targeted grants for nursing homes serving high-cost populations — researchers, advocates, and families are waiting to see what unfolds.

“So much of this is speculative,” Chidambaram said. “We don’t know what states will decide. We don’t know how the market will react. We’re in new territory here.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with .

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

Céline Gounder, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed the findings of a recent cancer report on CBS News 24/7’s Mornings on Sept. 16. Gounder also discussed the potential of artificial intelligence to be used in developing biological weapons on CBS News’ CBS Mornings on Sept. 11.

• .
• .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ Georgia correspondent Briah Lumpkins discussed a conservative Georgia congressional district that has remained supportive of President Donald Trump despite rising healthcare costs on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on Sept. 11.

• .
• Read Lumpkins’ “Rising Healthcare Costs Have Hit Georgia’s Most Conservative District. But Its Politics Are Unlikely To Change.”  

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ Florida correspondent Daniel Chang discussed in Spanish how gun violence affects children in Florida on Radio Bilingüe’s Línea Abierta on Sept. 10.

• , starting at 47:50.
• Read Chang’s reporting in “Where Florida’s Gun Violence Exacts Its Biggest Toll on Black and Latino Children.”

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

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ senior correspondent Aneri Pattani discussed Louisiana sheriffs’ spending of opioid settlement payouts on Attitude With Arnie Arnesen on Sept. 1. Pattani also discussed addressing loneliness and isolation as part of suicide prevention on Good Faith Media’s Our Stigma on Aug. 31.

• , starting at 5:45.
• , starting at 3:50.
• Read Pattani’s “A State Gave Sheriffs 20% of Its Opioid Settlement Cash. We Followed the Money.”
• Read Pattani’s “Trivia Nights, Valentine’s Cards: Overlooked Social Connections Can Prevent Suicide.”

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ senior correspondent Renuka Rayasam discussed primary care shortages on PBS News’ Horizons on Aug. 28.

• .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ Florida correspondent Daniel Chang discussed how gun violence affects Florida’s children on Fox 13 Tampa Bay on Aug. 26.

• .
• Read Chang’s reporting in “Where Florida’s Gun Violence Exacts Its Biggest Toll on Black and Latino Children.”

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

Their family and friends thought the adventure-loving couple was on another jet-setting vacation, but they were keeping something else under wraps: They had turned off their phone locations to hide visits to a Greek clinic where they were trying to get pregnant.

The Solomons are among the growing numbers of Americans looking abroad, particularly to Greece and Spain, to escape the high cost of fertility treatments in the U.S., where such procedures are often not covered by insurance. The treatments include , which involves ovulation stimulation, retrieving the eggs, fertilizing them in a lab, and transferring the embryos into the uterus. Other less intensive medical therapies also address infertility.

President Donald Trump has made fertility, and IVF in particular, a focus of his administration’s agenda after he for women during his 2024 campaign. His administration intended to make it easier for employers to offer fertility coverage, although it has yet to be finalized. So far, the most concrete result has been lower costs for some IVF medications through TrumpRx, a site where cash-paying patients can find some discounted medicines through participating pharmacies. The White House projected that patients could save .

While significant, those savings are up against a since 2014, according to GoodRx, a prescription discount service. A released in July by Axene Health Partners and the Women’s Reproductive Health Foundation found that the overall cost for a cycle of IVF was over $29,000 — or 35% of the median annual household income in the U.S. Genetic testing, embryo storage, pregnancy care, and delivery costs can push the total over $54,000 per IVF-conceived birth, according to the study. An average patient needs two to three cycles to successfully have a child, so the costs for many patients would be even higher.

Infertility affects people in the U.S., but only an estimated 24% of treatment needs are met, because of those high costs and limited insurance coverage, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The condition is believed to be of people having children later, as well as such as pollution.

Still, were born via IVF in the U.S. in 2024 — a record, according to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. An increasing share of people hoping to be parents are seeking help in Europe: The number of Americans choosing European clinics grew by more than 37% last year, according to , the chair of the European Fertility Society, a group that tracks data on fertility treatment in Europe.

The Solomons knew IVF was their only chance to have children together biologically, because Justin had testicular cancer in his late teens. What the college sweethearts had not expected was the cost — and they learned early in their IVF journey that their insurance would not cover their treatment. While some states have passed laws to require insurers to pay for some fertility care, the coverage .

When the couple first explored IVF in Florida, where they live, they were quoted $40,000 for one round of treatment. The price shocked them, and Emilie said the clinic’s offer of a spring discount for an embryo transfer felt “off-putting.”

“They just kind of prey upon your hopes and dreams to be parents,” Emilie said.

Treatment Plus Island-Hopping Tours

The price of IVF and uncertainty around in Florida, which the Solomons feared their control over their embryos, sent them to the Pelargos IVF Medical Group in Athens. There, in the first of two trips, Emilie underwent ovulation stimulation and egg retrieval.

Including medication, fertilization, storage, and the ultimate embryo insertion, the total treatment cost about $12,000, not including travel, according to the Solomons, a fraction of what they might have spent in America. That affordability drew the couple abroad, but so did the allure of sightseeing and experiencing a new country.

On that first trip, they spent a weekend between doctor appointments exploring the Greek island of Milos. Between Emilie’s hormonal injections, they rented a boat to explore the island. Their video from the trip shows them climbing the island’s striking white volcanic cliffs, and Emilie floating in the turquoise water of the Aegean Sea. Despite the emotional and physical toll of the IVF process, the couple remembers being in a little bubble, away from everyone, exploring a beautiful place.

“It was one of the best summers that we’ve had,” Emilie said.

When they traveled back to Greece for their embryo transfer in October 2025, they spent two days in Croatia.

IVF in Greece using a patient’s own eggs typically costs around $3,000 to $4,000, not including medication, so even with travel, it is often a fraction of what patients pay in the U.S.

“Americans choose Greece because they can access treatment that is more affordable, faster to begin, and well supported for international patients,” Dejewski said.

Patients in Greece do face some legal restrictions: Embryo storage is time-limited, donor anonymity is standard, sex selection and embryo-transfer numbers are restricted, surrogacy access is limited for nonresidents, and patients must carefully consider documentation requirements if they plan to move embryos between Greece and the U.S.

Penny Ampatzi said she is clear about these legal differences when Americans consult with her clinic in Athens. Serum IVF offers to schedule airport pickup for patients, as well as island-hopping tours. Ampatzi, the co-founder and clinic director at Serum IVF, said the main draw for the dozen or so American patients her clinic sees each month is the personalized fertility treatment plans. Affordability is close behind. A cycle at her clinic costs just under $6,000, not including embryo freezing. Almost all of Serum’s patients are foreigners, according to Ampatzi.

“You consider that you have a good possibility of success, plus you don’t pay that high amount of money, and you also have combined the treatment with holidays — so it’s a ‘Why not?’” she said.

Not Without Risks

IVF costs in the U.S. have been driven up by a mix of inflation, a shortage of embryologists, a surge in demand after pandemic backlogs, and private equity ownership, Dejewski said.

William Kiltz, vice president of marketing and business development at U.S.-based , said that the costs are becoming too far out of reach. “IVF is almost a treatment that only the top 1% can afford reasonably,” he said.

Kiltz said CNY’s model — offering IVF for around $8,000, not including embryo storage, at its 18 locations across the country — brings just enough profit to “keep the lights on” and open new locations while keeping its costs lower. “We’re trying to deliver this care at the absolute bare-minimum cost,” he said.

More than half of CNY’s patients travel from out of state in search of those lower-cost options, Kiltz said.

He said he hopes the IVF market will eventually settle out, as happens with many new technologies. But nearly five decades in, that normalization hasn’t come. Kiltz believes that’s because the market is so emotionally driven.

“People will do just about anything,” Kiltz said. “There’s certainly some risk in something like that, where the demand and the desire from a single individual is so strong that they could be taken advantage of.”

, the head fertility doctor at the CNY location in Norfolk, Virginia, pointed to the difficulties of trying to vet a clinic overseas when one doesn’t speak the language or understand the local IVF regulations. It also can be challenging to transport temperature-sensitive medication back home.

“It’s almost like a full-time job trying to play regulatory expert and inspector all at the same time, while you’re a patient,” Pakrashi said.

She said she also has had patients who sought treatment abroad return to her clinic struggling to transfer records or understand a diagnosis they received overseas. They often have to repeat tests.

And going abroad for IVF is still out of reach financially for many Americans.

The Solomons said seeking treatment overseas takes a certain type of adventurous spirit, too. But for them, all the logistics and travel were worth it. Their one cycle of IVF and two trips to Greece allowed them to welcome a healthy baby boy this summer.

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

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 — which oversees the Rural Health Transformation Program — 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 — 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ 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.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ is collecting states’ applications and approved plans and budgets, not all of which have been posted on state websites.

Rural Health Payout

Tracking Applications for Rural Health Transformation Funds

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .