“It was like I was underwater, like it took the most to do anything,” he said.

Meetze stopped taking the drug but endured fatigue and anxiety for months afterward, and his eyes and muscles twitched, he said.

He had taken BPC-157, a peptide drug popularized by podcasts about wellness, longevity, and what’s called “body optimization.” “Peptide” is a general term for substances that are smaller than proteins but composed of the same building blocks. Dozens of , including insulin and GLP-1 weight loss medicines, have garnered approval by the Food and Drug Administration. But BPC-157 and many others have not because they haven’t undergone clinical trials.

This fact hasn’t stopped online influencers from promoting them as remedies for muscle injuries, gut issues, covid, and more. Use of BPC-157 is growing in the U.S., particularly among white males, according to a of millions of de-identified electronic health records. Since 2020, the analysis, which hasn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, found that more than 1,000 people told doctors they had used the drug.

Meetze said he decided to take BPC-157 after listening to Andrew Huberman, a Stanford neuroscientist with more than 16 million followers on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, who talks up peptides frequently . Studies in mice suggest that BPC-157 helps muscles heal and has “very high safety profiles,” Huberman , “at least, with respect to the lethal dosing.” His guest on , Craig Koniver, a doctor who sells peptides through his wellness clinic, called BPC-157 “super safe” and recommended it for “anyone who’s working out on a regular basis.” Koniver did not respond to requests for comment.

Huberman didn’t respond to multiple queries from ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, but an automatic reply on his Huberman Lab website that says the podcast doesn’t constitute medical advice: “Any reliance on information provided through the podcast is solely at the user’s own risk.”

Hoping BPC-157 might help him advance as a weightlifter, Meetze said he bought the drug last year from an online vendor, Researchem. A chemical supply company with that name sells experimental peptides , warning that the substances are “solely for laboratory research” and are “not intended for human consumption.” (It lists an address in Hillsboro, Oregon, that corresponds to a shared office space. A receptionist at the space said Researchem wasn’t registered there, and multiple queries from ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ to the email address listed on the website went unanswered.)

Companies are required to warn that experimental peptides, which haven’t been approved by the FDA, are for research use only. But many companies may soon be permitted to drop the warning because of a push by health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lower barriers to their use. He and other leaders of the Make America Healthy Again movement have promoted peptides as a way to improve the country’s health.

On the social media platform X, before he took the helm at the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy the “aggressive suppression” of “peptides, stem cells, raw milk” and “anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.” (In fact, peptides are heavily patented.)

He has repeated the pledge since taking office. On early this year, Kennedy said he was a “big fan” of peptides and wanted to make many of them “more accessible.” On a podcast with the co-chair of the MAHA Action committee, Gary Brecka, the FDA’s role should be to assess science, “but not tell people and not tell physicians what they can and cannot prescribe.”

“If you want to take an experimental drug,” he added, “you ought to be able to do that.”

This summer, Kennedy’s health department with financial stakes in the peptide industry to a panel that advises the FDA. At an in July, the new appointees voted to ease restrictions on six experimental peptides, including the trendy compounds BPC-157, TB-500, and MOTS-c. Specifically, they advised adding these peptides to a list, called 503A, that would allow specialized pharmacies to make the drugs for human use, even though the FDA hasn’t approved them.

In an email, HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard wrote that every committee member satisfies the FDA’s ethics requirements. “FDA — not podcasts or politics — determines which substances qualify for inclusion on the 503A Bulks List,” she wrote. The FDA has yet to issue a final decision.

The vote went against FDA scientists who on the six peptides, concluding there wasn’t enough evidence to show they improved any condition. Furthermore, the scientists highlighted a potential for liver damage, allergic reactions, or other serious consequences.

“People are saying this is about medical freedom — putting decisions back in the hands of patients,” said Reshma Ramachandran, a regulatory science researcher at Yale School of Medicine. “But what we see in practice is that incentives aren’t actually centered around patients. They’re centered around selling products.”

Scientists also warned that drugmakers would be reluctant to invest millions of dollars into clinical trials on peptides if they could be sold without FDA approval.

“The chances of clinical trials getting done now are diminished,” said Eric Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research, a biomedical science institute in San Diego. “We will have more people who are prey to predators that will sell, sell, sell.”

A lack of data leaves consumers in the dark.

Meetze sought help on Reddit, where people post about pain, headaches, vision problems, and a lack of motivation after taking experimental peptides. Peptide enthusiasts often comment on these posts with skepticism, attributing a person’s problems to contaminated products, preexisting conditions, or misuse of the drugs. The online vitriol in the Reddit conversations can be intense, so Meetze welcomed an invitation to join a private group on the social platform Discord in which people with BPC-157 side effects tried to figure out what happened to them and how to fix it.

“There are millions of success stories with these peptides,” Meetze said, “but no one wants to believe that this wrecks some of our lives.”

Wolverines and Migraines

One member of the private side-effects group, a 46-year-old software engineer named Dominik E., said he got an excruciating migraine within days of taking BPC-157 with TB-4, another unapproved peptide — a combination called the “Wolverine Stack” because of its purported ability to heal wounds rapidly, like its namesake Marvel superhero.

“My left eye started throbbing really badly, and the left side of my face became numb,” he told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, which agreed to only partially identify him and others interviewed for this article who were concerned about divulging sensitive health information.

After two months of migraines, Dominik said, the pain eased, but his face felt inflamed. “It is a total nightmare,” he said.

“I’m afraid how people will judge me,” said Lois S., a woman who works at a Michigan elementary school. She hoped BPC-157 and another unapproved peptide, retatrutide, would help with weight loss, but she stopped taking the treatment when she felt pain.

“I sought out this substance from a lab that clearly labeled it not for human use, purchased a syringe, and injected this in my kitchen,” she said. “That belies all logic about what a normal person would do.”

Peptide proponents argue that shoddy manufacturing — not the peptides — causes harm. Therefore, they say, the FDA must protect the public by allowing doctors to prescribe peptides made for human use by pharmacies that specialize in . Typically, compounding pharmacies manufacture alternatives to FDA-approved drugs so a patient can, say, get a liquid version of a drug that the original manufacturer makes only as pills.

Adding unapproved peptides to the FDA’s list of compoundable drugs would mark a departure from the list’s purpose, said Peter Lurie, a former FDA official who now directs the advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest. He noted that federal and state oversight for compounding pharmacies is often lax, and they’ve been .

Furthermore, he added, the move would mislead consumers into thinking they’re buying drugs backed by clinical trials. People promoting peptides often point to promising laboratory research as evidence. Rats with spinal injuries after BPC-157 injections, for example, and old mice given the experimental could run longer. On average, however, fewer than 10% of substances that show promise in animal studies prove effective in clinical trials.

“A lot of this pseudoscience stuff sounds deeply impressive — inflammation this and telomere that — but at the end of the day, none of it really matters,” Lurie said. “You’ve got to show clinical benefit in humans: Does it work?”

Peptide promoters lean on anecdotes, often without verifiable numbers. In a at the White House, the MAHA influencer Brecka said: “Twenty million people have been prescribed these things without adverse events.” His guest on the episode, Brigham Buhler — who is the co-author of The Peptide Revolution and owner of a compounding pharmacy that sells peptides and a clinic, Ways2Well, that prescribes them — told Brecka that none of its 75,000-plus patients had reported adverse events from peptides.

Buhler cited even higher numbers in the movie , a documentary featuring Kennedy and other leaders of the MAHA movement and that bears the MAHA trademark. In the segment on peptides, Buhler said: “Having treated literally hundreds of thousands of people through our compounding pharmacy, we’ve never had a major adverse event.”

Topol asks why those boasting success haven’t conducted clinical studies. “If influencers and companies really believe these peptides are helping people,” Topol said, “then they should put their profits back into rigorous research.”

Chris Woodward, a spokesperson for Brecka and his company, the Ultimate Human, said in an email that the health and wellness issues discussed on Brecka’s podcast do not constitute medical advice. “Mr. Brecka consistently advises his audience to consult a licensed physician,” Woodward wrote. Buhler did not respond to requests for comment.

Not all anecdotes are rosy. At an antiaging conference last summer in Las Vegas, two women were rushed to the hospital and intubated after being injected with experimental peptides and vitamins, according to citations that Nevada’s state pharmacy board issued against the doctor running the booth and his colleagues for prescribing and administering drugs without a state medical license.

An for adverse events contains concerning reports. Although the database can’t prove that a drug, vaccine, or medical device caused harm — the reports are brief, unverified, and voluntary — it signals issues worth exploring. A 36-year-old woman was hospitalized in December after taking the experimental peptide BPC-157 for weight control and a skin disorder, for example, and a 48-year-old man was hospitalized with a “life-threatening” condition after taking the peptide.

FDA scientists presented some of these reports at the July meeting and flagged worrisome outcomes in animal experiments, such as a revealing signs of liver toxicity in rats and dogs injected with BPC-157.

Brian Lee, a liver disease specialist at the University of Southern California, was among the panel’s minority who voted against easing restrictions. Without clinical studies, he said, afflictions that take time to develop, like liver damage and cancer, might not be spotted for years: “I think this endorsement can be potentially harmful, and I cannot in good conscience vote ‘yes.’”

The panel’s newcomers disagreed. “I do not believe the FDA made a good case on issues with safety with BPC,” said Kris Wusterhausen, founder of an antiaging company in Texas, the Resurge Clinic, which sells a BPC-157 product for $149.

“Once you’ve seen the effects of BPC,” he said, “you can’t unsee it.”

Awaiting Trial

Deepak Srivastava, president of the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, designed a clinical trial two decades ago to see if a peptide he studies, TB-4, could repair tissue after a heart attack. Before enrollment, people volunteering for the study would be screened for early signs of cancer because TB-4 triggers vessel growth and cell migration, which might exacerbate malignant growths. He worries about the FDA panel’s vote to ease restrictions on a derivative of TB-4, before such trials have been completed, saying, “You need to have a healthy respect for the fact that drugs can be harmful.”

Pinchas Cohen, a peptide researcher at the University of Southern California, was less cautious, saying the FDA buzz might drive investors to fund trials. He’s seeking support to bring a peptide his lab identified, MOTS-c, to market. It’s “un-ideal” for people to take unproven drugs, Cohen said, but that’s what’s happening: “The world is changing and people like me need to accept that this is the new reality and find ways to make it as safe as possible.”

In the meantime, people like Meetze resort to podcasts and online forums for advice. His symptoms faded after a year, but he still had spells of feeling “zero emotions.”

Peptide users describe this condition as anhedonia. It’s come up on .

Huberman occasionally mentions other potential peptide risks, like cancer, sprinkling them into advice on how to take them. Take a with 1.2 million views: “I do not think that BPC-157 is not without its quote-unquote ‘side effects,’” Huberman says. “If you’re going to go down this path of taking BPC-157, I would encourage you to take the minimal effective dose, to not simply do it every day, and certainly to not do it continuously, and of course to monitor your other health metrics for anything that could potentially resemble cancer or tumor growth, because obviously stimulating angiogenesis for wound repair sounds like a great thing, recovering and being able to do your workouts or play your sport, or move about more comfortably, of course, a wonderfully attractive thing to do.”

“Isn’t that what we all want? But obviously not with the trade-off of growing a tumor,” he said, before interrupting the discussion to advertise a supplement company sponsoring the show.

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

But in recent months, ’s proposed plans for a natural gas pipeline have exposed how population growth, here and across the nation, is driving a divide between wealthy newcomers and longtime residents.

Chatham has grown into one of North Carolina’s , fueled by an influx of new residents in its northeastern corner. Yet the pipeline would run from to , two communities where the per capita income is roughly $25,000 a year, or about half the income typical for the region.

And it’s raising familiar concerns. A from the Chatham County Public Health Department stated that “unjust, unfair, and uneven distribution of social and economic resources” in the county, including exposure to environmental hazards, limited people’s “ability to achieve optimal health.”

In September, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners , saying that “protecting public health, safety, environmental resources, and private property rights remains a priority.” states that the proposed pipeline could affect areas occupied by vulnerable, low-income residents. Under state law, Enbridge could still attempt to take land through eminent domain, and low-income communities affected would have fewer resources available to fight back.

The state Department of Environmental Quality typically would review applications for permits to build a natural gas pipeline. That department has not yet received a permit application for the pipeline, said Onotse Omoyeni, senior press secretary for the office of Gov. Josh Stein. The North Carolina Utilities Commission declined to comment.

Enbridge says the is needed to meet growing energy demands in the area, including Chatham, where the population has soared 21% since 2016, as well as neighboring Lee County.

Yet the proposed pipeline has set off protests at and attracted hundreds of people to a to express their opposition, many of them , retirees, or their relatives. They argue the pipeline would pose an environmental threat to wells used for drinking water and expose people in less affluent areas to that could increase the risks of cancer, preterm births, and asthma — all for the benefit of people who live nowhere near the proposed route.

“Nobody wants to be next to a pipeline,” Dorasue Burns Christian, a retired dental hygienist, told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. She said the proposed route cuts across the roughly 22-acre farm where she has lived for more than 50 years. “I’m stressed and I can’t sleep at night. I have been pushed as far as I can be pushed.”

Enbridge Gas North Carolina is a subsidiary of the Canadian energy company Enbridge. Residents point to other communities in which Enbridge has operated — such as ; and — where oil spills and a natural gas pipeline rupture led to evacuations, injuries, and at least one death.

Enbridge declined an interview request to answer questions about the location of the North Carolina pipeline and the company’s safety record. In a statement, spokesperson Persida Montanez said the pipeline is needed to accommodate population and business growth in Chatham and neighboring Lee County.

A says safety will be prioritized during construction and operation, including monitoring, maintenance, and compliance with regulatory rules.

Many residents believe the company is attempting to profit from a , which many . The company website says that Enbridge does not intend to use the pipeline for that purpose and that serving a data center would require a pipeline at least twice the size of the one planned for Chatham.

The pipeline would connect to existing natural gas infrastructure in Siler City and near Moncure, the company said.

Still, pipeline opponents say they are fed up.

“They chose this route because they probably thought people would not fight back,” said Amanda Clark, a protest organizer who grew up in Chatham. Her family roots in the county date to the 1700s. “In rural communities, we are seen as disposable.”

‘Collateral Damage’

Chatham County’s fight comes amid a in the natural gas pipeline industry and the of “American energy dominance.”

The U.S. produces more natural gas than any other country, about as much as .

Research shows natural gas pipeline leaks are concentrated in where people experience higher rates of poverty and physical disabilities and have fewer means to respond to crises.

Nationwide, there were nearly from 2010 to 2021 that were serious enough that they were required to be reported to the federal government, including fires and explosions that killed 122 people and injured more than 600.

In 2019, and six were injured in Kentucky when an Enbridge natural gas pipeline ruptured, according to a federal government report.

Enbridge reached a with the federal government after the 2010 oil spills in Michigan and Illinois. In the Michigan spill, a pipeline discharged 1 million gallons of oil into Talmadge Creek, in one of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history.

“No Pipeline. No Compromise,” read the red T-shirts worn by some of the more than 300 people who attended a Chatham County Board of Commissioners meeting in Pittsboro, North Carolina, in early August. Outside the building, they displayed signs that said “People NOT Pipelines” and “Save Our Farms.”

Under , private utilities and pipeline companies can , which give them the right of way to construct, operate, and maintain pipelines without outright taking ownership.

Enbridge will propose the final route for the pipeline based on field surveys, environmental studies, and engineering analysis, Montanez said. “The utility is also focused on delivering safe, reliable natural gas service that supports long-term economic vitality,” Montanez said.

Some residents, like Clark, argue that while the pipeline would power more housing and business development in wealthier parts of Chatham, it would create a public health risk in rural, poorer areas.

Clark, who works as the drug and injury prevention manager for the public health office in nearby Guilford County, said her great-grandparents were full-time farmers and passed down land near Siler City where her grandparents, dad, aunt, and cousin live.

Her grandfather retired from a hosiery mill and farmed part-time. He gave land to his children when they married, Clark said, because it was the only major asset he owned.

Clark said she is now in line to inherit land from her family and wants to protect the legacy of people who worked as farmers, mechanics, and schoolteachers from profit-taking by a company.

“We’re the collateral damage,” Clark said. “It makes people feel like they don’t have value.”

A Class Divide

Northern Chatham — which is an easy drive from major universities and , home to more than 250 companies — has seen a rush of newcomers.

Many have settled into places like , a community with boutique shops, gardens, and homes that can cost nearly $1 million. Another master-planned community nearby, , is expected to bring up to tens of thousands of new residents over the next 20 years.

Not far outside the county’s borders are Chapel Hill, home to the University of North Carolina; the state capital of Raleigh, home to North Carolina State University; and Durham, home to Duke University.

As those places have , Chatham has become a cheaper alternative.

But prosperity is fleeting in many parts of the county. A quarter of residents are considered low-income, and on average there are 24 candidates for every job opening, according to a by the NC Budget and Tax Center.

Christian, an 85-year-old widow who lives a few miles south of Pittsboro, spends her days on her farm, raising hay and caring for chickens, birds, dogs, and cats. She has received letters from Enbridge saying the company wants to survey her property, where she lives with her 66-year-old son, who has a disability.

Christian said she needs money to care for her son and worries that she may one day need to move to a nursing home because of declining health. She said she has been diagnosed with macular degeneration, an eye disease that blurs straight-ahead vision, making it difficult to recognize faces or read.

She had planned to make ends meet by selling multiple parcels of land, but she said potential buyers backed out once they heard about the pipeline. At the in August, she pleaded for local officials to try to stop Enbridge.

“They should be ashamed of themselves,” she told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. “It’s disheartening. They are stealing from poor people.”

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

According to a , nearly 60% of Americans favor a system of Medicare for All, while 85% of Democrats support it. For years, Democrats in Congress symbolic that have had no chance of passage but have been supported by dozens of members.

Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland added his support in December. “I was listening to my constituents,” he said. “It’s just reached the complete breaking point. Our system is unaffordable and unsustainable with premiums going up, copays going up and up.”

At a time when more than 100 million Americans carry medical debt, it’s easy to get behind a promise of free, or free-ish, no-hassle health care. But turning an inspirational slogan into law gets gnarly. Those three words, Medicare for All — a pledge to bring universal healthcare to every American — mean not one thing to supporters but many. And all versions of such a system face considerable obstacles to enactment.

“Medicare for All is a slogan, not a concrete proposal, so it’s hard to have an opinion on,” said Amy Finkelstein, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who, with Stanford’s Liran Einav, wrote , which laid out what the pair considered a realistic and fiscally responsible plan for providing basic insurance to every American.

“What we can afford is a basic plan — what we call a shack, not a chateau,” Finkelstein said. Its bedrock would be a government-funded skinny plan less generous than Medicare, with potential constraints such as a limited number of physical therapy visits or stricter criteria for getting a knee replacement, but guaranteed robust basic coverage for catastrophic medical conditions. She estimated that most Americans would opt for supplemental coverage.

The most high-profile political proponent of Medicare for All this election season is Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic senatorial candidate in Michigan, who has made a more sweeping proposal central to his platform — far more chateau than shack. It would create one plan that covers a suite of medical needs with no cost to patients, including dental and vision care, which traditional Medicare doesn’t cover.

(Traditional Medicare has increasingly come to resemble private insurance with premiums and coinsurance, and, unlike standard commercial plans, it has no annual out-of-pocket maximum. To fill such gaps, patients buy separate Medigap and drug plans.)

“The most important thing is just to make Medicare whole — meaning no charge for medical care — rolling back the complexity and costs of the last 10 years,” El-Sayed told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

His program would start off covering children and adults five years younger than the current eligibility age for Medicare and close the gap over a period, he has estimated, of eight years. To ease the transition for the healthcare system, he would initially set the Medicare payment rates to mirror the totals doctors and hospitals receive now to avoid a “price shock” to their operations. Future increases would be limited to the rate of inflation.

One big question is how to make the financing work in a highly profitable industry. National health spending was projected to hit in 2025, or nearly 20% of the U.S. gross domestic product.

The United States as much on healthcare per person than many peer countries. And health insurance is often a company’s second-largest expense after payroll.

But how will the government divert financial outlays of employers and households into a new Medicare for All system without new taxes or massive government spending?

When polls ask voters whether they would support Medicare for All if it meant losing their insurance or paying new taxes, support often drops.

“You could decide to raise taxes and cover more,” Finkelstein said. “If you don’t want to cut current Medicare benefits, you could decide to bust the budget, which seems to be a common practice.”

Joe Biden said that, as president, he any Medicare for All bill, given the cost, which was estimated at up to . The bills in Congress don’t include very detailed financing plans.

Economists who have mapped out the possibilities are divided on a realistic path.

A group of that converting to a Medicare for All program could save $450 billion annually. That’s in part because a government plan could negotiate — or simply set — far better prices for hospitals, doctors, drugs, and devices than private insurers. It would reduce the overhead created by private insurance with its army of negotiators, coders, and claim deniers — and reduce profits.

Strong forces are pushing back against such “rightsizing” of exorbitant prices, most notably: insurers, hospitals, and drug and device manufacturers. In 2022, they spent on lobbying and have been a powerful force for job creation. But a grand Medicare for All proposal may simply be a strategy to open the debate to lesser possibilities. President Barack Obama’s initial Affordable Care Act proposal contained ambitious ideas — such as drug price negotiation — that fell by the wayside to get the votes for passage.

Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico supports what he calls “Medicare for Y’all” — allowing people under 65 to buy into Medicare.

“There are versions of Medicare for All that could potentially include our proposal, and versions that could look extremely different,” Finkelstein said.

Support in some parts of the industry is growing.

According to one survey, more than have said they’d prefer some sort of single-payer system. Though the American Medical Association is opposed, its student and resident sections are the opposition. The , the nation’s second-largest physician group, also supports Medicare for All. Obama called the ACA a “starter house.” It was “an improvement, but it has not met the need,” Van Hollen said.

Now the growing number of Medicare for All proponents will have to define exactly what kind of new house they can accept and afford.

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 .

On at least 10 days in the previous month, Tingley had hit, kicked, or elbowed aides when they were trying to help her change her briefs, get dressed, bathe, or go to the bathroom, according to Vista Grande behavior logs. Vista Grande wanted permission to sedate her.

Into the new year, Tingley’s sons and Vista Grande fiercely wrangled over one of the most contentious topics in long-term care: the use of antipsychotic medications to pacify agitated people with dementia. The medications come with risks: The Food and Drug Administration requires pharmaceutical companies to warn that these potent drugs increase the chance of death in older people with Alzheimer’s and similar diseases.

More than have a diagnosis of dementia. Despite a 14-year campaign by the federal government to reduce the use of psychotropics, 1 in 4 Medicare beneficiaries with dementia are potentially inappropriately prescribed antipsychotics and other brain-altering medications that can cause delirium, falls, and hospitalizations, a estimated.

While some families and guardians agree that the benefits of these drugs outweigh the risks, those with misgivings confront a wrenching choice: consent to drugging loved ones or risk eviction from a long-term care facility.

As the Tingleys alternately acquiesced to and resisted Vista Grande’s insistence on medication, administrators started calling 911 after altercations, according to ambulance and police dispatch records. Tingley was repeatedly taken to the emergency room for assessment, hospital records show.

After four trips, Vista Grande gave Tingley a 30-day eviction notice, and it sent her to the hospital four more times while the family was arranging a new placement, medical records show.

“I want her out of here,” a flustered administrator told an ambulance crew, one entry shows.

Tingley died at another facility in January 2025. The cause was plaque buildup in her brain, a , a degenerative brain disease and the most common type of dementia.

“They just wanted to have her drugged up,” David Tingley, one of her five sons, said about Vista Grande in an interview. “It’s a lot easier to take care of someone who’s just out of it.”

Her sons’ lawsuit against Vista Grande and its director at the time accused them of negligence, causing emotional distress, and wrongful eviction. The suit also asserted Vista Grande initiated the ER trips in retaliation for the family’s disagreements about Tingley’s care. Vista Grande and its director have denied the allegations. Their attorneys and the director did not respond to requests for comment.

In a legal filing, Vista Grande called the drugs recommended to the Tingleys “routine medication” and said it sent their mother to the hospital “because of her family’s refusal to allow Ms. Tingley to be treated on site.”

A Michigan Circuit Court judge has dismissed the negligence claim on legal grounds. A trial is scheduled for early next year on the remainder of the lawsuit if mediation fails.

Earlier this year, Vista Grande, which was a nonprofit, became a wholly owned subsidiary of Otterbein SeniorLife, which renamed it Otterbein Jackson SeniorLife Community. Otterbein is not named in the lawsuit, and representatives did not respond to requests for comment.

Dangers of Aggression

Diseases that cause dementia damage the parts of the brain that regulate impulse control and perception. Impaired people can become aggressive because of fear — especially when they no longer recognize their caregivers — or because they have no other way to communicate that they are in pain, are hungry, or have some other need.

Altercations between agitated people with dementia and other residents or workers charged with caring for them are in long-term care facilities and private homes. ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ previously found that federal inspectors have cited nursing homes more often for resident-to-resident abuse than for any other type of abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

Those dangers are particularly true in the more than that specialize in dementia care, usually in locked buildings or units populated by people with cognitive damage. These memory care facilities promise specially trained staff and meaningful activities for residents and usually charge more than standard assisted living.

The long-term care industry’s reliance on tranquilizing medications has been a concern of Congress for half a century. A stated that “an ugly pattern of prescription drug misuse, with harsh consequences to patients, exists in many nursing homes of the United States.”

A National Campaign

In 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched its to target overprescribing. It has shown some success with reducing the use of antipsychotics, which the FDA has approved primarily for people with schizophrenia. Excluding those patients, antipsychotics were given to nursing home residents in 2025. An inspector general identified “alarming instances of inappropriate use of antipsychotic drugs.”

Nationally, nearly in assisted living facilities have Alzheimer’s or other diseases and conditions that cause dementia. Unlike nursing homes, assisted living facilities don’t provide skilled medical care around the clock, but they help people with fundamental activities like bathing and eating. States regulate them, not the federal government.

A study published in 2023 in JAMDA, the journal of the society representing post-acute and long-term care medicine, found that, on average, assisted living residents with dementia for 13% of the time they lived there. Other researchers through 2017 concluded the federal campaign “did not appear to affect antipsychotic prescribing” in these residents.

Lauren Gerlach, a geriatric psychiatrist and an associate professor at the University of Michigan Medical School, said there is evidence that aggressive behaviors are better addressed by non-medication interventions, like looking for underlying medical issues or heading off situations that typically upset the person. But, she said, “for some patients, these behaviors are so severe that medications will be required.”

A Steady Decline

The details of Marjorie Tingley’s time at Vista Grande — as alleged in documents filed in the lawsuit; records provided by the Tingleys and their lawyer, Ron Marienfeld; and interviews and emails with the family — provide an unusually intimate look into what can happen when families and caregivers clash over brain-altering drugs.

A Detroit native, Tingley was a volunteer reading teacher in the Jackson, Michigan, public school system and worked in the general office. Later, she was a certified financial planner. Her sons said she was successful but made less money than she might have, because she didn’t direct investments to get the highest commissions. Instead, she did what she thought was best for clients.

“She was just so honest,” David Tingley said.

She was an active member of the Catholic Church. Her husband, Eugene, died in 2010.

Around 2018, her sons noticed she was becoming forgetful, not taking her regular medications or recognizing aides they had hired. David and his brother Mark, who shared power of attorney, said in an interview that their mother’s memory deteriorated further after a head injury in a 2019 car collision.

They hired caregivers to help at her home in Jackson, but by 2021, they decided she needed to be in a facility, choosing the assisted living unit at the nonprofit Vista Grande.

In 2023, Vista Grande told them that their mother’s dementia had progressed and that she needed to go into the memory care unit or leave. Vista Grande’s memory care marketing materials said its “dedicated team creates an individual program of support for each resident” and “provides for the precise services you need.”

David said they reluctantly agreed to the move but thought the quality of care was better in general assisted living, even though memory care cost more. Vista Grande charged Tingley $9,150 a month for memory care, her lease shows.

‘These Pills Have Side Effects’

Vista Grande first contacted the Tingleys in early December 2024 about behavioral incidents. According to facility records, Marjorie Tingley pushed an aide trying to help her use the bathroom and the aide almost fell. She yelled and kicked at staff trying to put on her shoes and socks. She wandered into another resident’s room and took a walker.

The facility requested permission to medicate Tingley, but her sons said they first wanted her checked for a urinary tract infection, which they said had caused her agitation in the past. “These pills have side effects,” Mark said. “I thought, ‘Personally, I don’t want her to have that.’”

Vista Grande collected the sample but didn’t ensure it was tested by a lab for more than a week, by which time the test had to be redone, according to facility and medical records.

In mid-December, Vista Grande sent Tingley to Henry Ford Jackson Hospital for a mental health evaluation, at which psychiatrists could decide whether she required involuntary hospitalization. Doctors did not find that necessary, but they confirmed a urinary tract infection and she was given antibiotics. Vista Grande declared she could not return unless the family agreed to sedating medication, according to hospital records.

In a court filing, Vista Grande said Tingley had become a “danger to herself and others.” Mark recalled feeling at the time that: “It’s like they’re holding her ransom unless I say she can have that pill.”

Medication Begins

The specific medications were prescribed either by hospital doctors or a nurse practitioner working for a medical group that serviced residents of Vista Grande and other long-term care facilities, medical records show. David said Vista Grande had encouraged the family to replace their mother’s longtime physician with that medical group. The lawsuit did not name the nurse, the medical group, or the hospital as defendants. Henry Ford Health declined to comment.

The brothers allowed Vista Grande to give their mother the drug Ativan, the brand name , as needed. Ativan is not an antipsychotic but a benzodiazepine that the FDA for people with anxiety. The label says it can , unsteadiness, and weakness and is supposed to be used “with caution” in patients with breathing problems — like Tingley, who had sleep apnea. It can cause “paradoxical” reactions such as agitation and rage.

After a week, Vista Grande workers gave “mixed reports” about whether the Ativan was calming Tingley, according to her medical records. Employees said she still would yell and was “very agitated.”

The family said they authorized Vista Grande to replace Ativan with a low dose of Zyprexa, the brand name for the , which the FDA has approved to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The FDA requires Zyprexa to carry a stating that it is not approved for the treatment of patients with dementia-related psychosis and places them at greater risk of death.

Nonetheless, Zyprexa has a long history of being prescribed that way. Eli Lilly, the drug’s manufacturer, pleaded guilty in 2009 to allegations that it improperly promoted the use of Zyprexa for dementia with long-term care providers and primary care physicians. The company a criminal fine and civil settlement totaling $1.4 billion.

The black box warning on Zyprexa alarmed the sons, and their online research made them worried that Zyprexa could damage their mother’s heart, since she had . While the family approved the prescription, they authorized only 2.5 milligrams of Zyprexa a day, half the starter dose recommended by Eli Lilly.

‘She Could Barely Function’

On both New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, Vista Grande sent Tingley to the emergency room. On Jan. 2, Vista Grande gave the family the 30-day eviction notice. “We have determined we are unable to meet the level of care and expectations required for your mother’s well-being,” it said in the letter.

While the family started looking for another facility, Vista Grande sent Tingley to the ER four more times.

A psychiatrist consulting with the hospital endorsed doubling the Zyprexa to the starter dose recommended by Eli Lilly, and the Tingleys consented, according to medical records.

For five days, there were no incidents at Vista Grande, according to her medical records. But the family alleged in court filings that Tingley was being excessively sedated. They instructed that the Zyprexa be cut back to its initial level, according to her medical records.

“She could barely function,” David said in the interview.

The sons said they were especially disturbed to learn she was being given both Ativan and Zyprexa after they had approved Zyprexa as a replacement drug.

Reports from emergency room crews and the hospital made the sons doubt their mother was as aggressive as Vista Grande described, they said. Those records show that throughout the ER trips, Henry Ford employees and ambulance workers generally found Tingley cooperative and polite.

A nurse said Tingley allowed her to braid her hair and blew her kisses when she left. “Just the sweetest patient and very loving,” another ER worker wrote in the medical records. A physician noted the discrepancy from what Vista Grande was reporting, writing in her record: “Her behavior on what I am witnessing is completely contrary to what they are indicating.”

In a legal filing, Vista Grande attributed Tingley’s calm to medication and the “familial love and attention” her sons gave her at the emergency room.

“The next time Ms. Tingley decompensated, the cycle predictably resumed,” Vista Grande said in the filing.

Vista Grande reported that aggressive behaviors resumed and continued sending Tingley to the hospital. On the last trip, Jennifer Wheeler, then-director of Vista Grande’s memory care unit, told ambulance workers that Marjorie would not be accepted back, according to EMS notes. “She is a danger to other residents and a danger to my staff,” Wheeler said.

Tingley stayed in the hospital until she was moved to another memory care facility in Jackson. on Jan. 26, 2025, less than two weeks later.

Her sons asserted in their lawsuit that the frequent trips back and forth to the hospital hastened their mother’s demise.

“They weren’t really caring about my mom,” Mark said. “If they were, they would know that all this back-and-forth to the hospital was no good for her.”

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

The poll of more than 2,000 rural registered voters by The Associated Press in partnership with KFF found broadly negative views on the national and local economies, including from many Republicans. The costs of groceries, gas, and healthcare rank as top pain points for the rural voters, who were surveyed over two weeks starting in mid-August. And a larger share than among voters overall say they are worried about being able to afford groceries or gas.

At the same time, about half of rural voters approve of Trump’s job performance, more than among U.S. adults overall in separate AP-NORC polling.

The findings suggest that many rural voters haven’t turned on Trump but that they also largely don’t think he has delivered the economic renaissance he promised on the campaign trail.

Ed Westrick, a registered Republican and veteran, rates Trump’s job performance as “mediocre, middle-of-the-road.” Westrick, who lives in rural Texas, isn’t sure he will cast a midterm ballot, a troubling sign for Republicans in a key state in their fight to keep control of Congress.

Rural Americans skew Republican and historically have been an instrumental group of voters for Trump. The survey reveals that while rural voters seem unlikely to support Democrats on a large scale, Trump and the Republican Party could face challenges with them in November.

Deep Unhappiness About the Economy

As the election approaches, only about 4 in 10 rural voters approve of Trump’s performance on the economy. They rate him similarly on his handling of the Iran war, an entanglement that has proved expensive for the U.S. and increased oil and gas prices. And rural voters rank pocketbook concerns and fraud in government programs higher among the things they want to hear about from politicians than other perennial issues, such as gun policy and abortion.

Westrick, 59, is a technical trainer in the electronics industry and has seen an increase in business in part because he works with defense contractors, but he said he’s concerned about the cost of living.

“I hear the politicians talk about making groceries more affordable and making healthcare more affordable but yet none of them are addressing the issues,” Westrick said.

In the poll, about three-quarters of rural voters rated the cost of living in their communities as “only fair” or “poor” — up from about half in a KFF-Washington Post survey in 2017. Rural Americans, who have consistently lower wages than those who live in suburban and metro areas, have been hurting economically for decades, according to Tim Slack, a professor of sociology at Louisiana State University and co-author of the book Rural and Small-Town America.

“Many folks are connecting the cost-of-living crisis to many of the Trump administration’s policy choices: the war in Iran, tariffs, trade wars,” Slack said. “None of those things are going to bring down prices at the pump or the local Walmart.”

“Trump promised to lower prices on Day 1, and instead the cost of living’s continued to climb. And that’s especially painful in rural America,” Slack said, adding that he expects many working-class Republicans to skip voting in November.

Rural Republicans do have a brighter economic perspective than rural Democrats or independents, particularly about the U.S. as a whole, according to the survey. About 6 in 10 rural Republican voters say Trump has improved the national economy, compared with only about 2 in 10 independents and fewer than 1 in 10 Democrats.

But only 45% of rural Republican voters say Trump has made their local economies better off. About 1 in 4 said there are fewer good-paying jobs where they live than five years ago.

In Michigan, 37-year-old independent voter Brittainy Sosebee said she isn’t sure if she will vote in the state’s midterm election, which includes a tight Senate race seen as crucial to the Democratic Party’s push to win back a majority. Sosebee voted for Trump in 2016 and Democratic candidate Joe Biden in 2020; she didn’t vote in 2024.

Sosebee, who lives in St. Johns, a small town just north of Lansing, said she used to have extra money to take a vacation or buy a new pair of jeans without worrying. Now, she scrutinizes every expense, cringing at the rising cost of fresh produce when she shops for her three children.

“We hunt, so we have a lot of venison and things like that, so we don’t have to buy meat from the grocery store, but it’s still crippling,” she said.

Healthcare Policies Go Unnoticed

The KFF-AP poll found that rural voters overall don’t perceive much positive impact from the Trump administration’s healthcare policies even as they have been a top priority for Republican leaders, who have promoted efforts to lower drug costs and touted a $50 billion rural health program.

Only 17% of the voters said the Trump administration’s healthcare policies have had a “positive impact” on their healthcare costs, while 41% said they’ve had “no impact” and another 41% said they’ve had a “negative impact.”

Sitting on her front porch in Woolwich, Maine, 71-year-old Democrat Kathleen Hanning sipped a chai tea latte in the sun and recalled how she stopped voting for Republican Sen. Susan Collins in 2020.

Collins and Trump are “intertwined,” Hanning said. “She is not independently voting on what’s best for Maine.”

Hanning, a retired federal worker, said she hadn’t paid much attention to the health policies in Trump’s signature tax-break-and-spending-cut bill passed last year. The law reduces federal Medicaid spending by roughly $900 billion over a decade but also includes the billions of dollars for the Rural Health Transformation Program, which it created.

A year after the law’s passage, more than 8 in 10 rural voters said they’d heard either “a little” or “nothing at all” about the health fund. About 60% said they had heard nothing, according to the survey.

Rather than transforming, Hanning said, “hospitals up here in Maine are consolidating.” She travels an hour to see a specialist and noted that mothers will now have to drive farther for care because the hospital in nearby Damariscotta announced it would soon close its labor and delivery center.

Nine in 10 rural voters said it was “extremely” or “very” important for candidates to talk about healthcare costs, with more than half saying it’s “extremely important.” Mirroring the general population, rural voters ranked healthcare costs and gas prices as top economic worries.

Rural Republican Voters Still Trust GOP More

When asked which political party they trusted to do a better job handling issues such as the cost of healthcare or the cost of living, rural voters tended to side with their own party. The finding signals that Democratic candidates are more likely to benefit from rural Republicans’ staying home this November than from their voting across party lines in large numbers.

Republicans are more ambivalent about their party’s ability to handle key healthcare issues, compared with Democrats. About 8 in 10 Democratic voters say they trust the Democrats to address healthcare costs, while closer to 6 in 10 Republican voters say the same of the Republicans.

In Manassas, Georgia, a tiny town about an hour’s drive inland from Savannah, Republican voter Wanda Rogers feels the Trump administration is doing the best it can to clean up what she sees as an economic mess that Democrats left behind when they lost power.

“I kind of think people think like I do, that he knows what needs to be done,” she said. “It’s just taking them a while to get it there.”

Still, the 66-year-old said, “gas prices, they’re eating me alive right now.” She said she has stopped traveling to the beach because it has become too expensive.

Pamela Shaw, an independent voter who lives in a rural area near Asheville, North Carolina, said she sees the impact of rising costs in her community.

“When hamburger is over $7 a pound and steak is $15 or more a pound, a lot of people are not able to buy some of the things that they are used to buying,” the 59-year-old said in an interview.

Trump’s Rural Standing Has Slipped

Trump remains relatively popular among rural voters in the KFF-AP poll, with 48% approval — substantially higher than in a July AP-NORC poll of U.S. adults overall, in which only a third approved of his performance. But he’s also down slightly, from 56% approval, among rural voters, based on a similar question asked in the earlier KFF-Washington Post survey.

Asunta Washington, 38, is a truck driver who lives in South Texas. He said he is not against voting for Republican candidates if he wholeheartedly agrees with what they stand for, but he has not seen that. Instead, he has seen a lot of flip-flopping, he said.

“Like, a lot of people that are giving us promises and the moment they get elected, all that’s out the window,” Washington said.

This year’s competitive elections feature key Senate races in states including Ohio, Michigan, and Maine, all of which have large rural populations. In close races, Democrats may have a chance to “show up and give a message that rural people might find appealing,” said Nicholas Jacobs, a political scientist at Colby College and co-author of the book The Rural Voter.

“But it’s nothing more and it’s nothing less than that — an opportunity,” Jacobs said. “And time and time again, Democrats have shown a certain proclivity for not seizing that opportunity.”

Many rural voters don’t think the major parties or the president respect people like them. About half, 48%, of rural voters say the GOP respects people like them “a lot” or “some,” while 45% of rural voters say this about Trump and 37% say this about the Democratic Party.

On a recent Thursday, registered Republican Nate Lawrence answered his phone after paying $57 to fill up his Chevy Equinox in New Concord, Ohio, a village of fewer than 3,000 people about an hour’s drive east of Columbus.

Lawrence, a middle school English teacher, said the candidates should be talking about spending power: “I need to be able to go to the store and feed my family on what I make as a teacher,” Lawrence said. “I should be able to pay for a house on a teacher’s salary.”

Lawrence has voted for Trump in the past but didn’t in 2024. For Ohio’s Senate race, Lawrence said he is torn and not sure whether to pick Democrat Sherrod Brown or Republican Jon Husted.

Still, even if the politicians say they will lower prices, Lawrence said, he won’t believe them.

“Trump said that, and it didn’t happen,” he said.

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

But U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, in a , also agreed with the administration that it was unconstitutional for the government to use race or ethnicity as the basis to award money under a program created to expand internet skills and access.

“It was definitely disappointing,” said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that filed suit last year after not receiving a award meant to bolster digital and internet skills nationwide. “With this administration it’s really worrisome.”

Congress passed the $2.75 billion Digital Equity Act in 2021 as the skill development component of a multilayered “” initiative under President Joe Biden’s signature infrastructure law, which included a bigger pot of money for expanding internet infrastructure.

A few months into his second term, Trump directly attacked the Digital Equity Act on social media, pledging “” and calling the program “illegal.” The language echoed two Trump executive orders characterizing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs .

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which oversees implementation of the law, responded by Digital Equity Act grant programs, leaving states and organizations like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance in limbo.

In response to Bates’ decision, federal attorneys said the government would reinstate the NDIA-related competitive grant program without racial classification. The government aims to release a new grant application in December, according to a filed in the case.

The NDIA now must reapply for the grant award, which was slated to be disbursed among more than a dozen organizations and tribes, including the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, El Centro Hispano in Arkansas, Portland Community College in Oregon, and Community Service Programs of West Alabama. The grants are meant to go toward digital navigator programs, in which community workers teach technology and internet skills, according to the NDIA.

In western Ohio, Jamie Huber said her organization was a subrecipient of the NDIA grant funds. Huber, director of community services at the Northwestern Ohio Community Action Commission, said that without the funding, she is left searching for money to continue navigator programs such as one she runs for people who are unemployed, homeless, or both.

“How do you find a home? Well, you got to look online. And how do you find a job? You have to look online,” Huber said.

Huber’s digital navigators also teach internet skills at 10 senior centers in rural counties stretching along the corner of Ohio bordering Michigan and Indiana. They help active older adults learn how to go online to pay bills and get healthcare, so they “continue having agency over their own life,” Huber said.

Rural residents live sicker and die younger on average than people in the rest of the country when they live in counties lacking high-speed internet access and healthcare, an analysis by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ found.

At Computer Reach in western Pennsylvania, Executive Director Dave Sevick said his organization has cut staff and programs. He said the nonprofit, which started in 2001, has refurbished more than 24,000 computers, giving them away to families it finds through schools and churches.

“We’re aware that affordability is the biggest issue around, and this doesn’t make it any better for folks,” Sevick said. “We’re helping a little bit by getting a free computer out to people.”

The Digital Equity Act the money should benefit, including low-income households, older people, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups.

According to by the Pew Research Center, people in rural communities were less likely to have internet subscriptions compared with their urban and suburban counterparts.

The Pew Research polling that home broadband use among Black and Hispanic adults lagged that of white and Asian adults. While 81% of white adults surveyed said they subscribed to broadband at home, only 71% of Black adults and 68% of Hispanic adults said the same.

In court, lead federal attorney Patrick Butler argued that Congress failed to prove a compelling government interest when including the racial or ethnic criteria. Congress did not “identify anything close to” a specific instance of discrimination in the broadband industry, Butler said, .

Butler then surprised the court, if the racial or ethnic status could be severed from the law, “we would obviously apply the grant program without considering race.”

In his opinion severing the race factor, Bates that “the President lacks the power to cancel laws passed by Congress based on his bald disagreement with Congress’s policy determinations.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a primary , said she will be “watching very carefully to ensure this administration does what Congress intended.”

“It is indisputable that these challenges are particularly pronounced in low income, rural, and Tribal communities — and there’s a reason Democrats and Republicans across the country support this program so strongly,” Murray said in a statement to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Biden’s infrastructure bill in 2021 and to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in late 2024 asking the agency to pause the $1.25 billion competitive grants program, arguing the use of racial classifications “does not serve a compelling governmental interest.” Cruz did not respond to requests for comment.

Arielle Roth, administrator of the agency, previously worked as the telecommunications policy director for the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s majority staff under Cruz. She was to lead the agency.

In June, during a House committee hearing, Roth had tense exchanges with Democrats who took issue with changes to the Biden-era infrastructure law’s internet deployment program, which now allows more satellite services rather than prioritizing fiber-optic cable lines.

Lawmakers also asked about the Digital Equity Act’s grant programs.

“Communities across the country deserve a clear answer and a path forward,” Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) said during the hearing. While the National Digital Inclusion Alliance’s lawsuit does not include the state grants, Barragán asked how those grants would be rolled out, considering the federal judge’s decision on race.

California was awarded a $70 million state capacity grant. Early this year, the Justice Department to Congress asserting that the state grant and the competitive grant program both are illegally based on race, citing the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating affirmative action in higher education admissions. Roth declined to answer Barragán’s question, noting there is active litigation.

Barragán said she was “extremely” frustrated by “some of the responses or nonresponses.”

Stephen Yusko, a spokesperson with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, declined to comment or respond to questions for this article.

The government and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance agreed to pause court proceedings to give the agency time to reinstate the competitive grant program. The NDIA has also proposed that the agency provide status reports every 30 days during the court pause “to ensure prompt attention to reinstatement,” according to the most recent .

“We need to make sure it’s all moving forward,” Siefer said.

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

“It was devastating,” said Washington, who heads the local YWCA. Washington was born at the hospital and had her children there. She couldn’t believe families would now have to get to a hospital half an hour away or face the prospect of an emergency delivery.

“Nobody else was going to be born in the city of Troy unless they were born on a city bus, in the back of a cab, or, disgustingly, on the side of the street?” Washington said. “Blew my mind.”

Troy wasn’t the first community to face this prospect. Since 2010, hospitals have as cities and towns shrink and hospitals consolidate into larger systems.

Troy found a more hopeful ending.

Elected officials from both major parties joined patient advocates, mothers, midwives, doulas, and community leaders like Washington to challenge Trinity Health, the large Catholic health system that owns Troy’s hospital and birthing center. The campaign even united Planned Parenthood and the .

“Whether you were Republican or Democrat, or if you didn’t vote, it literally brought everyone together,” said Carmella Mantello, the city’s Republican mayor. “Everyone just said, ‘We can’t let this happen.’”

Throughout the country, healthcare remains a flash point as politicians square off ahead of November’s elections. But in many places, Americans are also quietly finding common ground.

In this small city, residents were brought together by frustration over large, corporate health systems that can seem to put profits over patients. And they resolved to work together to keep critical medical services in their community.

A Community Institution

Babies have been delivered at Samaritan Hospital on a hill above Troy since this city’s once bustling factories produced most of America’s shirt collars a century ago.

More recently, Samaritan’s Burdett Birth Center had become a model for patient-focused care. Midwives and doulas work alongside OB-GYNs and support mothers who want to avoid a delivery by cesarean section unless necessary.

Patient safety advocates have pushed for years to reduce surgical deliveries, which can lead to complications. At Burdett, only about a quarter of newborns are delivered by C-section, compared with about a third statewide, according to 2025 hospital data. Burdett also had fewer preterm births and fewer babies with low birth weights.

“I wouldn’t go anywhere else,” said Lidia Zambrano-Madera, who gave birth to both her children at Burdett with the help of a midwife.

For Zambrano-Madera, who recently opened a children’s play center in Troy, Burdett offered another advantage: It was just five minutes from home.

But three years ago, Trinity Health, a multibillion-dollar Michigan-based hospital system, said the birth center was losing money and would close. Families from Troy and surrounding Rensselaer County would have to deliver at another Trinity hospital in Albany, up to a half-hour’s drive away. The hospitals are branded under St. Peter’s Health Partners in the Albany region.

“We’ve been frantic about trying not to cut the care at the bedside,” said Steven Hanks, a physician who oversees Trinity hospitals in New York and New England. “But, you know, you get to a point where you can only consolidate so much. You can only spread people so thin, and then you have to start taking harder looks at your actual services.”

Corporate Backlash

Trinity’s plans — news of which — came without warning, surprising the obstetrical staff and community leaders. They set off a firestorm.

Within days, midwives, mothers, community leaders, and politicians held a rally at the YWCA in downtown Troy. Others would follow. Volunteers led by doulas and midwives made T-shirts and handed out pink “Save Burdett” signs at the local farmers market.

Activists were outraged that the hospital hadn’t adequately assessed the impact of the closure, particularly on low-income families. They conducted a community survey that found 1 in 4 Troy residents didn’t have access to a car and would have trouble getting to Albany.

The campaign drew on deep connections that many residents had to Burdett. “They realized what a gem Burdett is, and what a great community service they provide,” said Jessica Hayek, a doula and birth educator who helped lead the campaign.

Hayek and others also tapped into deep-seated frustration with Trinity, a healthcare behemoth that and last year recorded more than $25 billion in revenue and a healthy operating margin that topped 5%.

“Trinity Health is in the Midwest, and they are not in the community,” Hayek said. “So when you’re looking at just the numbers from an office in the Midwest somewhere, they’re not looking at the benefit that this place has on the community.”

Hayek describes herself as a liberal Democrat. But Trinity’s focus on its bottom line also irked many Republicans, including Mantello, who was the City Council president at the time.

“The whole hospital scene has changed,” Mantello said. “It was very personable. You had nurses and doctors who were able to give more care and spend more time with patients.” Now, by contrast, many hospitals have what she described as a “more corporate type of atmosphere.”

Even the Catholic bishop decried the planned closure of the birthing center as out of step with the values of his faith and the hospital system’s.

“Nothing is more central to the Catholic healthcare mission than supporting life and all those who bring it into the world,” Bishop Edward Scharfenberger said after Trinity announced the closure plan. Scharfenberger has since retired.

A Bipartisan Solution

Despite the backlash, Trinity Health executives for months insisted they had no choice. The system even sued the state to push through the closure.

Ultimately, though, powerful state officials, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, joined the fight to save the birthing center, launching an investigation into the proposed closure and hosting a daylong hearing in Troy.

State Assembly member John T. McDonald III, a Democrat who represents Troy, worked with Republican elected officials, including the county executive and the state senator representing Troy, to secure $5 million in state funding to help keep Burdett open.

 “You had a Democrat and a bunch of Republicans all working together on the same issue,” McDonald said, “because, at the end of the day, our job is to listen to what the public has to say.”

Nearly a year after announcing the closure, Trinity reversed itself and said Burdett would remain open.

Lois Uttley, a New York City-based researcher and activist who has worked with communities facing hospital consolidation, said Troy’s success reflects a growing bipartisan suspicion of corporate healthcare organizations.

“The executives of these health systems will tell the community that joining a big health system will be good, that the quality of care will improve, that efficiencies will mean they can keep the costs low,” Uttley said. “But what I have seen over the last 30 years of work is that those promises often are broken.”

As hospitals close or downsize, she said, communities are catching on. “They’re becoming more skeptical.”

There’s another, more hopeful lesson in Troy’s success, said McDonald, the state lawmaker.

“If we take down our swords,” he said, “and put out our arms, maybe we can get something done.”

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

“We had a great discussion about healthy options for all Americans and taking back control of our healthcare,” Barrett said in a June , after sampling the farm’s apple cider.

Like the focus on artificial dyes, however, many of the administration’s highest-profile health initiatives rely on voluntary agreements. The goals, such as lower drug prices and nutrition classes for doctors, have widespread appeal, cutting across party lines and economic divisions.

But the administration-industry deals lack the enforcement teeth of more traditional federal regulation. Their details are vague, and minimal oversight makes it hard to monitor progress. In some cases, the administration has claimed victories that have yet to materialize.

Republicans consider the dealmaking a winning strategy. It fits with the party’s anti-regulatory stance, they say, and enables the administration to quickly forge agreements President Donald Trump and his allies can tout as accomplishments. In the run-up to the midterm elections, some, like Barrett, hope to woo voters by trumpeting the Trump administration’s efforts to shape health policy.

The practice also raises questions. Though the deals are announced with great fanfare — often during televised events on stages, with live audiences — there’s little documentation or follow-through, creating doubts about whether the administration’s health agenda will lead to lasting change or unravel once the political attention fades.

The distinction could prove important to voters as Republicans defend their health records in November’s midterm elections.

“These deals are often not transparent, so there’s no way for the public to judge how meaningful they are,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

Dealing With Dyes

The push to remove certain artificial dyes from food and drugs, for example, was a headline grabber. In April 2025, Kennedy to announce deals with food makers. He was flanked by young children and mothers holding placards reading “Make America Healthy Again.”

He and former FDA commissioner drew a standing ovation from an audience selected by Kennedy’s staff as they said companies had pledged to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation’s food supply and medicines. They targeted nine synthetic dyes for removal.

Voters love the idea of stopping the use of such dyes. In a nationally representative March survey by Consumer Reports, said they were at least somewhat concerned about synthetic dyes, and two-thirds said companies should be required to phase them out.

A year after making the first announcement at HHS, during a discussion at the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual political event.

“We’ve gotten rid of the nine synthetic-based food dyes,” he said.

Not quite. At the initial HHS event, federal officials said companies would voluntarily stop using six specific synthetic dyes . (The administration has also revoked or proposed revoking authorization for two other synthetic food dyes.)

Later, the FDA on its website quietly to the end of 2027. So, most are still in use.

In fact, the FDA posted a list of 27 companies it said had made voluntary pledges as of December 2025 to remove six synthetic dyes from products such as Doritos and Kellogg’s Froot Loops. More than a year and a half later, — fewer than 30% of those who bought in — had met their promised goals.

Many major food makers, such as the Coca-Cola Co. and Unilever, have made “” to remove the synthetic dyes, according to Consumer Reports. In addition, no pharmaceutical companies have publicly said they have plans to remove dyes from drugs.

“It’s just all talk,” said Leslie Dach, who chairs , a healthcare advocacy group that supports the Affordable Care Act. “They just govern for a day of publicity, and then it’s over. None of it happens. Yet the people don’t know because they have busy lives, so they think, ‘Just look at all these initiatives.’”

In fact, the administration , allowing companies to say their products contain no artificial colors — as long as they don’t use petroleum-based dyes. Previously, food makers could not make that claim unless their products contained no added colors. Some food dyes made from natural ingredients can contain contaminants and may pose their own health risks, .

“The federal government hasn’t taken any regulatory action on food dyes, for the most part, since the beginning of this administration,” said , vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group.

HHS said the voluntary approach has yielded significant action, including commitments to remove synthetic dyes from products sold in schools for the 2026–27 school year.

“HHS and the FDA are moving forward with clear timelines and concrete industry commitments, with major changes expected in foods served in schools during the coming school year and across full product portfolios by the end of 2027,” HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email.

At the same CPAC convention event, Kennedy said “the MCAT testing companies are going to put nutrition on the MCAT for the first time, so the students will actually want to do it.” MCAT refers to the Medical College Admission Test, an exam required for admission to medical schools.

Again, not quite.

The Association of American Medical Colleges administers the MCAT. Spokesperson said Kennedy misspoke and may have meant to refer to a test taken by students to be licensed as doctors.

An Insurance Deal Falls Short of Promises

Kennedy again took to the HHS stage in June 2025, this time with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, to make what was billed as a game-changing announcement. to reduce the volume of healthcare services subject to prior authorization, a practice widely used by the insurance industry that often requires patients or their medical teams to seek preapproval before undergoing treatment.

The administration said 80% of insurers pledged changes to preauthorization requirements for 80% of diseases and injuries . The administration also promised “” to track progress.

“It will happen very quickly,” Oz said at the event. “Necessary care will be delivered when it’s needed, in the right way.”

As of July, months past that January target date, health plans had reduced prior authorization for medical services by about 11%, according to AHIP, the insurer trade group. But no public dashboards have debuted to track the deal, and some insurers that signed the pledge last summer told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ this year that they will not implement all the promised reforms as outlined by AHIP.

Hilliard did not respond to questions about the pace of progress.

The American Medical Association, in a 2025 web-based survey, asked 1,000 practicing doctors whether they believed the voluntary pledges would make a meaningful difference. said they believed they would.

Insurers made a , during the previous Trump administration. The next year, more than 80% of doctors said the number of prior authorization requests for drugs and medical services had been increasing, based on .

Meanwhile, the administration is testing an artificial intelligence-powered for Medicare, the federal health program for people 65 and older or with disabilities. In six states, Medicare beneficiaries must get preapproval for a few treatments that CMS considers to have little clinical benefit and to be susceptible to fraud or waste, including skin substitutes and knee arthroscopy for arthritis. The program began in January, the same deadline insurers had set for curtailing preauthorization delays.

Deals and Deregulation

The healthcare industry’s voluntary agreements appeal to voters who feel government regulation drives up costs and places unnecessary burdens on businesses, some supporters say.

“Secretary Kennedy is the antithesis of a public health industry that uses coercion over communication — and has demonstrated this by taking the time and effort to push voluntary initiatives over the typical approach of governmental mandates,” said , a political consultant who was a political appointee at HHS in Trump’s first term.

But voluntary agreements with the health industry can prove ineffective. Former President Jimmy Carter in 1977 proposed a legislative plan to curb rising hospital costs. Hospitals fought back, and Congress rejected the proposal, instead favoring a desired by the industry. It ultimately failed once public attention faded.

One upside: Deals are fast. can take two to three years. And some health analysts say the tempo of the agreements advanced by Kennedy and Trump may help take voters’ attention off the Trump administration’s inability so far to produce a long-promised health plan.

Instead, Republicans can point to the array of accords reached with industry, including the with drugmakers so they’re in line with lower amounts charged in peer countries. The White House calls it the “most-favored-nation” prescription drug pricing policy.

Seventeen companies, including Pfizer and AstraZeneca, with the administration to lower prices for Medicaid enrollees and cash-paying consumers using , a narrow, government-run consumer platform.

Many details remain unknown, but the lower prices apply only to new drugs and existing drugs available through Medicaid. And prices at TrumpRx aren’t as low as out-of-pocket prices for most consumers with insurance. But the voluntary deals appeal to an industry that has railed against mandatory approaches drugmakers deride as harmful price controls.

“Each company makes its own decisions about how it prices medicines, and our industry is committed to working with the Trump administration to ensure Americans have access to affordable medicines,” said Chanse Jones, a spokesperson for PhRMA, a pharmaceutical industry trade group.

Policies that lead to reductions in drug prices typically worry investors because profits also can drop. But rather than seeing their stock prices fall after the agreements were announced, the drugmakers saw largely .

Analysts say that’s partly because the deals are narrow in scope, largely exist only in principle, and don’t apply to existing drugs used by the more than 200 million Americans with commercial or private health insurance.

The Trump administration, however, is .

“The most-favored-nation agreements on drug prices that we just did are delivering the largest drug price cuts in history,” Trump said in June at a in Pennsylvania. “That alone should win us the midterms.”

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 potential of Moderna’s melanoma vaccine breakthrough on CBS News 24/7’s The Daily Report on Aug. 19, drawing on her experience as a former melanoma patient.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ senior correspondent Rachana Pradhan discussed how an issue with Deloitte-run information technology systems denied Medicaid coverage to disabled Michiganders on NPR’s Stateside on Aug. 18.

• .
• Read Pradhan’s “A Deloitte-Run System Denied Medicaid Benefits for Michigan’s Disabled. Now Trump’s Law Piles On,” with reporting from Samantha Liss and Kate Wells.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ senior correspondent Renuka Rayasam discussed how hospitals are using wristbands to help reduce maternal deaths on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on Aug. 14.

• .
• Read Andrew Jones’ “Hospitals Say They Found a Tool To Help Reduce Childbirth Risks: Wristbands.”

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed President Donald Trump’s executive order on childhood vaccines on Slate’s What Next podcast on Aug. 13. Rovner also discussed Medicare on Attitude With Arnie Arnesen on Aug. 11.

• .
• .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ ethnic media editor Paula Andalo discussed how an uninsured patient saved thousands by shopping around for the best surgery price on Radio Bilingüe’s Línea Abierta on Aug. 12.

• , starting at the 31:21 mark.
• Read Andalo’s “Uninsured but Undaunted, a Surgical Patient ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈed the Globe for a Deal.”

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