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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaching Rural Patients

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

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

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

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

Rural Health Payout

Tracking Applications聽for Rural Health Transformation聽Funds

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

Dec. 4, 2025

Rural Health Payout

Tracking State Rural Health Transformation Plans

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

July 27, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIY Dashboards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The decision by federal officials, citing authority granted under President Donald Trump’s signature tax-and-spending law, suggests the GOP-led state’s predicament could foretell other repercussions in how states are allowed to run the program under federal waivers.

Nearly every state has at least one waiver to run its Medicaid program differently than required by federal law, such as allowing the use of private managed-care plans or expanding eligibility for mental health or long-term care services. Some Medicaid waivers have stretched decades, renewed by presidential administrations of both parties, effectively making the demonstration programs they created permanent.

Arkansas is one of a dozen states with a waiver expiring Dec. 31 that face the additional restrictions the Trump administration has placed on new or renewed waivers.

Though it has yet to finalize its decision, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Arkansas’ 13-year-old waiver does not comply with new “budget neutrality” rules that take effect in January, said Gavin Lesnick, a spokesperson for the Arkansas Department of Human Services. The rules tighten a policy forbidding Medicaid waivers from increasing federal spending on the program beyond what it would have increased without the waiver.

The state is now seeking a two-year extension after hearing from CMS that its request for a five-year renewal would not be granted. If its Medicaid expansion waiver is not renewed, Arkansas officials have said they will continue offering expanded eligibility through existing Medicaid law, a change that could leave enrollees with access to fewer doctors and other health providers.

Rather than place more people in its traditional Medicaid program serving largely children, pregnant women, and disabled people, Arkansas obtained a waiver to buy Affordable Care Act marketplace policies from private insurers for adults covered by the Medicaid expansion. This “private option” gave enrollees greater choice of doctors and other health providers, because some doctors are more willing to see patients with private coverage, which generally pays more than regular Medicaid.

The move helped cut the state’s uninsured rate by nearly half, but it also ended up costing more than if beneficiaries were covered under Medicaid’s traditional, fee-for-service program.

Critics characterize the new waiver rules as part of a Trump administration effort to dramatically shrink Medicaid, the government program for those who are low-income or disabled, which grew rapidly under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

“What we have here is a sneaky way to cut Medicaid expansion and the Medicaid program,” said Nicole Huberfeld, a professor of health law at Boston University.

Medicaid enrollees won’t know whom to blame if they lose coverage because the administration is using arcane regulatory processes to make the changes, Huberfeld said.

At issue are waivers granted by the government that allow states flexibility from existing Medicaid law in how they cover low-income residents, as long as the changes will not increase what Medicaid costs the federal government.

Pivoting from the long-standing practice of checking only retroactively whether states were keeping their budget promises, the Trump administration that it would not renew or approve any waivers unless CMS first certified that they would not increase costs to the federal government.

In its , the agency said the new waiver rules are expected to reduce federal spending.

“Characterizing enforcement of a statutory budget neutrality requirement as a cut misrepresents both the law and this guidance,” CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said in an email to 吃瓜不打烊. The federal waivers are intended “to test innovative approaches to delivering care, not provide an open-ended mechanism for increasing federal spending.”

Other states with waivers expiring at the end of December include Georgia, which has added about 18,000 low-income people to Medicaid under its waiver, and California, which has used its waiver to expand coverage of social services including food and housing.

California and Georgia Medicaid officials told 吃瓜不打烊 that they are still working with CMS in hopes of renewing their waivers. The loss of federal waiver approval could cause states to curtail benefits or eligibility expansions.

In Arkansas, it would mean redesigning the state’s Medicaid expansion program.

Arkansas’ initial waiver was granted in 2013, when its Democratic governor at the time worked with a Republican-controlled legislature to adopt a pioneering style of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act.

It was one of the first Southern states to expand Medicaid, granting coverage to many low-income residents. Forty states and Washington, D.C., have also fully expanded Medicaid to cover more low-income adults under the law also known as Obamacare.

The state’s Medicaid expansion enrollees were already facing a confusing time. Starting in January, they will need to prove they work or meet an exemption to be eligible for coverage under Trump’s law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. And one of the state program’s two private health insurers 鈥� Centene 鈥� announced in July that it was pulling out at the end of the year.

Sam Dubke, a spokesperson for Republican Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, told 吃瓜不打烊 that the Sanders administration is trying to negotiate a temporary extension of its waiver “to ensure impacted Arkansans maintain access to quality, affordable healthcare during this transition period.”

“Looking ahead to the next legislative session, CMS has provided the state with an opportunity for bold, conservative healthcare reform, and the governor will work with her partners in the legislature to build a sustainable model that maintains the same high quality of care and saves taxpayer dollars,” Dubke said.

The Trump administration’s new restrictions on waivers, implemented under the same law that imposes work requirements as a condition of eligibility and reduces Medicaid spending by about $900 billion over a decade, could affect millions of enrollees and billions in spending. About a third of the almost $600 billion in federal spending on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 2024 supported programs created by waivers, according to CMS.

In a , the Government Accountability Office found that the three-year spending limit the federal government approved for Arkansas’ Medicaid waiver was nearly $800 million more than what the state would have spent through its traditional Medicaid program.

Arkansas is one of several states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA using a waiver, with others including Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Iowa.

States will have to clear several more bureaucratic hurdles to retain waivers under the new CMS guidance, said Alice Lam, a managing director with consulting and legal firm Manatt. That could lead to fewer benefits or reduce the number of people eligible for Medicaid, she said.

Robert Nelb, director of policy at America’s Essential Hospitals, which represents safety net hospitals, said he and most experts believed when it passed that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was merely codifying CMS policy on budget neutrality.

But the Trump administration has interpreted the law to restrict states’ use of waivers, he said.

Nelb said many long-standing waivers that have been renewed multiple times are now at risk and that the loss of state waivers could threaten money hospitals rely on to cover uninsured patients and improve care in their communities.

“There is a real concern that this will put added burdens on states up front and slow down new innovations in Medicaid,” Nelb said.

In 2025, the Trump administration told states it would no longer renew Medicaid waivers to help enrollees with job training or to allow continuous eligibility for adults and children for specific time periods without verifying their income eligibility.

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

Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that AI nurses can provide “concierge care” to rural patients. Mehmet Oz, who leads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “the best way to help some of these communities is going to be AI-based avatars” that connect rural patients to mental health services.

And many state health leaders agree. They are using some of their funding from the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to expand AI among rural health organizations.

AI is computer technology that performs tasks that typically rely on human intelligence by finding patterns or generating words. It has the potential to improve the healthcare system by automating back-office work or identifying patients at risk, but several reports contend there’s little evidence AI can improve access to care and patient health in rural areas. It’s unclear how well states will track and share outcomes of the tech they invest in.

Meanwhile, some rural Americans are skeptical, according to interviews with people in Hot Springs, South Dakota, a city of about 3,400 residents at the southern end of the Black Hills.

“I get artificial intelligence for certain things, but for personal healthcare 鈥� no,” Tara Haffner said while standing outside the American Legion.

Haffner said she’s worried about AI making mistakes and wants healthcare to stay between her and her doctor.

But Phillip Mues, who oversees technology at Cherry County Hospital and Clinic in rural Valentine, Nebraska, said AI is already helping clinicians save time, reduce burnout, and focus more on patient care.

“I think it will help reduce burden on actual staffing,” he said. “It won’t replace people, but I think it will help in rural communities.”

Still, Mues said, AI can’t fix every challenge. Rural hospitals at risk of closing or ending certain services probably can’t use AI to save enough money to prevent those consequences, he said.

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

The Word on the Street

Hot Springs, which has a 25-bed independent hospital and a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, is known for its sandstone buildings, veterans’ services, and, yes, hot springs. Residents must drive at least an hour for more advanced care.

Six people interviewed there by 吃瓜不打烊 said the biggest problem in rural healthcare is the cost or long wait times caused by staffing shortages.

Doug Nikkila, a heavy equipment operator, said AI and other technology come with benefits and risks.

“If it’s not utilized correctly, it becomes a burden,” he said.

Nikkila, who’s concerned about nursing home residents being neglected amid staffing shortages, said he thinks AI should send reminders to staff when their residents are due for diaper changes or other care. He also wondered whether AI-powered video monitors could send alerts when they detect falls or illness symptoms.

The healthcare industry is rapidly adopting AI despite the tools being “poorly evaluated,” according to a , a Stanford- and Harvard-led group that evaluates health-related AI. The report says that while some AI has been successful in controlled settings, there’s less evidence it can perform in the real world. It also said few studies track patient outcomes.

Evidence is especially lacking in rural areas. A found that only 26 peer-reviewed studies about AI in rural healthcare were published from 2010 through April 29, 2025. Few analyzed implementation or outcomes.

Despite the dearth of results, some states appear interested in bold experiments 鈥� such as using AI to suggest diagnoses or recommend treatments. Utah officials said in their application to the rural health program that they are interested in funding a in AI-powered prescription refill requests.

Even tools proven to work in urban settings may not work in rural ones, said Qian Huang, an assistant professor at the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University.

She said the technology is usually tested at large, academic hospitals and trained on data from urban patients, who may not have the same health issues and obstacles 鈥� such as a lack of transportation 鈥� as rural patients.

A 吃瓜不打烊 review of states’ plans for the Rural Health Transformation Program shows they’re interested in using AI to automate time-consuming, behind-the-scenes tasks, such as medical charting, coding, referrals, and prior authorization requests. Some states also mentioned ways AI can save money, such as Washington, which discussed tools that “identify and recover” money it’s owed.

Mues said the Valentine clinic has been using AI scribes that record appointments and generate notes describing the visit. He said surveys of clinicians before and after they started using the technology show the scribes have helped reduce burnout by letting providers focus on patient care with “eye contact on the patient, not the computer.”

States also mentioned funding AI that directly affects patient care, such as tools that recommend possible diagnoses and treatment options to clinicians. Mississippi wants to use predictive AI algorithms to “guide” emergency medics with “triage, routing, and treatment decisions.”

Several states want to use AI to analyze patients’ medical charts and remote monitoring devices to identify immediate or future health risks. North Dakota’s plans mention AI to “detect early signs of chronic disease and behavioral health conditions,” while New Hampshire’s discusses AI that identifies patients “at high risk of adverse drug events.”

Some states plan to give patients access to chatbots or wearable devices that transmit data to their clinicians. Utah is interested in funding AI-powered fetal-monitoring devices, while Kentucky will explore using AI chatbots to “deliver personalized nudges and education” through “health coaching, gamified incentives, and rewards.”

Whether the technology appeals to consumers is another matter. Hot Springs resident Stephanie Keller wears a smartwatch to track her fitness but has no interest in an AI chatbot using her data to encourage her to reach her health goals.

“I don’t have the time to chat with AI every day. I mean, are you kidding me? I don’t want to spend my time on a cellphone,” she said.

Rural health facilities also face challenges in implementing AI.

Huang, who has AI in rural healthcare, said rural hospitals and clinics may not have the hardware or IT staff needed to support the technology. She said clinicians and staff may already be doing three jobs at once and not have time to go through AI training.

Rural health facilities may not have fast-enough internet to use AI, while patients may have slow connections at home 鈥� if they have internet at all 鈥� or may not feel comfortable using AI, Huang said.

“In rural communities, trust and a personal relationship is essential,” she said.

Roy Ehlers, a Hot Springs resident, said he doesn’t trust AI in healthcare, or anywhere else.

“I’m old-fashioned. I don’t believe in it. Technology is not my forte,” Ehlers said.

Mues said that while some rural patients are “scared of AI,” most have let their clinicians at the Valentine facility use the scribing technology to record patients’ visits.

Will States Share AI Results?

Despite questions about implementation, the boom is on. Jordan Everson, an assistant professor at the Georgetown University Department of Family Medicine, said both urban and rural health facilities are rushing to use AI.

“The risk of signing contracts that rural healthcare organizations come to regret is pretty high,” said Everson, who previously worked in the information technology office at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Several states are addressing that risk by using their rural health funding to create groups that will help rural health facilities vet, select, or monitor AI tools while offering training, ongoing assistance, or funding for upfront costs.

CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said the agency doesn’t have any AI-specific reporting requirements but is working on a form for states to report their overall progress and outcomes.

Abraham Pritzker, who works at Julota, a company that helps health organizations track data, said states should measure more than how often AI programs are used.

For example, states can measure whether the tech reduces falls, 911 calls, or hospital admissions, said Pritzker, a former paramedic. Huang said it’s also important to ask clinicians and patients about their experiences using AI.

Yet many states’ applications to the rural health program mention tracking only AI adoption metrics, not what happens after facilities deploy the tech. Some of these states may add further reporting requirements down the road.

Vermont spokespeople did not respond when asked why their state’s requires organizations to report only how many clinicians and patients are served by the tech, not how much time they save.

States requiring recipients to report outcomes include , which will track how often AI-powered patient monitoring devices trigger accurate alerts. organizations to track cost savings, while Wisconsin lists “patient outcomes” and “productivity and efficiencies” as possible metrics.

Huang said that after collecting results, states need to share them so other states and healthcare organizations can learn from their experiences.

“We do not have a lot of resources to waste on tools that don’t work in rural areas,” she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The DOJ didn’t return emails seeking comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

That’s not stopping Florida lawmakers from trying to adopt Medicaid work requirements anyway. It’s the only legislative body in a nonexpansion state to even consider it so far.

“You need to go to work if you want your friends and neighbors to pay for your health care,” said , the Republican sponsor of a Medicaid work requirement proposal making its way through the legislature.

The move baffles health care advocates and Medicaid experts. Some doubt it’s even legal under President Donald Trump’s signature domestic policy law.

“You cannot change the terms of the work requirement,” said , an attorney and a professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. For Cuello, the answer is clear: “It’s a pretty easy no.”

Medicaid work requirements affect Washington, D.C., and the 40 states that have expanded Medicaid eligibility to all nondisabled adults ages 19 through 64 with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, as prescribed under the Affordable Care Act. That’s an income of $22,025 a year for a single person.

Starting next January, those states must require people in their expansion groups to report at least 80 hours a month of work, education, or community service to qualify for and maintain Medicaid coverage.

About 4 million people are enrolled in Florida’s program, and Gaetz estimates that about 147,000 of them are adults who “could work and should work.”

They “are able-bodied and they don’t have small children at home, and they aren’t taking care of an elderly person or a disabled person,” he said. “Yet they receive Medicaid benefits.”

People affected by would primarily be parents of children 14 and older, and some 19- and 20-year-olds, he said. A in the Florida House would apply Medicaid work requirements to parents of children ages 6 and older.

To qualify for Medicaid in Florida, a working-age adult without a disability must generally be caring for a child or an older or disabled family member and cannot earn more than 26% of the federal poverty level, or about $592 a month for a family of three.

Most adults who are not disabled and receive Medicaid already work, and many people in low-paying jobs do not receive health insurance through an employer, , a health information nonprofit that includes 吃瓜不打烊. Among single adults ages 19 to 64 in Florida who made under $15,000 a year in 2024, through work.

Critics say Florida’s proposal would likely force some people to become uninsured, even if they meet the work requirement. That’s because the state’s Medicaid income limit is so low that working the mandated 80 hours a month would likely cause those individuals to exceed the income eligibility limit but also leave them earning too little to qualify for subsidized coverage on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Michelle Mastrototaro said she lost her Medicaid coverage in November after taking a part-time job as a teaching assistant at a Tampa elementary school last year. Mastrototaro, 47, cares for a disabled teenage son and likely would not need to meet Florida’s proposed work requirement.

But she said her biweekly wages from working about 17 hours a week pushed her past the Medicaid income limit. She has struggled to afford her prescription medications since.

“What I’m making is nothing,” Mastrototaro said. “I am scavenging just to make ends meet.”

The Gaetz-led proposal ignores “the hard realities of what it takes to be qualifying for Medicaid in Florida,” said , executive director of Florida Voices for Health, a nonprofit that advocates for Medicaid expansion. “On its face,” he said, “it doesn’t make sense.”

Medicaid experts say the holds that nonexpansion states cannot adopt work requirements.

A state that hasn’t added more low-income adults to its Medicaid program can’t impose work requirements on those who are already covered, Cuello said. States must cover specific categories of low-income people 鈥� such as children, pregnant women, some parents, older adults, and people with disabilities 鈥� to receive federal funding for their programs.

States that have expanded Medicaid eligibility to a limited group of low-income adults, namely Georgia and Wisconsin, will be required to impose work requirements on those enrollees.

, launched in July 2023, already includes a requirement that newly eligible adults report at least 80 hours of work or community engagement. Federal approval for the program expires at the end of December, and the state . will have to implement a work requirement by Jan. 1.

South Carolina applied in June for federal approval to to nondisabled parents and caregivers ages 19 to 64 who earn 67-100% of the federal poverty level. That’s about $18,300 to $27,300 a year for a family of three. The state’s application is pending with CMS, and if approved would implement work requirements for those newly eligible adults.

Gaetz said if the Florida legislation were approved, the state would develop a “business plan” for implementing work requirements and seek CMS approval.

It is unclear how much it would cost, but experience in states with Medicaid work requirements suggests that implementation would be expensive. States must upgrade their eligibility and enrollment systems, hire additional staff, and inform the public of the new mandate.

For its program, Georgia spent about $54.2 million on administrative changes out of $80.3 million in total spending for the program from October 2020 to March 2025, according to from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Most of the administrative spending 鈥� about $47.4 million, or 88% 鈥� came from the federal government.

Georgia’s experience echoes others’, according to a 2019 of states that received approval to implement Medicaid work requirements during the first Trump administration. That report focused on five states 鈥� Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin 鈥� and estimated costs would total $408 million. They ranged from $6 million in New Hampshire to more than $270 million in Kentucky, though those figures did not reflect all the state costs.

Florida’s computer infrastructure for collecting and verifying information and determining eligibility is more than 30 years old and is being replaced. That is anticipated to be completed in 2028 and cost more than $180 million.

A legislative analysis of Gaetz’s bill estimated that if 1 in 4 people affected by the proposed work requirement were to lose Medicaid coverage, the state could save about $80 million a year.

Darius, with Florida Voices for Health, said those potential savings hardly seem worth the effort.

“It requires the state to build this giant regulatory-like framework and to rebuild systems, and to employ a whole set of people to chase down the very small number of folks who would ultimately be touched by this,” he said.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? to contact 吃瓜不打烊 and share your story.

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

But when Quinn chipped a tooth and it became infected, she could not find a dentist near her home who would accept her government health coverage and was taking new patients.

She went to an emergency room, receiving painkillers and antibiotics, but she remained in agonizing pain weeks later and paid a dentist $200 to extract the tooth.

Years later, it still hurts to chew on that side, she said, but Quinn 鈥� a 34-year-old who has four children and, with her husband, earns about $30,000 a year 鈥� still can’t find a dentist nearby.

“You should be able to get dental care,” she said, “because at the end of the day dental care is health care.”

The federal government has long required states to offer dental coverage for children enrolled in Medicaid, the joint state-federal health program for people who are low-income or disabled. Paying for adults’ dental care, though, is optional for states.

In recent years, several states have opted to expand the coverage offered by their Medicaid programs, seeking to boost access in recognition of its importance to overall health. So far, increasing adult dental care is a work in progress: In a sampling of six of those states by 吃瓜不打烊, fewer than 1 in 4 adults on Medicaid see a dentist at least once a year.

But under congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last year, the federal government is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over the next decade. The range from about $184 million for Wyoming to about $150 billion for California.

State Medicaid programs typically expand or reduce benefits depending on their finances, and such massive federal cuts could force some to shrink or eliminate what they offer, including dental benefits.

“We will lose all the gains we have made,” said Shillpa Naavaal, a dental policy researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

Tennessee’s Medicaid program, for instance, spent nearly $64 million on its dental coverage in 2024 and saw a 20% decrease in dental-related ER visits, said Amy Lawrence, the program’s spokesperson.

But under the new law, Tennessee is projected to lose about $7 billion in federal funding over the next decade.

As of last year, 38 states and the District of Columbia offered enhanced dental benefits for adult Medicaid beneficiaries, according to the American Dental Association. Most of the others offer limited or emergency-only care. Alabama is the only state that offers no dental coverage for adult beneficiaries.

Since 2021, 18 states have enhanced their coverage to include checkups, X-rays, fillings, crowns, and dentures, while loosening annual dollar caps for benefits.

Use of dental benefits in states with the enhanced benefits is greater than in states with only limited or emergency coverage, though still low overall, according to with the latest data as of December. No more than a third of adult Medicaid recipients saw a dentist in 2022 in any state.

To review more recent progress, 吃瓜不打烊 asked one-third of the states that have expanded their benefits in the past five years for their most recent data on the percentage of adults on Medicaid who visit a dentist at least once a year:

• Maryland 鈥� 22% (in 2024)
• Oklahoma 鈥� 16% (in 2025)
• Maine 鈥� 13% (in 2025)
• New Hampshire 鈥� 19% (in 2025)
• Tennessee 鈥� 16% (in 2024)
• Virginia 鈥� 21% (in 2025)

In comparison, about 50% to 60% of adults with private dental coverage see a dentist at least once a year, according to the ADA.

Nationwide, 41% of dentists reported participating in Medicaid in 2024, a share that has remained stable over the past decade despite the dental benefit expansions in many states, the ADA says. Many participating dentists, though, limit the number of Medicaid enrollees they treat, and some will not accept new patients on Medicaid.

Reimbursement rates have not kept up with costs, deterring dentists from accepting Medicaid, said Marko Vujicic, chief economist and vice president at the ADA Health Policy Institute.

Because of a lack of dentists who take Medicaid in southwestern Virginia, the Appalachian Highlands Community Dental Center in Abingdon sees patients who travel more than two hours for care 鈥� and must turn many away, said Elaine Smith, its executive director.

The center’s seven residents treated about 5,000 patients last year, most of them on Medicaid. About 3,000 people are on its waitlist, waiting up to a year to be seen.

“It’s sad because they have the means now to see a dentist, but they still don’t have a dental home,” Smith said.

Low-income adults face other barriers to dental care, including a lack of transportation, child care, or time off work, she said.

The inability to see a dentist has consequences broader than tooth pain. Poor dental health can contribute to a host of other significant health problems, such as heart disease . It can also make it harder to do things like apply for jobs and generally lead a healthy life.

Robin Mullins, 49, who has been off and on Medicaid since 2013, said a lack of regular dental visits contributed to her losing her bottom teeth. Unable to find a dentist near her home in rural Clintwood, Virginia, she drives almost 90 minutes to Smith’s clinic 鈥� that is, when she can afford to get time away from driving for DoorDash or find help watching her daughter, who has special needs.

She gets by with partial dentures but misses her natural teeth, she said. “It’s absolutely horrible, as you can’t chew your food properly.”

In New Hampshire, though, the challenges have more to do with low demand than a low supply of dentists, said Tom Raffio, chief executive of Northeast Delta Dental, which manages the state’s Medicaid dental program. The company has added new dentists to its list of participating providers, along with two mobile dental units that traverse the state, he said.

Raffio said Northeast Delta Dental also has publicized the state benefits using radio advertising and social media, among other efforts.

Until 2023, New Hampshire Medicaid covered only dental emergencies.

“Culturally, it’s going to take a while,” he said, “as people just are used to not going to the dentist, or going to the ER when have dental pain.”

Brooks Woodward, dental director at Baltimore-based Chase Brexton Health Care, called Maryland’s rate of roughly 1 in 5 adults on Medicaid seeing a dentist in 2024 “pretty good” considering the benefits had been enhanced only since 2023.

Woodward said many adults on Medicaid believe that you go to a dentist only when you’re in pain. “They’ve always just not gone to the dentist, and that’s just the way they had it in their life,” he said.

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

But there are strings attached.

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

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

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

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

The money was divided according to a complicated formula.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health officials are recommending diet and exercise as alternatives to heavily advertised weight loss drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound, advice experts say is unrealistic.

“Of course he tried eating well and everything, but now with the medications, it’s better 鈥� a 100% change,” said Wilmer Cardenas of Santa Clara, who said his husband lost about 100 pounds over about two years using GLP-1s covered by Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid.

California joined several other states in restricting an option they say is no longer affordable as they confront soaring pharmaceutical costs and steep Medicaid cuts under the Trump administration, among . Despite negotiated price reductions announced in November that would make the drugs available at a “dramatically lower cost to taxpayers” and enable Medicaid to cover them, states are going ahead with the cuts, which providers say may undermine patients’ health.

“It will be quite negative for our patients” because data shows people typically regain weight after stopping the drugs, said , medical director of the University of California-San Francisco Weight Management Program.

While California, , , and stopped covering adult GLP-1 prescriptions for obesity on Jan. 1, they continue to cover the drugs for other health issues, such as Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease.

, , and Wisconsin are planning or considering restrictions, according to KFF’s .

That reverses a trend that saw 16 states covering the medications for obesity as of Oct. 1. Interest in providing the coverage “appears to be waning,” the survey found, likely due to the drugs’ cost and other state budget pressures. North Carolina pulled back GLP-1 coverage in October, but reinstated it in December, bowing to court orders despite a lingering budget shortfall.

Catherine Ferguson, vice president of federal advocacy for the American Diabetes Association and its affiliated Obesity Association, said it’s not clear how states will adjust to the White House plan to lower the cost of several of the most popular GLP-1s through TrumpRx, an online portal for discounted prescription drugs. The price of Wegovy, for example, will be $350 per month for consumers, versus the current list price of nearly $1,350, and Medicare and Medicaid programs will pay $245, according to the plan.

“Many states are facing budgetary challenges, such as deficits, and are working to address the impacts of the changes to Medicaid and SNAP,” Ferguson wrote, referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. “As more details become available for the Administration’s agreements, we will see how state Medicaid responds.”

The Department of Health and Human Services referred questions to the White House, which did not respond to requests for comment on states’ termination of Medicaid coverage for the weight loss drugs.

California projected its costs to cover GLP-1s for weight loss would have more than quadrupled over four years to if it didn’t end Medi-Cal coverage for that use. Medi-Cal has covered weight loss drugs since 2006, but use of GLP-1s soared only in recent years. By 2024, more than 645,000 prescriptions were covered by Medi-Cal across all uses of the medications. The California Department of Health Care Services could not readily provide a breakdown of whether the drugs were for weight loss or other conditions.

When asked whether the state would reconsider its plans in light of the announced price cuts, Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer said it had no plans to do so. California’s cut is written into .

California officials would not say how much it could save under the TrumpRx plan, citing federal and state restrictions on disclosing rebate information.

Health providers don’t expect the Trump administration’s negotiated price cuts to make much difference to consumers, because pharmaceutical companies already offer some discounts.

“The out-of-pocket costs will still be very cost-prohibitive for most, especially individuals with Medicaid insurance,” Thiara said.

is among the other states that ended their coverage Jan. 1. Officials with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to requests for comment.

About 1 in 8 adults are now taking a GLP-1 drug for obesity, disease, or both, up 6 percentage points from May 2024, according to released in November. Over half of users said their GLP-1s were difficult to afford, and many who had stopped the treatment cited the cost.

Public and private payers have been trying to wean patients off to save costs. California health officials said Medi-Cal members and their health care providers “other treatment options that can support weight loss, such as diet changes, increased activity or exercise, and counseling.” That echoes advice from the New Hampshire Medicaid program.

California Department of Health Care Services spokesperson Tessa Outhyse said in an email that the official advice to try those other approaches now “is not meant to dismiss any past efforts, but to encourage Medi-Cal members to take a renewed, proactive, and medically supported approach with their healthcare provider that may appropriately include these additional options.”

But that may be unrealistic, said , founding director of the Center for Clinical Nutrition at Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California.

“We definitely want patients to do their part with the diet and exercise, but unfortunately, and from a practical standpoint, that itself frequently is not enough,” Hong said, adding that usually by the time patients see doctors they have already failed at achieving results through those means.

Hong understands why Medicaid programs, as well as private providers, want to cut back on covering the drugs, which can cost per patient per year. However, they can produce twice the weight loss as the medications typically used previously, he said.

A school of medical thought supports patients’ gradually ending their use, but Hong said obesity is generally considered a chronic condition that requires indefinite treatment.

“Once they reach their target weight, a lot of people will try to see whether or not they can wean off,” Hong said. “We do see a lot of patients 鈥� when they try to get off, unfortunately, then the weight comes back.”

Medi-Cal members under age 21 for purposes including weight loss, California officials said, citing a federal requirement.

Medi-Cal members are able to keep their GLP-1 coverage if they can demonstrate it is medically necessary for purposes other than weight loss, the department said. Members who are denied coverage can seek a hearing, the department said in to members.

Members will still be able to pay for the prescriptions and may be able to use various discounts to lower costs. Another option is new pills to treat obesity, which will be cheaper than their injectable counterparts. The a pill version of Wegovy on Dec. 22, which will likely run $149 per month for the lowest dosage, and similar weight loss pills are expected to be available in the first half of the year.

While Cardenas said his husband, Jeffer Jimenez, 37, uses GLP-1s primarily for weight loss, Jimenez’s prescription is for his diabetes, so the couple hoped to continue receiving coverage through Medi-Cal.

“He tried a thousand medications, pills, natural teas, exercise program, but it doesn’t work like the injections,” Cardenas said. “You need both.”

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

Hunt died five days later. Her death certificate said the foot injury was a “significant” factor. Genesis denied wrongdoing but agreed to pay $3.5 million in a settlement Hunt’s son signed in August 2024.

Yet Genesis hasn’t paid most of that debt, court records show. It may never have to.

Once the nation’s largest nursing home chain, it was spending $8 million a month defending and settling lawsuits over resident injuries and deaths in recent years. But the company is now poised to wipe the liability slate clean by seeking refuge in the most protective corner of the legal system for the nursing home industry: bankruptcy court.

The Genesis case, one of 11 large senior care bankruptcies this year, illustrates how health care companies can dodge public and financial accountability for alleged negligence through delays, confidentiality clauses, and bankruptcy maneuvers, a 吃瓜不打烊 investigation found.

When it filed for bankruptcy in Dallas in July, Genesis estimated its total liability for nearly a thousand settled and pending lawsuits at $259 million. A 吃瓜不打烊 review of the terms of 155 settlement agreements and shows Genesis officials knew insolvency was possible yet included provisions in its settlement agreements allowing it to defer payment, often for a year or more.

As a result, Genesis paid nothing in 85 cases and only a portion in the other 70, according to civil court records and bankruptcy claims made available through people with access to them. It still owes $41 million of the $58 million it had agreed to pay in those cases, the records show.

“It just feels like they killed my mom and got away with it,” said Vanessa Betancourt, whose mother, Nellie Betancourt, a retired nurse, fractured her hip at a Genesis home in Albuquerque, New Mexico — an injury the medical examiner’s report said led to her death. Genesis agreed to a $650,000 settlement with Betancourt’s family in April under the condition it would not need to pay the first of seven installments for another year, according to the settlement document.

Genesis denied wrongdoing in all lawsuits and settlements. In a written statement, the company did not answer questions about individual personal injury cases. The statement said Genesis remained “focused on delivering high-quality, compassionate care to our patients and residents without disruption” during bankruptcy.

One lawsuit Genesis settled for nearly $1 million alleged nursing home managers ignored repeated warnings about a male resident’s behavior before he sexually assaulted a female Alzheimer’s patient, according to court records. In a case the company resolved for $500,000, a Genesis nursing home was accused of delaying the hospitalization of a resident who had vomited brown mucus. He died of a bowel obstruction. Genesis has paid nothing for either settlement, according to bankruptcy claims.

Creditors, including families of the deceased, are expected to salvage a fraction of what they were promised, if anything. On Dec. 10, the company’s owners were scheduled to seek approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas to sell its nursing homes and other assets to its largest investor, a private equity firm. In court papers, lawyers for residents and other creditors say the complex plan will from pursuing Genesis’ new ownership and other companies the company’s collapse.

John Anthony, a bankruptcy attorney representing 340 personal injury claims against Genesis, said, “They never had any intention to honor these deals.”

Low Ratings and Fines

During years of financial turmoil, Genesis has frequently struggled to provide top-notch care, federal records show. Using its five-star system, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services affiliated with Genesis as below average or much below average. CMS Genesis homes $10 million for violating federal health standards over the past three years.

In 2022, a Genesis home after two deaths and multiple violations. The company this year after residents twice were evacuated over safety concerns.

In its filing, Genesis said it cared for about 15,000 residents in 165 nursing homes and 10 assisted living facilities in 18 states. They are centered in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, Alabama, Maryland, and North Carolina, according to the bankruptcy filing.

Most Genesis Nursing Homes Rated as Below Average by Medicare

In the Medicare star ratings system, where five is the best and one the worst, Genesis HealthCare has a smaller proportion of better-than-average nursing homes and a greater proportion of below-average ones compared with other facilities.

Note: The distribution includes 198 nursing homes that Medicare says are affiliated with Genesis and 14,390 other nursing homes. It excludes nursing homes that lack a star rating for overall quality.

Source: 吃瓜不打烊 analysis of Medicare data

The company said it owed $709 million in secured debt to lenders and the IRS. Under bankruptcy rules, those debts, backed by Genesis collateral, take precedence over the $1.6 billion in unsecured debt Genesis said it owes. Unsecured creditors include a pension fund; contractors that provided health services and equipment; Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and West Virginia for unpaid provider taxes; and former residents and their families who sued.

Dangers in Memory Care

Sandia Ridge Center, a Genesis home in Albuquerque, was repeatedly faulted by health regulators for not preventing sexual misbehavior in its memory care unit. In November 2021, CMS for lacking enough nurses to prevent sexual abuse among residents. An inspection report the following August inappropriate sexual contact. Police were called to investigate sexual assault allegations in and of 2023, police reports show; neither resulted in criminal charges.

Then in April 2023, a 61-year-old male resident with alcohol-related dementia sexually assaulted a female resident with Alzheimer’s in the dining room, according to a and an . When the resident screamed for him to stop and that he was hurting her, he responded “shut up bitch I know you like this,” according to a lawsuit brought on behalf of the woman, identified in court papers as R.S.

Sandia Ridge management had been aware of the male resident’s behavioral issues for months, according to employee depositions in the case. Police had investigated a against him the previous year without bringing charges. In one deposition, a former activities assistant testified he hit her and twice pushed her into a bathroom while announcing, “I want to have sex with you.” When she reported him to a senior Genesis manager, she said in the deposition, the manager put his finger over his lips and said, “Shhh.”

The activities worker testified that R.S. used to happily sing along with Elvis Presley songs. After the assault, the worker said, R.S. “don’t sing anymore.”

Inspectors cited the home for failing to protect R.S. The same report said the home didn’t provide a therapist for another female resident who was being sexually harassed. Medicare fined Sandia Ridge Center $91,247. Genesis denied liability but settled R.S.’ lawsuit for $925,000 in May, according to the bankruptcy claim.

“We just felt we have to hold them accountable,” R.S.’ daughter said in an interview, speaking on the condition that she and her mother not be identified, because of the nature of the assault. “Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m naive, but the only way to do that is to sue someone, right?”

Genesis has not paid any of the settlement, according to the family’s claim filing.

Growth and Debt

Genesis’ downfall can be , when affiliates of two private equity firms acquired the company in a $1.5 billion leveraged buyout, taking on substantial debt, according to its bankruptcy filing. Private equity also has been involved in other health care bankruptcies, including those of the nursing home chain, the prison health care contractor , and two for-profit hospital systems, and .

In 2011, Genesis raised $2.4 billion by transferring substantially all its nursing home buildings and other real estate to Welltower, a publicly traded real estate investment trust, according to Genesis’ bankruptcy filing. Genesis then rented the buildings back from Welltower, which made leasing costs a significant expense.

Genesis went on a nationwide buying spree. At its peak in 2016, it had grown to more than 500 nursing homes. In a court declaration, Louis Robichaux IV, a consultant overseeing Genesis’ bankruptcy restructuring, wrote that as the company expanded, it became harder to manage and “mired in corporate inefficiencies.” Robichaux wrote that Genesis’ financial woes were exacerbated by rapidly increasing labor costs and lawsuits, including some predating the covid pandemic.

Starting in 2021, Genesis avoided bankruptcy after from a founded by Joel Landau, the owner of a , according to Robichaux’s filing.

But Genesis continued to teeter on the edge of insolvency. In for 2022 and 2023 submitted to a California oversight agency, management and auditors said rent and debt obligations raised “substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

In a court filing, a committee appointed by the U.S. Trustee’s Office to represent the unsecured creditors in the bankruptcy accused Landau and Welltower of that allowed Welltower to keep getting its rents while Landau could run the company and “siphon value to himself.” The committee alleged their efforts forced the company into insolvency while “staffing levels and patient care declined precipitously.” Landau and Welltower did not respond to requests for comment.

Drawn-Out Lawsuits

Erin Pearson sued Genesis over the death of her father, James Sanderson, a retired mining company executive who died in 2018 after spending less than a month at Bear Canyon Rehabilitation Center in Albuquerque. In the memory care unit, Sanderson fell repeatedly, suffered medication errors made by nursing home staff, and developed a bowel obstruction and sepsis, according to the lawsuit, filed in 2019. Pearson’s lawyers said he was not hospitalized until eight days after nurses noticed he was vomiting brown mucus.

After the judge rejected Genesis’ request to force Pearson into arbitration, Genesis appealed. It took 2½ years before an appeals court affirmed the original decision to let the case go forward in court, records show.

This past May, more than five years after suing, Pearson reached a $500,000 settlement, with the first payment required by November, according to a copy of the agreement. Nothing was paid, according to the bankruptcy claim.

“It was so drawn out and for so long,” Pearson said in an interview, calling Genesis’ bankruptcy “despicable.”

Payouts Postponed

Jennifer Foote, an Albuquerque attorney who represents clients in multiple lawsuits against Genesis, including Pearson’s, said the company frequently filed appeals. “They did not usually win them on these issues,” she said, “and our sense was that they were doing it as a delay tactic.”

Genesis started using installment payments around 2018, said Dusti Harvey, Foote’s law partner. “The payments wouldn’t start for several months out,” Harvey said. Foote said Genesis’ lawyers often wanted to time the payments to start the month the trial in the case was scheduled to occur.

Families had to wait even when comparatively small amounts of money were involved, settlement agreements show. Genesis’ settlement agreements also included a confidentiality clause prohibiting discussion of the incidents.

Genesis agreed to pay $42,000 in a November 2024 settlement, but the first payment was not due until nine months later. It was not paid, according to the bankruptcy claim.

A $250,000 settlement signed in October 2023 did not start paying out until the following September. When Genesis declared bankruptcy — 21 months after the case was resolved — it still owed $100,000, according to the family’s claim.

‘We Never Found Out the Truth’

Settling cases allowed Genesis to avoid the expense and publicity of a trial, at which details of how its nursing homes functioned might have been revealed. In October 2020, Margarett Johnson, a retired school bus driver, fell out of her wheelchair at a Genesis nursing home in Waldorf, Maryland, fracturing her jawbone, nose, and neck, according to a lawsuit brought by her family. Johnson was sent to a trauma center and placed on a ventilator. She died three months later, at age 76, from ventilator-associated pneumonia, the lawsuit said.

“It looked like she was hit by a truck,” Angelina Harley, one of her daughters, said in an interview. “I knew my mom was not going to come home. I knew the Lord was not going to punish her more.”

The company denied negligence and blamed the accident on Johnson’s jacket getting tangled in the wheel of her wheelchair, according to the lawsuit. Harley and her sister Angela Swann were dubious.

“We never found out the truth,” Harley said. “They wanted to settle out of court.”

The company denied liability but agreed to a $950,000 settlement in October 2024. It never paid the final $112,500 installment, according to a letter Johnson’s five children sent to the bankruptcy judge.

“If you settle out of court, you know doggone well you did something wrong,” Harley said.

Maddening Judges

By summer 2025, judges in some civil cases had run out of patience.

Alma Brown, a retired day care manager and accordion teacher living in a Genesis nursing home in Clovis, New Mexico, suffered falls, infections, bedsores, and other neglect that hastened her death in 2023, according to her estate’s lawsuit. In Santa Fe District Court, Judge Kathleen McGarry Ellenwood castigated Genesis after it failed to pay $2 million of the $3 million settlement to Brown’s estate or explain the delay.

Genesis “obviously benefited by not having to go to trial,” McGarry Ellenwood said in one hearing, according to a court transcript. “They assure me that they’re not trying to renege on their contract, but it certainly seems like they haven’t lived up to what the bargain was.”

Genesis declared bankruptcy the day McGarry Ellenwood announced she would impose more than $100,000 in fines, plus $10,000 more each day until the settlement was paid.

In Pennsylvania, Greg Hunt petitioned a judge to punish Genesis after it stopped payments of the $3.5 million settlement after the death of his mother, Nancy, the resident with the gangrenous foot. She had spent eight months in 2019 at Brandywine Hall, a Genesis facility in West Chester that was later sold and renamed.

In a filing with the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Genesis admitted it was in arrears but asked the judge for more time, citing “unforeseen and exigent financial challenges.” Genesis said care for patients at its nursing homes would suffer if it had to pay immediately.

Unswayed, Judge Richard Haaz in June ordered Genesis to pay up, along with punitive interest. But the bankruptcy court stayed that order. Genesis still owes $1.4 million of the $2 million it was supposed to pay, according to Hunt’s claim. (The rest of the $3.5 million settlement is supposed to be paid by an insurer in January 2026.) Ian Norris, Hunt’s lawyer, declined to comment, citing confidentiality provisions in the settlement.

Court records indicate Genesis lawyers never disclosed in either case that it was preparing to declare bankruptcy.

‘Bankruptcy as a Tool’

In the first nine months of 2025, 10 other senior living companies with liabilities over $10 million entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, according to , a consulting firm.

Hamid Rafatjoo, a bankruptcy lawyer representing nursing homes who is not involved in the Genesis bankruptcy case, said filings may increase as the industry has become costlier to run and class action lawsuits have become a fixture.

“Nursing homes get sued all the time for everything,” Rafatjoo said. “A lot of operators wait too long to use bankruptcy as a tool.”

On Dec. 1, Genesis announced the , saying it had elected to to a private equity firm controlled by Landau. In a court filing, Anthony, the attorney for the personal injury claimants, in Landau’s favor despite an “objectively better and higher competing bid” from another private equity investor that would have provided more money to creditors. Genesis said in its statement that Landau’s group had increased its bid during the auction.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and two other senators last month to intervene in the case, out of concern that “individuals who already own or control Genesis are trying to sell it to themselves, wiping away legal and other creditor debts in the process.” Lawyers representing those in charge of the auction did not respond to a request for comment.

Families of former Genesis residents said they fear the capacity to purge lawsuits through bankruptcy emboldens nursing home owners who provide deficient care.

“They can file bankruptcy again,” said Gabe Betancourt, whose wife, Nellie, died after her stay at Uptown Rehabilitation Center in Albuquerque. “And we’re the ones that will pay for it, with our memories, our lives.”

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