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 — 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 — 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 — such as a lack of transportation — as rural patients.

A ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 — if they have internet at all — 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

While knee replacement procedures have become standard, however, the prices charged have not.

At Catawba Valley Medical Center in Hickory, North Carolina, for example, the cost of the procedure under a Blue Cross Blue Shield health plan this year was about $16,000, according to data from Serif Health, a San Francisco startup that collects recently released data from hospitals and insurers. Little more than an hour’s drive west, however, at Mission Hospital in Asheville, the cost of the procedure under the same health plan was around $40,000, or more than double, the data showed.

Formed by the merger of the two largest hospitals in the region, Mission has little competition and more power to demand the higher price.

This comparison between these two hospitals illuminates how large hospital systems created by a in recent decades can dominate the competition and push up healthcare costs.

While many factors affect the price of a medical procedure, hospitals with few competitors can charge more, health economists say.

The hospital price hikes mean patients and their insurers must pay more for an episode of healthcare. But there is an important side effect, too, even for people who don’t require medical care. When insurers face higher hospital prices, they pass the costs on and raise the prices they charge for everyone’s health insurance.

Using Serif Health’s pricing data, it is possible to see how mergers like the one that created Mission Hospital influence costs. For years, it was difficult to determine how much hospital monopolies boosted charges. But since 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to disclose prices, making it possible to gather comprehensive data such as Serif Health’s.

The connection between market power and prices exists across the country. In Melbourne, Florida, Holmes Regional Medical Center is part of a health system, Health First, that dominates surrounding Brevard County. The center has charged Cigna two times what a hospital two hours north did for a knee replacement this year, the Serif Health data shows.

Banner North Colorado Medical Center, which ranks as the leading healthcare provider in Weld County, Colorado, charged a UnitedHealthcare patient $20,000 more for the surgery in Greeley than a health system an hour’s drive south in Denver, according to Serif’s figures.

The American Hospital Association that hospital mergers can improve quality and reduce healthcare costs by creating “a fiscally sustainable environment.” A Mission Hospital spokesperson said comparing hospitals’ prices was unfair or misleading because their practices and constraints vary so much.

For years, economists suspected that the run of mergers beginning in the late 1990s was a main driver of the rising costs of U.S. healthcare. From 2002 to 2020 alone, unfolded in the United States.

But until the recent federal disclosure rule, the effect of healthcare monopolies on pricing was often overlooked or harder to detect. Hospitals do not advertise their prices, and even when they are revealed on a bill, patients scarcely notice the bottom line because they don’t pay most of it — their insurers do.

“What the data shows pretty clearly is that when hospitals have bargaining leverage, they tend to have higher prices,” said Zack Cooper, an associate professor of public health and economics at Yale University who has spent more than a decade studying hospital monopolies.

Over the last quarter century, Cooper said, hospital prices have risen faster than those for any other economic sector, and “hospital consolidation is one of the primary drivers.”

Federal and state officials have wavered over when to intervene when hospitals are proposing to merge. Last summer, former President Joe Biden’s that urged federal agencies to challenge mergers that could harm consumers, reversing course from Biden’s more aggressive enforcement of antitrust law. In a , however, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson called for a task force on healthcare mergers that are leading to “higher prices” and “decreased quality” of care.

Several states have sought to curb healthcare monopolies. In 2023, Minnesota banning anticompetitive healthcare mergers and bolstering state oversight. In 2022, requiring healthcare businesses to give the state a 90-day notice of large mergers and to investigate their effects on competition. And in 2021 enabling the state health department to block acquisitions and mergers of hospitals.

Nothing has stopped the overall trend, however, as hospitals seek to grow and gain leverage over insurers and competitors. Last year alone, hospital and health systems announced 46 mergers and acquisitions, , a healthcare business consulting firm. Five ranked as “mega-mergers,” meaning they were valued at more than $1 billion. One across Connecticut and New York into a powerful interstate health system. Another linked , a deal that created a 56-hospital system across the Midwest — including Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — with combined revenue of about $10 billion.

Other mergers have been proposed in , , and Minnesota.

Asheville’s Dominant Hospital

Few places in the United States better exemplify how hospital mergers reshape healthcare than Asheville.

In 1998, the state authorized a deal that joined the city’s two acute-care hospitals, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Memorial Mission Medical Center, . Ever since, its effects have been studied and its prices fiercely contested.

Marcelle Crago, a nurse and lactation consultant, is one of many patients who have accused Mission Health, which operates Mission Hospital, of gouging consumers. Last year, she tweaked her knee while cross-country skiing.

“My knee went ‘pop, pop, pop,’” she recalled. She had torn her meniscus, the rubbery cartilage around the knee that acts as a shock absorber. A doctor advised her to have a portion of it removed.

Two days before the surgery, Mission Health told her the total charge would be over $9,000, according to paperwork on her case filed with the state’s Consumer Protection Division.

“I was shocked at the number,” she said.

Crago’s insurance policy from UnitedHealth Group had a high deductible, so she would have had to pay most of the cost. She decided to postpone the surgery and shop around, eventually arranging to have it done at an outpatient center not affiliated with Mission. There, the bill came to less than a third of the price Mission Health charged, according to paperwork she kept.

“The way Mission Health handled the whole thing felt predatory,” Crago recalled, noting that when she balked at the $9,000 figure, the hospital offered a 20% discount if she paid up-front. “It makes you wonder how much they are playing with prices.”

In responding to Crago’s complaint with the state, an attorney for Mission and HCA Healthcare, which owns the hospital, wrote that hospital charges “represent the cost for supporting the entire episode of care” and must cover the hospital’s investments in advanced technology, training, staff, and other critical needs.

“Patients are certainly entitled to ‘shop around’ for surgical procedures,” wrote the attorney, Phillip Jackson.

It is not just patients who bear the burden of rising hospital prices.

Over time, anyone who pays for health insurance pays a price for hospital monopolies, as insurers boost premiums as medical costs rise. The full cost for an employer to pay for an average family health insurance plan rose to more than $27,000 in 2025, up from $21,000 just six years ago, according to .

Around Asheville, employers and employees complain that their insurance premiums are higher because Mission’s prices are so high.

As the chef and co-founder of Cúrate restaurant in Asheville, a business with about 100 employees, Katie Button provides employee health coverage and believes she has been paying for Mission Hospital’s excessive prices, according to a pending class-action lawsuit she filed in 2021 with five residents who say the monopoly has harmed them.

Any insurance plan in Asheville must include Mission Hospital, she said, because it is the only one around. This makes the burden of its prices unavoidable.

“We are where we are because we don’t have a choice of hospitals,” Button said. “There is no other option.”

The steady creep of healthcare costs is top of mind not just in Asheville but for most U.S. voters, according to . Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults were worried about being able to afford healthcare, the poll found.

Yet while federal law allows regulators to step in and block mergers deemed to create monopolies, the FTC intervened in only from 2002 to 2020 to stop a hospital merger, according to a Yale University study. The FTC has since announced challenges to five other hospital mergers.

Birth of a Monopoly

When Mission Health was formed by a merger in 1998, state officials recognized that Asheville’s new dominant hospital system would have the power to raise prices and required Mission to sign an agreement to limit spending and profit margins.

Even with these restrictions, the hospital , according to economic research cited by the FTC. But Mission’s prices were about to go up even more. In 2015, Mission Health lobbied the state legislature to drop the state restrictions, abandoning the profit limits.

“After 20 years of the hospital behaving itself, the state decided to terminate its oversight,” said Mark Hall, a professor emeritus at Wake Forest University who of the hospital’s merger history. Then, three years later, HCA, the largest hospital corporation in the country, bought Mission Health. (The Dogwood Health Trust, a nonprofit established as part of HCA’s purchase of Mission Health, helps fund ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ coverage.)

“This put a prepackaged monopoly into the hands of the world’s largest for-profit hospital corporation,” Hall said.

Across a range of services, Mission Hospital charges more than other North Carolina hospitals, according to figures from Serif Health.

Consider the prices that Mission negotiated with UnitedHealthcare compared with those the insurer pays at Catawba Valley Medical Center. For a breast biopsy, UnitedHealth pays $7,500 at Mission and $1,700 at Catawba, according to Serif. For a hernia repair, it pays $17,700 at Mission and $9,600 at Catawba.

“The prices hospitals charge are one of the leading drivers of rising healthcare costs,” according to a UnitedHealthcare statement sent by spokesperson Cole Manbeck.

Mission spokesperson Katie Czerwinski, in a statement, said that it can be misleading to compare one hospital with another.

Mission Hospital is almost three times as large as Catawba Valley Health and is a Level 1 trauma center serving a different population, Czerwinski said. She also said that pulling individual rates for comparison paints an incomplete picture.

But other figures indicate that prices at Mission Hospital are relatively high, even when viewed collectively.

A team at the think tank Rand, led by Christopher Whaley, now a Brown University health economist, uses commercial insurance records to compare average hospital prices across the U.S. relative to those paid by Medicare. , Mission Hospital in 2024 charged prices that were 334% of prices set by Medicare. Catawba Valley Medical Center charged 237%. The state benchmark for prices is 280% of Medicare, Rand figures showed.

“The prices we pay for healthcare vary tremendously and are uncorrelated to the value we receive,” according to the Rand website.

For many in Asheville, the primary complaints about Mission Hospital focus on the quality of patient care. This is consistent with showing that the quality of care declines when hospitals have little competition.

Amid rising complaints about hospital services, North Carolina state Sen. Julie Mayfield, a Democrat, helped launch a nonprofit organization two years ago called Reclaim Healthcare WNC to hold Mission “accountable for its harmful practices.”

“Within a year of the HCA sale, I started hearing stories from physicians and other friends about all the terrible things that were happening there,” Mayfield said, most of them caused by severe staff cuts and physicians leaving.

Three times since 2024, state health inspectors working on behalf of CMS have issued “immediate jeopardy” findings to Mission Hospital, indicating problems so severe that they posed an imminent risk of serious injury or death to patients.

In the most , an 88-year-old woman recovering from a fall and hip surgery at Mission Hospital died after going a night without receiving a blood transfusion.

Czerwinski, the Mission Hospital spokesperson, said a proposed plan of correction “allows Mission to address the findings from the survey and complete a comprehensive review of operations.”

As more hospitals across the United States plan to merge, Mayfield said, the experience in Asheville represents a cautionary tale.

“Unregulated monopolies have never gone well for the public.”

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

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

---

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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. ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ reporters searched state websites, requested documents, and filed public records requests. ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ continues to collect documents.

Sources: Documents publicly posted online or released in response to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ requests; <a href=”; target=_”blank”>Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services</a>

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

Meanwhile, patients, their advocates, and clinicians say little has improved.

“It has never been this bad for patients,” said U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.), a physician who co-chairs the GOP Doctors Caucus.

The overarching intent of the June 2025 pledge was to improve a controversial process called prior authorization, which regularly requires patients or someone on their medical team to seek approval from insurers before proceeding with treatment.

According to AHIP, the health insurance industry trade group, health plans have eliminated 6.5 million prior authorizations for patients — equal to an 11% reduction — since the announcement.

But critics remain skeptical. Sally Nix, a patient advocate who has a chronic disease, described the voluntary pledge as “performative.” And Murphy, who participated in the news conference with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announcing the pledge last year, said it has “no teeth.”

Voluntary insurer pledges rarely make things better for patients, said , a research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

“In the absence of clear rules, policies, standards, and mandates,” she said, insurance companies are “going to do what makes sense for them to do financially.”

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions for this report. It isn’t clear how, or whether, the Trump administration is holding insurers accountable.

‘Zero Faith’

Prior authorization — sometimes called preauthorization or precertification — has been around for decades. The insurance industry has long argued that the practice, which varies by company, helps control costs, reduces waste and fraud, and prevents potential harm to patients. It’s regularly invoked for a huge swath of services, ranging from low-cost urgent care to expensive cancer treatment.

“Prior authorization is a vital patient safeguard,” said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP.

The 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson sparked a national groundswell of anger about insurance denials, with patients and doctors becoming increasingly vocal about the tactics they say insurance companies use to boost profits at the expense of care.

Prior authorization reform is one of the rare healthcare issues Democrats and Republicans tend to agree on. On July 15, the House Ways and Means Committee unanimously that would force Medicare Advantage plans to provide to the federal government a list of all items and services that are subject to prior authorization, and to report data about denials and grievances, among other requirements.

Last year’s industry pledge was organized as a direct response to public anger, Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said when it was announced. “There’s violence in the streets over these issues,” he said.

“Americans are upset about it,” Oz said, later adding, “I’m looking forward to seeing the results.”

Mike Gartner, founder of Health Access Innovation, an organization that helps patients overturn insurance denials, said he doubts that insurance companies are changing their policies in meaningful ways. The 11% reduction in prior authorization cited by AHIP “hides a lot of nuance,” Gartner said.

Patients who need the costliest services, such as cancer treatment, are still being disproportionately denied access to doctor-recommended care, he said.

AHIP said its data included reductions in prior authorization for medical services, not prescription medicines. The trade group didn’t provide details explaining which services have been dropped from prior authorization or how those reductions differ across individual insurers.

Last year, Oz said the federal government would be “evaluating progress” toward the pledge and “driving accountability,” and he foreshadowed “public dashboards.” But no such dashboards exist, and federal officials did not respond to questions about how they’re holding companies accountable.

Murphy, the North Carolina congressman, said he has “zero faith” in the industry policing itself.

He didn’t believe insurance companies then, he said, “and I don’t believe them now.”

‘At War’ With an Insurer

In February, days after Betsy Adler and Justin Young’s daughter Coco was born with a serious heart defect, the Stillwater, Minnesota, family received paperwork showing they were racking up out-of-network costs.

During Adler’s pregnancy, the family had switched insurers, , which is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, and one of that initially signed the industry pledge. Adler said she’d checked with her employer’s human resources department and on Medica’s website to make sure her maternal-fetal specialists and hospital were in-network before their new health plan went into effect earlier this year.

But then, the insurance company started processing some claims as out-of-network. By mid-March, the family had accrued more than $4,000 in out-of-network charges, on top of more than $3,000 for in-network bills. And the bills kept coming.

When Adler, a psychotherapist, called to figure out what was going on, she said, an insurance company representative said she hadn’t submitted a referral from her primary care provider beforehand. Attempts to fix the problem went nowhere. At one point, Adler said, Medica required her to visit a clinic she’d never been to before to obtain a referral. But she said a Medica representative told her the referral was never received, because the insurer’s fax machine was down.

“I have a critically ill child,” Adler remembered thinking shortly after Coco was discharged from the cardiovascular intensive care unit. “I can either spend my emotional energy at war with Medica, or I can let it go and just enjoy my time with my daughter.”

Medica spokesperson Greg Bury said he wouldn’t discuss the case, citing patient privacy rules. In an emailed statement, he wrote the company is “committed to working with her to ensure she understands what is covered under her benefits and our responsibilities.”

One of six specific promises all insurers made when they signed the pledge was to honor a 90-day grace period when patients switch insurance plans, starting Jan. 1 of this year. Often called “continuity of care,” this grace period allows patients to temporarily continue receiving services and medications that were authorized under a previous insurer.

But that applies only in some circumstances, Georgetown’s Corlette said. The wording of the pledge suggests that insurance companies aren’t obligated to honor another company’s network parameters. When Adler and Young switched insurers, for example, Medica was not obligated to cover the cost of out-of-network providers as if they were in-network, even though they were in-network under the family’s old plan.

Adler and Young switched insurance companies again when Coco was a month old, to avoid accruing more out-of-network costs.

Denial After Approval

The percentages cited by AHIP don’t tell the whole story, said Nix, the patient advocate. Insurers are “not including the data for the loopholes they create,” she said.

For example, nothing in the pledge prevents insurance companies from retroactively denying payment, even when care is preapproved. “Patients are going to see a lot more retroactive denials,” said Nix, who recently had her insurer process, then later deny, a claim for injections to relieve her nerve pain.

Something similar recently happened to Jocelyn Austin, 49, of Amherst, New York. Over the course of nearly 20 years, she developed an addiction to sleeping and anxiety pills prescribed to her by a doctor. Last year, she spent weeks at an inpatient treatment center for substance abuse. Her insurer, Independent Health, had approved the admission. Austin said she has been substance-free since her discharge.

But the facility sent her a bill for more than $12,000 in December showing her insurer had not paid for the treatment she received, according to documents Austin shared with ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. This was in addition to the $10,000 she paid at the beginning of her treatment to satisfy her out-of-network deductible. The approval letters from Independent Health had specified that “authorization is not a guarantee of claim payment.”

Frank Sava, a spokesperson for Independent Health, said a denial was issued and upheld in this case because the services provided “were inconsistent with the care that was authorized” and “the medical record did not sufficiently support what was billed.” He said those findings were reviewed and confirmed by an outside consultant.

An explanation of benefits issued by the insurer last summer indicated the “provider,” not the patient, was responsible for the cost of her treatment. And yet the treatment facility has continued to pressure her for payment, she said.

Austin, who has not paid her outstanding bill, said insurance companies “should be held accountable.”

‘Significant Work Ahead’

Another one of the six commitments insurers made last year was to adopt new technology that would standardize the electronic submission of prior authorization requests. During the news conference announcing the pledge last summer, Chris Klomp, the director of Medicare and a deputy CMS administrator, said more than 50% of prior authorizations are still paper-based and processed by phone or fax machine.

In April, AHIP related to that technology initiative, explaining that participating insurers would adopt the new standards on a rolling basis. Health insurers agreed to implement the pledge’s various commitments by predetermined deadlines, and this initiative is scheduled to be operational by Jan. 1, 2027. But eight insurers that initially signed the pledge last year didn’t sign the technology update when it was announced in April, AHIP told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

Those insurers are Alignment Health Plan, EmblemHealth, HealthFirst, Independent Health, Medica, MVP Health Care, Point32Health, and SummaCare. Their beneficiaries span the country, from California to New York. None of those eight insurers agreed to interviews for this report, but most sent ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ emailed statements indicating that they remain committed to prior authorization reform.

AHIP’s approach to continuity of care “would have required the transfer of confidential member health information through a non-standardized process involving third-party participation,” wrote Jerry Slowey, a spokesperson for , which offers Medicare Advantage policies in Arizona, California, Nevada, North Carolina, and Texas. “We do not believe that level of data sharing was contemplated in the original commitment.”

Bury, the spokesperson for Medica, which covers beneficiaries in Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, said the company “supports the goal of these standardization efforts.” But the April update “raised a significant technical and operational hurdle that we are not able to commit to at this time,” he said.

Alex Gomez, a spokesperson for EmblemHealth, said in late June the company “will sign onto the commitment” after ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ posed questions about why it had not endorsed the April update.

“We anticipate more plans will be added over the coming months,” said Bond, the AHIP spokesperson. Health plans are “working continuously to implement their commitments to simplify and improve the experience.” He acknowledged that “there is still significant work ahead.”

The original pledge also included a promise that insurance companies would enhance transparency and use “clear, easy-to-understand explanations” when communicating to patients — something they were already supposed to be doing under the Affordable Care Act.

Yet companies still regularly neglect to explain why care has been denied, and their communications often contain “inconsistent and contradictory information,” said Gartner, of Health Access Innovation. He and Murphy also said they suspect insurance companies are increasingly using artificial intelligence to generate denials.

“They craft the pathways to basically deny things immediately with the hope that people will give up,” Murphy said.

The congressman said he wishes President Donald Trump would sign executive orders addressing some of these issues. “The problem is the insurance industry is the strongest lobby in this town.”

Do you have an experience with prior authorization you’d like to share?  to tell ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ your story.

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

The certified professional midwife pressed the button on a handheld Doppler ultrasound machine she placed on Collins’ belly. “That’s her heartbeat,” she said to Collins’ 3-year-old daughter, who sat beside her mom as a whooshing sound filled the room. “I think Mommy’s baby’s right here.”

The midwife is not licensed as a nurse. In Georgia, that makes what she’s doing illegal. ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ agreed not to identify her by name.

Georgia is one of seven states where delivering babies can earn non-nurse midwives, at minimum, a cease-and-desist letter requiring them to end their careers. In North Carolina, it’s a . In New York, .

Meanwhile, demand for their services is increasing. Intended home births rose by 42% nationally from 2020 to 2024, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, and those births are often overseen by certified professional midwives. In Georgia, they rose by 72%. Midwives who assist with home births typically see clients from prenatal appointments through after childbirth, providing more postpartum checkups than most new mothers receive.

Home births make up nationwide. In the eight states where they were most common in 2024 — ±á²¹·É²¹¾±â€˜i, Idaho, Montana, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming— they made up 3-5% of births.

As that number rises, midwifery advocates said, regulating the practice with licenses would allow home births to be safer. Free birth — without the help of a skilled professional before or after labor — can be .

“People are going to keep having their babies at home, and they deserve a trained provider,” said Missi Burgess, president of the Georgia chapter of the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives.

For decades, professional midwives have been advocating for laws to legalize and regulate their profession. More lawmakers have supported those efforts in the past 15 years, with 36 states and Washington, D.C., allowing them to get licensed to deliver babies. Last year, a wave of state lawmakers — in Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia — tried to add their states to the list, although none of their bills has become law.

Certified professional midwives deliver babies in homes or birth centers. Rather than attend nursing school — which many can’t afford — they earn a nationally recognized certificate by attending at least 55 births and demonstrating their knowledge. Nurse-midwives more often deliver babies in hospitals or clinics than in patients’ homes.

Some hospitals and doctors oppose midwife licensing proposals without certain guardrails. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists showing that infants are twice as likely to die during planned births at home or in birth centers as in hospitals, while acknowledging that the data remains limited. It doesn’t account for several factors, including who assisted in the birth.

Still, prominent stories of home births with midwives gone wrong contribute to the skepticism around licensing laws. In 2023, The Washington Post of a licensed midwife who pleaded guilty to felonies in Virginia after an infant death and assisted with home births in Maryland in which two more babies died.

In Mississippi, a bill that would have regulated and licensed professional midwives died after a state senator blocked a vote in the committee he chaired. Democratic Sen. Hob Bryan he didn’t “wish to encourage that activity.”

But midwives said they have a sympathetic ear now in the Trump administration, with its Make America Healthy Again movement. Cassaundra Jah, executive director of the , said she has been on calls with midwifery groups pushing for the Department of Health and Human Services to provide legal protections for them, and some midwives have been in contact with the agency.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard declined to comment on policy proposals but told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ that the administration “regularly meets with a wide range of stakeholders to hear input from the American public.”

Hospitals Want Guardrails

Advocates for the license say allowing certified professional midwives to provide care would help address a shortage of maternity care providers.

“Some midwives are leaving our state,” Rep. , a chiropractor who sponsored the Georgia bill, said during a hearing on the measure last year. “They’re being forced to quit. And now we have a shortage of these providers to take care of our pregnant moms.”

A by the March of Dimes found that 35% of counties in the U.S. have no birthing facility or obstetric provider. Georgia has the 13th-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, according to the .

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022 eliminated federal protection for abortion, six-week abortion bans prompted more providers to leave states such as Georgia and Texas. Idaho lost by December 2024, two years after its abortion ban took effect. Doctors who left states with such laws cited fear of prosecution and an inability to provide the standard of care.

Of the 13 states with the fewest maternity care providers per capita, nine had a full or six-week abortion ban as of 2024, .

Licensing midwives won’t solve the larger maternity care shortage, but it’s a first step, said , a professor of midwifery and the principal investigator at the Birth Place Lab at the University of British Columbia. Certified professional midwives currently attend only about 1.4% of births in the U.S., according to federal data.

The would have granted certified professional midwives licenses through a state board, allowed them to administer lifesaving medications, and required their services to be covered by private insurance and Medicaid. They would not have needed a physician to supervise them. Without that mandate, giving birth outside of a hospital could be an option for more people.

But the Georgia Department of Public Health and the Georgia Hospital Association opposed the licensing bill, primarily because they wanted more regulations than the midwives were willing to accept — including physician supervision.

Anna Adams, a spokesperson for the hospital association, suggested establishing transfer agreements that required all women planning to have a home birth to register at the hospital first. When a laboring woman is transferred to a hospital, which happens in about , “we have no prior knowledge of this patient,” Adams said. “It’s a tricky situation to inherit when you’re trying to save the mother and the baby without any background.”

Georgia midwives said they planned to bring the licensing proposal back next year.

In early April, three midwives for restricting their ability to practice, arguing that the rules violate the state constitution.

“Every pregnant person should be able to choose where they give birth and with whom,” said Jamarah Amani, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and co-founder of the .

Black women are three times as likely to die during or after childbirth as white pregnant patients. In January, a prominent Black nurse-midwife in South Carolina died after unexpected complications from childbirth.

Today, midwives and their clients are predominantly white, but the home birth rate among Black women rose 42% nationally from 2019 to 2024, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Ultimately the system has failed us as a people,” said Tina Braimah, a Black nurse-midwife who attended home births for a decade. She then opened a in North Carolina, allowing her to see more clients from a variety of backgrounds. “When the system consistently fails you, you look for other options.”

Becoming Part of the System

Many maternal health researchers say mothers fare better when midwives are a key part of the health system. In 2018, researchers at the Birth Place Lab published a study of all 50 states showing that integrating midwives was associated with better outcomes for moms and babies, including lower rates of infant deaths. Integration involves collaboration among all kinds of midwives and doctors so that patients can easily transfer to or from a hospital. It also involves giving all midwives the authority to practice the full range of their skills, including prescribing lifesaving medication.

A by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine states that data from other countries suggests home births can be as safe as hospital births for low-risk women who are part of an integrated, regulated system.

Washington state has one of the highest rates of in the U.S., according to the . Its home birth rate is consistently higher than the national rate, while its remains lower than the national average.

One in 5 women report being mistreated during maternity care, according to a . Pregnant patients tend to be more satisfied when midwives lead their care, whether at a hospital, a birth center, or home.

Hannah Haynes gave birth to her first three children in a hospital near her home in Jefferson, Georgia. During the third labor, which was induced, she received a catheter that led to a urinary tract infection and then sepsis, a life-threatening condition. She was separated from her newborn for four days while receiving treatment.

“Something has to change,” Haynes said.

Haynes regrets electing to get induced when it wasn’t medically necessary. She gave birth to her fourth child at home, with the help of a certified professional midwife she trusted. She’s pregnant with her fifth and plans to use the same midwife. She said she won’t deliver at a hospital again.

“I was a little nervous,” Haynes said, because she had heard rumors that midwives didn’t know what they were doing. But after meeting the midwife, “I just felt so confident in her.”

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

State governments rely on such companies to design and operate computer systems that assess whether low-income people qualify for Medicaid or food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as food stamps. Those state systems have a history of errors that can cut off benefits to eligible people, a ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ investigation showed.

These benefits, provided to the poorest Americans, can mean the difference between someone obtaining medical care and having enough to eat — or going without.

States are now racing to update their eligibility systems to adhere to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and domestic spending law. The changes will add red tape and restrictions. They are coming at a steep price — both in the cost to taxpayers and coverage losses — according to state documents obtained by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and interviews.

The documents show government agencies will spend millions to save considerably more by removing people from health benefits. While states sign eligibility system contracts with companies and work with them to manage updates, the federal government foots most of the bill.

The law’s Medicaid policies will cause to become uninsured by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Roughly will lose access to monthly cash assistance for food, including those with children.

In five states alone, for state officials and reviewed by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ show that changes will cost at least $45.6 million combined.

“This is a pretty big payday,” said Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor of health policy and politics at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The law, which grants tax breaks to the nation’s wealthiest people, requires most states to tie Medicaid coverage for some adults to having a job, and imposes other restrictions that will make it harder for people with low incomes to stay enrolled. SNAP restrictions began to take effect in 2025. Major Medicaid provisions begin later this year.

Documents prepared by consulting company Deloitte estimate that a pair of computer system changes for Medicaid work requirements in Wisconsin will . Two other changes related to the state’s SNAP program will cost an additional $4.2 million, according to the documents, which for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

In Iowa, changes to its Medicaid system are expected to cost at least $20 million, , a consulting company that operates the state’s eligibility system.

Optum — which operates the platform Vermont residents use for Medicaid and marketplace health plans under the Affordable Care Act — to evaluate and incorporate new health coverage restrictions.

Initial changes in Kentucky, which has had a contract with Deloitte since 2012, . And in Illinois, will cost at least $12 million.

A Historic Mandate

For six decades after President Lyndon Johnson created the government insurance program in 1965, Congress had never mandated that Medicaid enrollees have a job, volunteer, or go to school.

That will change next year. The tax and spending law enacted by Trump and congressional Republicans requires millions of Medicaid enrollees in 42 states and the District of Columbia to prove they’re working or participating in a similar activity for 80 hours a month, unless they qualify for an exemption. The CBO projected, based on an early version of the bill, that 18.5 million adults would be subject to the new rules — .

Vermont Medicaid officials expect it will cost $5 million in fiscal 2027 to implement changes in response to the federal law, said Adaline Strumolo, deputy commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access. About $1.8 million is for Optum to make eligibility system adjustments. Optum is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will subject nearly 55,000 Vermont Medicaid recipients to work requirements — about a third of the state’s enrollees.

The law forced the state “to essentially drop everything else we were doing,” Strumolo said in an interview. “This is a big, big lift.”

Optum’s contract with the state was as of October.

of adult Medicaid enrollees nationally are already working, according to KFF. Advocacy groups for Medicaid recipients say work requirements will nonetheless cause significant coverage losses. Enrollees will face added red tape to prove they’re complying. And eligibility systems already prone to error will have to account for employment, job-related activities, and any exemptions.

An estimated 5.3 million enrollees will become uninsured by 2034 due to work requirements, the .

In Wisconsin, state officials estimate could lose coverage after work requirements take effect. Not covering those people would in Medicaid spending for one year.

Wisconsin’s eligibility system for Medicaid and SNAP — known as CARES — in 1994, and initially was a transfer system from Florida, according to a 2016 state document.

Deloitte submitted its cost estimates for Medicaid and SNAP changes to the state in September and December. Elizabeth Goodsitt, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, declined to answer questions about whether additional changes will be needed, how much it will cost to make all eligibility system changes to comply with the new federal law, and whether the state negotiated prices with Deloitte.

Bobby Peterson, executive director of the public interest law firm ABC for Health, said Wisconsin has invested “very little” to help people navigate the Medicaid eligibility process, which soon will become more difficult.

“But they’re very willing to throw $6 million to their contractors to create the bells and whistles,” Peterson said. “That’s where I feel a sense of frustration.”

New Hurdles for Vets and Homeless People

Medicaid work requirements are only one change required by Trump’s tax law that will make it harder to obtain safety-net benefits.

Starting in October, the law prohibits several immigrant populations from accessing Medicaid and ACA coverage, including people who have been granted asylum, refugees, and certain survivors of domestic violence or human trafficking. Beginning Dec. 31, states must verify eligibility twice a year for millions of adults — doubling state officials’ workload. And the law restricts SNAP benefits by requiring more adult recipients to work and by removing work exemptions for veterans, homeless people, and former foster youth.

Days after Trump signed the bill in July, Kentucky health officials raced to make changes to the state’s integrated eligibility system, which verifies eligibility for Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs. Deloitte operates the system under a five-year . , initial changes costing $1.6 million were labeled a “high priority” and approved on an “emergency” basis, with some of the changes to the nation’s largest food aid program going into effect almost immediately.

Officials with Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services declined to answer a detailed list of questions, including how much it will cost to make all the modifications needed.

Deloitte spokesperson Karen Walsh said the company is working with states to implement new requirements but declined to answer questions about cost estimates in several states. “We are delivering the value and investments we committed to,” Walsh said.

In most states, government agencies rely on contractors to build and run the systems that determine eligibility for Medicaid. Many of those states also use such computer systems for SNAP. But the federal government — that is, taxpayers — to develop and implement state Medicaid eligibility systems and pays 75% of ongoing maintenance and operations expenses, according to federal regulations.

“Five, 10 years ago, I’m not sure if you would hear much mention of SNAP from a Medicaid director,” Melisa Byrd, Washington, D.C.’s Medicaid director, said in November at an annual conference of Medicaid officials. “And particularly for those with integrated eligibility systems — as D.C. is —­ I’m learning more about SNAP than I ever thought.”

The federal law was the topic du jour at last year’s gathering in Maryland, held at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, the largest hotel between New Jersey and Florida.

Consulting companies had taken notice. Gainwell, an eligibility contractor and one of the conference’s corporate sponsors, emblazoned its logo on hotel escalators. Companies set up booths with materials promoting how they could help states and handed out snacks and swag.

“Conduent helps agencies work smarter by simplifying operations, cutting costs and driving better outcomes through intelligent automation, analytics, and innovation in fraud prevention,” read one such handout from another contractor. “Together, we can better serve residents at every step of their health journeys.” Conduent holds Medicaid eligibility and enrollment contracts in Mississippi and New Jersey, their Medicaid agencies confirmed to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

In handouts, Deloitte touted its role in “building a new era in state health care” and as “a national leader in Medicaid program and technology transformation, building a strong track record across the federal, state, and commercial health care ecosystem.” ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ found that Deloitte, a global consultancy that generated in revenue in fiscal 2025, dominates this slice of government business.

“With Medicaid Community Engagement (CE) requirements, states are tasked with adding a new condition of Medicaid eligibility to support state and federal objectives,” added another brochure. “Deloitte offers strategic outreach and responsive support to help states engage communities, lower barriers, and address access to coverage.”

A $20.3 Million Bill in Iowa

Before Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Iowa lawmakers wanted to impose their own version of work requirements. They would have applied to 183,000 people before any exemptions. The new law would necessitate a change to Iowa’s Medicaid eligibility system, according to documents prepared by Accenture, which operates Iowa’s system through a .

Adding the ability to verify work status would cost up to $7 million, . By July, the cost to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s work requirements and other Medicaid provisions . Accenture’s analysis said the federal law necessitated . Making employment a condition of Medicaid benefits could cause an estimated 32,000 Iowans to lose coverage, according to a

Cutting 32,000 people from coverage in one year, a fraction of the Iowa and the federal government spend on Medicaid in a given year.

In Cedar Rapids, most of Eastern Iowa Health Center’s patients rely on Medicaid, CEO Joe Lock said. He questioned the government’s logic of spending tens of millions of dollars on a policy to remove Iowans from Medicaid.

Most of the health center’s patients live at or below the federal poverty level — currently .

“There is no benefit to this population,” Lock said.

Danielle Sample, a spokesperson for Iowa’s Department of Health and Human Services, did not answer questions about how much it will cost to implement changes to the state’s separate SNAP eligibility system.

In Illinois, the state’s work this year is largely focused on meeting major provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The state estimates that as many as 360,000 residents could lose Medicaid, largely due to the work requirements, said Melissa Kula, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.

Kula confirmed that — priced at $12 million — is related to Trump’s law. The estimate also mentions other work. Kula said Deloitte is charging the state a $2 million fixed fee related to work requirements.

The Trump administration has acknowledged that the work is coming at a cost. In January, top officials for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said government contractors, including Deloitte, Accenture, and Optum, have and reduced rates through 2028 to help states incorporate system changes.

“The companies were extremely excited to do this,” , the top CMS Medicaid official. “Everyone’s really focused on getting to work.”

CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden declined to answer questions about the discounts.

Goodsitt, the Wisconsin Medicaid spokesperson, declined to answer questions about whether Deloitte has discounted its rates. Officials with Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services did not answer a detailed list of questions, including whether Deloitte extended discounts to make these changes.

It’s unclear what discounts, if any, Deloitte and Accenture have offered to individual states. Walsh, the Deloitte spokesperson, declined to answer detailed questions about the discounts the Trump administration announced this year. Accenture did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Strumolo, the Vermont health official, said state officials discussed the announcement with Optum “in detail.”

Optum for a specific module related to Medicaid work requirements. That product is unworkable for Vermont because it would mean “moving to a new system when we don’t have to.” When asked about whether the company offered discounts, Strumolo said “not explicitly.”

In a statement, UnitedHealth Group spokesperson Tyler Mason said Optum supports state implementation of new federal requirements “with a range of options to meet their unique cost and policy needs.”

He declined to specify whether Optum discounted Vermont’s rates and how it calculated the costs of doing its work. “Optum is helping mitigate upfront implementation expenses so states can focus on approaches that reduce duplication, accelerate implementation, and manage costs over time — supporting better outcomes for individuals covered by Medicaid,” Mason said.

Strumolo said Optum’s initial changes in Vermont cover items that take effect this year and in 2027 — Medicaid work requirements, checking eligibility every six months, and prohibiting certain immigrants from qualifying for health programs.

“There’s a lot more that could come,” she said.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. 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 — such as children, pregnant women, some parents, older adults, and people with disabilities — 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 — about $47.4 million, or 88% — 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 — Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin — 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and share your story.

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

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “,” Newsom to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington, and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the , a regional public health agency, whose guidance would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Donald Trump officially from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and HHS declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the covid era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public Health Guided by Science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request. Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and . The White House last year proposed cutting HHS spending , including . Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing, and education, .

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, and a judge the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Association of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3 billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding Cuts Hurt All

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the the closure of that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had , the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at , , and .

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust Vaccine Schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, and covid-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and several other East Coast states banding together to create the .

HHS’ Hilliard said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing Red States

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A KFF analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

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

The Millers resettled on Vancouver Island, their scenic refuge accessible only by ferry or plane. Justin went to work in the emergency room at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, where he became one of at least 20 U.S.-trained nurses hired since April.

Fear of Trump, some of the nurses said, was why they left.

“There are so many like-minded people out there,” said Justin, who now works elbow to elbow with Americans in Canada. “You aren’t trapped. You don’t have to stay. Health care workers are welcomed with open arms around the world.”

The Millers are part of a new surge of American nurses, doctors, and other health care workers moving to Canada, and specifically British Columbia, where more than 1,000 U.S.-trained nurses have been approved to work since April. As the Trump administration enacts increasingly authoritarian policies and decimates funding for , insurance, and medical research, many nurses have felt the draw of Canada’s progressive politics, friendly reputation, and universal health care system.

Additionally, some nurses were incensed last year when the Trump administration said it would reclassify nursing as a , which would impose strict federal limits on the loans nursing students could receive.

Canada is poised to capitalize. Two of its most populous provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, have streamlined the licensing process for American nurses since Trump returned to the White House. British Columbia also launched a last year to recruit nurses from California, Oregon, and Washington state.

“With the chaos and uncertainty happening in the U.S., we are seizing the opportunity to attract the talent we need,” Josie Osborne, the province’s health minister, said in a statement announcing the campaign.

Fears Realized

Amy Miller, a nurse practitioner, said she and her husband were determined to move their children out of the country because they felt Trump’s second term would inevitably spiral into violence.

First, the Millers got nursing licenses in New Zealand, but when the job search took too long, they pivoted to Canada.

Justin was offered a job within weeks.

Amy found one within three months.

So they moved. And just a few days later, the Millers watched with horror from afar as their fears came true.

As federal immigration forces clashed with protesters in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, federal agents fatally shot an ICU nurse, Alex Pretti, as he filmed a confrontation and appeared to be trying to shield a woman who was knocked down. Video of the killing showed border agents pinning Pretti to the ground before seizing his concealed, licensed handgun and opening fire on him.

The Trump administration quickly called Pretti a “domestic terrorist” who intended to kill federal agents. That allegation was disputed by eyewitness videos that circulated on social media and spurred widespread outrage, including from nurses and nursing organizations, some of whom invoked the profession’s duty to care for the vulnerable.

“I don’t want to say it was expected, but that’s why we are here,” Amy Miller said. “Even our oldest kid, she was like: ‘It’s OK, Mom, because we are not there anymore. We are safe here.’ So she recognizes that, and she’s not even in middle school yet.”

Both the U.S. and Canada have a severe need for nurses. The U.S. is projected to be short about 270,000 registered nurses, plus at least 120,000 licensed practical nurses, by 2028, according to from the Health Resources and Services Administration. In Canada, nursing job vacancies tripled from 2018 to 2023, when they reached nearly 42,000, according to from the Montreal Economic Institute, a Canadian think tank.

When asked to comment, the White House noted that shows the number of nurses licensed in the U.S. increased in 2025. It dismissed accounts of nurses moving to Canada as “anecdotes of individuals with severe cases of Trump derangement syndrome.”

“The American health care workforce is the finest in the world, and it continues to expand under President Trump,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. “Employment opportunities in the American health care system remain robust, with career advancement and pay that far exceed that of other developed nations.”

‘A Sense of Relief’

It is unknown precisely how many American nurses have moved north since Trump returned to office, because some Canadian provinces do not track or release such statistics.

British Columbia, which has done the most to recruit Americans, approved the licensing applications of 1,028 U.S.-trained nurses from when the province’s streamlined application process took effect in April 2025 through January, according to the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives. In all of 2023, only 112 applicants from the U.S. were approved, the agency said. In 2024, it was 127.

Increased interest from American nurses was also confirmed by nursing associations in Ontario and Alberta, as well as by the nationwide Canadian Nurses Association.

Angela Wignall, CEO of Nurses and Nurse Practitioners of British Columbia, said American nurses used to move north because they had fallen in love with Canada (or a Canadian). But more recently, she said, she had met nurses who feared the White House would spur violence and vigilantism, particularly against families that included same-sex couples.

“Some of them were living in fear of the administration, and they shared a sense of relief when crossing the border,” Wignall said. “As a Canadian, it’s heartbreaking. And also a joy to welcome them.”

Vancouver Island, which has a population of about 860,000, has gained 64 U.S.-trained nurses since April, including those at Nanaimo Regional, said Andrew Leyne, a spokesperson for the island’s health agency.

One of the nurses was Susan Fleishman, a Canadian who moved to the U.S. as a child, then worked for 23 years in American emergency rooms before leaving the country in November.

Fleishman said hateful rhetoric from Trump has fueled an angry division that has permeated and soured American life.

“It wasn’t an easy move — that’s for sure. But I think it’s definitely worth it,” she said, happily back in Canada. “I find there is a lot more kindness here. And I think that will keep me here.”

Brandy Frye, who also worked for decades in American ERs, said she moved to Vancouver Island last year after waiting to see whether Mark Carney would become Canada’s prime minister. Carney’s rise was widely viewed as a rejection of Trumpism.

Meanwhile, Frye said, the California hospital where she worked had been stripping words associated with diversity and equity out of its paperwork to appease the Trump administration. She couldn’t stand it.

“It felt like a step against everything I believe in,” Frye said. “And I didn’t feel like I belonged there anymore.”

Like many of the American nurses who have moved to Vancouver Island, Frye was first wooed to the area by a that was meant to attract tourist dollars but ended up doing much more.

About a year ago, Tod Maffin, a and former CBC Radio host, invited Americans to the port city of Nanaimo for a weekend event designed to offset the impact of Trump’s tariffs on the local economy.

Maffin said about the April event.

“A lot of them were health care workers looking for an escape route,” Maffin said. “They were there to help support our economy but also to look into Canada.”

Maffin saw an opportunity. He repurposed the event website into a recruiting tool and launched a Discord chatroom to help Americans relocate.

Maffin said he believes the campaign helped about 35 health care workers move to Vancouver Island. Volunteers in have since duplicated his website in an effort to attract their own American nurses and doctors.

“There are communities across Canada where the emergency room closes at night because one nurse is out. That’s how thin staffing is,” Maffin said.

“One new nurse in a small town, or in a midsized city like Nanaimo,” he said, “makes a difference.”

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

The retiree, 70, was diagnosed with glaucoma in her right eye in 2019. She had a laser procedure to treat it in 2022, and she uses medicated drops in both eyes to prevent more damage. She is supposed to be checked regularly, she said.

During the May appointment, Tuszynski’s optometrist examined her eyes and reassured her that the glaucoma had not worsened.

Tuszynski, who lives in central Wisconsin, had looked up beforehand whether the clinic in nearby Madison participated in her insurance plan. The insurer’s website listed the optometrist’s name with a green check mark and the words “in-network.” She assumed that meant her policy would cover the appointment.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Procedure

An optometrist tested Tuszynski’s vision and took pictures of her optic nerves.

The Final Bill

$340, which included $120 for vision testing and $100 for optic nerve imaging.

The Billing Problem: Vision Coverage vs. Medical Coverage

Tuszynski’s UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage plan declined to pay for her eye appointment. “The member has no out of network benefits,” the company’s denial letter said.

Tuszynski felt like she was seeing double. How could an eye doctor be in-network and out-of-network at the same time? She said she sent the insurer a screenshot of its own webpage showing the clinic listed as in-network.

She said that after she complained, UnitedHealthcare representatives explained that the eye clinic was in-network under her vision plan, so her policy would cover the clinic’s services related to glasses or contact lenses. But they said the clinic was not in-network for her medical insurance plan, and glaucoma treatment is considered a medical issue.

Tuszynski was baffled that care for a patient’s eyes would not be covered by vision insurance. She said she didn’t realize that insurers can have contracts with eye clinics to provide some services but not others.

UnitedHealthcare spokesperson Meg Sergel said such arrangements are common, including with non-Medicare insurance provided by employers or purchased by individuals. “I looked up my eye doctor, and it’s the same thing,” she said in an interview with ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

Sergel said she understood how a customer could mistakenly think vision insurance would cover all care for the eyes. She said UnitedHealthcare recommends that before undergoing treatment, patients ask care providers whether they are in-network for specific services.

Otherwise, she said, to know whether a test or treatment is covered by vision insurance, “you’d have to read the nitty-gritty” of a policy.

Leaders at Steinhauer Family Eye Clinic, where Tuszynski saw the optometrist, declined to comment.

Casey Schwarz, senior counsel for education and federal policy at the nonprofit , said such complications frequently come up when Medicare Advantage members try to use their insurance at eye clinics or dental offices.

The federal government pays insurers to run Medicare Advantage plans for people who choose them instead of traditional Medicare. More than half of Medicare beneficiaries . Many offer routine vision and dental coverage that isn’t included with traditional Medicare.

“We hear from people who choose these plans because of those supplemental benefits, but there is not a lot of transparency around them,” Schwarz said.

The Resolution

After receiving the rejection letter, Tuszynski repeatedly contacted UnitedHealthcare to question the decision and filed an appeal with the company. Then, she said, she called to complain to federal officials. She also wrote to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, which asked the insurer about the case.

UnitedHealthcare eventually agreed to cover the bill as if the service had been in-network. “In good faith, we made an exception,” Sergel said. However, Tuszynski was warned that if she received medical care from the clinic again, it would not be covered, because the clinic remains out-of-network for such services, Sergel said. “It doesn’t sound like that pleased her.”

Tuszynski confirmed that she is not pleased.

She said she lost sleep over the dispute and felt that it shouldn’t have taken so much effort to obtain a fair outcome. “It’s just been a horrible, difficult whirlwind,” she said.

The Takeaway

Schwarz said regulators should require insurance companies to clearly explain to customers and care providers how different procedures and services will be covered under vision, dental, and health plans. “They’re tricky,” she said.

In an ideal world, Schwarz said, Medicare would consider things like dental cleanings, eye checkups, and hearing aids as basic health care that would be covered in the same way as other medical care. But until that happens, she said, patients with any doubt should call their insurers beforehand to check whether services will be covered.

Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president with KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, noted that Medicare’s website that can help people determine whether their doctors participate in a Medicare Advantage plan.

“This is helpful and a step forward, but information about provider networks is not always correct,” Neuman said. “Errors can come at a cost to enrollees, unless they are willing and able to take on their insurer.”

Tuszynski worked for 30 years as a secretary in hospitals and at doctors’ offices, so she’s familiar with billing issues, she said. “If I can’t sort through all this, how can anybody else do it?”

She knows her $340 bill was much smaller than the medical debts many other people face. But she said it was a serious amount of money to her, and she was glad she objected to the insurer’s contention that the bill shouldn’t be covered.

“I have a strong feeling about right and wrong — and this is just wrong,” she said.

For 2026, she decided to shift out of her Medicare Advantage plan. She now is enrolled in traditional Medicare, plus a supplemental plan to help with copays and other costs. She pays $184 a month for that plan, compared with paying no separate premium for her old Medicare Advantage plan.

Now she won’t have to worry about private insurers’ limited networks of contracted care providers, she said. Her glaucoma treatment will be covered at the Madison eye clinic.

However, she no longer has insurance coverage for eyeglasses, just a discount plan if she buys glasses from certain stores. She used her Medicare Advantage insurance to buy new glasses shortly before switching. “Hopefully, those will last me a while,” she said.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health NewÌý²¹²Ô»åÌý that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? !

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