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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing With Dyes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, not quite.

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

An Insurance Deal Falls Short of Promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deals and Deregulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trump administration, however, is .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Others are more secretive, with multiple states declining to release public records in response to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ requests. Mississippi’s governor , West Virginia holds closed-door advisory meetings, and a South Dakota official wrote that he hoped CMS would keep its application from public view.

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

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

Reaching Rural Patients

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

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

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

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

Rural Health Payout

Tracking Applications for Rural Health Transformation Funds

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ is working to collect and post complete application materials, by state, here and will update this repository as new materials, released in response to public records requests, arrive.

Dec. 4, 2025

Rural Health Payout

Tracking State Rural Health Transformation Plans

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ is working to collect and post approved plans as more states respond to emails and public records requests for their documents.

July 27, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIY Dashboards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mississippi’s he vetoed a because it would “create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy” that would have slowed the award process, which could cause the state to lose out on future funds. Mississippi is “ in all this secrecy,” Bryan, the state lawmaker, told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

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

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

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

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

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

“They called me a ‘liability to the job site,’” Pugh said, recalling the words of his manager when a seizure cost him his last job at a fast-food restaurant in this western Montana city.

When the 46-year-old lost work in the past, his wife of 10 years covered their rent and he tended to their home until he found another job. But his wife died last year. Soon after, Pugh became homeless. His problem with alcohol became worse, which made managing his seizures more difficult.

“When she died, my whole base was depleted,” Pugh said.

Medicaid pays for the prescriptions that keep Pugh’s seizures at bay. The government-subsidized health coverage would also pay for an addiction treatment program that Pugh said he has tried to get into, but he was told there’s a waitlist.

Pugh’s goal has been to get healthy enough to work again. But he’s worried about being able to keep the Medicaid coverage he needs to get to that point.

Early Embrace of New Rules

In the spring, the federal government finalized regulations requiring millions of people who receive Medicaid benefits to prove they’re working, volunteering, or going to school to keep their coverage. States have until January to begin those checks. Montana, Arkansas, and Nebraska have already started implementing them.

The Trump administration’s federal work requirements exempt certain groups of people: those with disabilities, those older than 64, pregnant people and Native Americans, among others. To receive an exemption, anyone without a clear-cut qualification — such as through their age or disability status — will have to prove they’re too sick to work.

But the administration decided that being homeless isn’t a medical condition and can’t count as an automatic out from having to meet the new requirements. Many conservative policymakers support work requirements, and some states have attempted to implement such rules for years. At least four states — Montana, Arizona, Kentucky, and Utah — previously proposed policies that included homelessness as an exemption.

But federal officials have said that’s not allowed. In an email to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declined to provide a comment on the record. But the agency confirmed that states must stick to the federal government’s list of exemptions. Homelessness in the U.S. increased by 27% from 2013 to 2025, from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Last year, about 746,000 people .

Many, like Pugh, qualified for Medicaid, though the number of enrollees who are homeless is difficult to measure. In 2023, who received medical or behavioral health services through one of the nation’s roughly 300 programs were enrolled in Medicaid.

Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the federal regulations are a lot stricter than many states had expected, even those on board with work requirements. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.)

“It took everyone by surprise,” Tolbert said.

Mehmet Oz, who leads CMS, touted the regulations as a “path to prosperity” during a press conference in June.

“We need to get people to try to work,” Oz said. In June, 25 mostly Democratic-led states over the regulations, arguing the medical frailty standard would be too hard for enrollees to meet — and for states to assess. The work requirements are projected to increase the number of uninsured people nationwide by by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Most states will begin to implement the Medicaid work requirements in January. 

Montana plans to begin booting Medicaid enrollees from coverage this October if they can’t prove they’re in compliance with the work requirement.

“My Medicaid is still active, but when are they gonna cut that off from me?” Pugh said. “I can’t get employed. How am I supposed to survive?”

The differences between the states’ and federal government’s exemption lists don’t end with people who are homeless. In Montana, lawmakers also planned to excuse people fleeing domestic violence and caregivers of hospitalized family members — two other groups left off the federal exemption list.

“These are simply parties that, due to a number of conditions, cannot meet those requirements,” Republican state Rep. Ed Buttrey said in 2019 when the Montana Legislature passed its first Medicaid work requirement bill. Buttrey did not comment for this article.

Federal officials have said many people who are homeless could fall under another exemption, such as being too sick to work. But, like many states, Montana’s system to automatically conduct those checks through existing medical records isn’t ready, though health department spokesperson Jon Ebelt said it should be in place by October. Anyone not automatically exempted by the state would have 30 days to prove their case.

A Possible Exemption for Health

Pugh might qualify for a pass due to his seizures. But getting to doctor appointments the past year has been hard for him.

The anniversary of his wife’s death just passed. Typically, Pugh has to find a new place to sleep outside each night. One night while camping, Pugh lost his wallet and important documents. And with the addiction treatment centers that accept Medicaid patients overbooked, Pugh has had to rely on willpower to avoid drinking.

“I’m taking it one day at a time,” he said.

A little over two hours north, in Kalispell, Dustin Goss, a case manager at a homeless shelter called Samaritan House, said Pugh’s experience reflects why he’s worried that people who qualify for an exemption will get tangled in bureaucratic tape.

“You can’t really worry about getting paperwork done when you don’t know where you’re eating today,” Goss said.

Cassidy Kipp, who heads Samaritan House, said once people find shelter and start to stabilize, they typically find work. But even then, meeting the new requirements can be challenging. Clients often start with temporary and informal jobs — such as cleaning out a storage unit — that don’t come with a pay stub, Kipp said. 

Kaitlyn Bosshardt, a social worker at Partnership Health Center, a health clinic in Missoula, has seen more people priced out of longtime rentals as housing costs outpace people’s paychecks. Meanwhile, affordable housing and rental aid are limited.

Partnership Health is one of roughly 1,400 health centers nationwide that receive federal funding to serve patients based on what they can afford — meaning even those who lose Medicaid can receive care. But organizations representing health centers have said if too many patients lose the coverage, some clinics won’t be able to fill the financial hole.

The other problem is that these clinics generally don’t provide specialty care.

One day in June, as temperatures hovered around 90,  Pugh visited Watershed Navigation Center, a refuge run by Partnership for people without steady housing to have a meal or see a doctor. His doctor, Atarah Sidey, told Pugh that the neurology clinic that managed his seizures had dismissed him from their care after he missed three appointments.

She referred Pugh to the other neurologist in town and talked about trying to find treatment for his addiction.

“It’s just that if I don’t make the effort at changing, it ain’t gonna happen and I’m gonna end up found on the side of the road somewhere,” Pugh told Sidey.

“You got this, though, Tywon,” she responded as Pugh nodded his head. “You can do this.”

Pugh has connected with a social worker for help keeping his Medicaid. By late July, he was waiting for space to open at a Missoula addiction treatment center and waiting on responses from two job applications.

In the hard moments, Pugh imagines his wife telling him to stay calm, that things will get better.

“I just don’t wanna lose hope in the meantime,” he said.

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

Enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans fell by nearly 3 million this year to about 19.2 million, following steep premium increases by insurers and the Republican-led Congress’ unwillingness to extend more generous premium subsidies. On average, ACA customers in premium payments this year, a 58% increase from 2025, according to KFF, while their deductibles — the amount consumers must pay annually before insurers pick up their share — have climbed 37% to nearly $3,800 a year.

“These are real people who are now forced to make impossible choices,” said Annalyse Keller, a spokesperson for a large coalition of lobby organizations for the healthcare industry, including insurers and patient advocacy groups.

But a released in June, written mostly by President Donald Trump’s political appointees and allies, asserts that 5.6 million people were fraudulently enrolled in ACA plans in 2025, and that the Trump administration removed 2.9 million of them — the same number as the 2026 drop in enrollment.

There’s little dispute that the ACA suffers from some fraud, as do most government programs. The administration said it has taken actions to tighten the enrollment process to thwart brokers who fraudulently enroll people without their knowledge.

For example, the administration in August 2025 halted a Biden-era initiative that allowed low-income people to sign up for coverage year-round. Regulators 1.5 million people since 2025 for reasons such as not meeting a requirement to file their taxes over two years or being concurrently enrolled in another health program, such as Medicaid, which is not allowed.

But health policy experts say that the administration is overstating the extent of ACA fraud and that the HHS report relies on debatable assumptions, such as that all sign-ups under the year-round enrollment program for low-income people were potentially fraudulent. ACA enrollment fell off a cliff because of escalating prices for insurance plans, policy analysts say, which the administration’s done nothing to stem.

“The top-level claim” that all the decline in enrollment since 2025 is because of improper or fraudulent enrollees leaving the market “is not remotely credible,” said , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “We know that lots of people have seen higher premiums, and there’s really good evidence that when premiums go up, people drop coverage.”

Healthcare costs are a big concern for voters ahead of November’s midterm elections, and both Democrats and Republicans are trying to spin the issue to their advantage. Democrats argue more needs to be done to make insurance less expensive for consumers, while Republicans are trying to focus on the need to save taxpayer dollars from fraud.

found that voters trust Democrats over Republicans to address healthcare costs (37% vs. 26%). The poll also found, though, that 55% of Republican voters consider it extremely important for candidates to address healthcare fraud, more than any other issue, showing that the White House’s effort to shift focus from costs has had some success with its own supporters.

But Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina, questioned whether the fraud narrative will hold up as voters continue to struggle with rising costs.

“It will be cold comfort to the very real persons who could no longer afford coverage and dropped their plans,” he said in an email to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

How We Got Here

Under President Joe Biden, Congress that included more generous tax subsidies for people enrolled in Obamacare, starting in 2021. Those enhanced subsidies lowered premium payments, for a large enough tax credit to reduce their monthly payment to zero. The Biden-era law also allowed wealthier households to get assistance.

ACA coverage essentially doubled, from just over 11 million Americans in 2021 to more than 22 million in 2025, according to the HHS report.

Republicans and conservative groups argue that the growth wasn’t driven only by people newly enrolling because of lower premiums. Instead, they say, the enhanced subsidies, along with other Biden-era policies — including easing income verification requirements for some enrollees — invited fraud. Unscrupulous, commission-seeking insurance brokers found it easier to sign people up for coverage, often without their knowledge, while ordinary consumers could more easily fudge their income and qualify for the largest subsidy possible.

The conservative Paragon Health Institute’s president, Brian Blase, wrote that the HHS report’s conclusion on the scope of improper enrollment is likely an undercount. He remains unconvinced by the arguments that rising premiums are to blame for the sharp drop in ACA enrollment, saying subsidies remain generous for many people.

The Administration’s Current Targets

The debate will continue as more enrollment data emerges from the federal marketplace and the exchanges run by states. Some policy experts — including the consulting group Wakely — expect the year to end with the number of ACA policyholders down by .

Trump’s regulators will likely connect further drops with anti-fraud efforts. The HHS report alleges there are potentially millions more who remain improperly enrolled. The report’s authors noted that some of the administration’s anti-fraud proposals have been blocked by court rulings.

HHS released June 27, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pats Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, on the back for the number of canceled ACA plans so far. Oz threatens potential ACA hucksters: “Don’t walk away from us, run! Because we are going to find you.”

In an email responding to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ questions, CMS spokesperson Christopher Krepich said his agency this summer will block ACA applications made by brokers that lack a Social Security number. By open enrollment this fall, CMS plans to require more identify-proofing when brokers enroll people and will limit a broker’s access to accounts until that person “has been authorized by the consumer to work on their behalf.”

How some suspicious enrollments will be removed is spelled out in emails sent in June to insurance carriers and obtained by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

CMS told insurers that the agency will send them files for ACA accounts it believes are potentially unauthorized. Each flagged consumer account will have used a sales broker to enroll, be in a zero-premium plan, and lack a Social Security or an immigration documentation number — which Kennedy said in the video is a glaring sign of fraud.

Insurers must try to contact the enrollees to verify that they signed up for coverage. After 60 days, insurers must report policies they were unable to verify to CMS, which will cancel them.

Krepich wrote that carriers are cooperating with efforts to investigate accounts with missing or unverified information.

Policy experts, including Fiedler, note that the absence of a Social Security number doesn’t automatically prove fraud. While it could indicate a fake enrollee, a missing Social Security number might also be a simple oversight by the consumer or their broker, for example, or a newborn added to a parent’s account at birth, before they’ve received a number.

“That the administration put it in a report and did not summarily terminate these enrollments suggests they believe there is some mix of different circumstances,” Fiedler said.

The administration report singles out another segment of enrollments as suspicious: very low-income, subsidy-eligible people who shifted to plans that carry no monthly premium, suggesting “fraudulent agents and brokers are moving them to keep gaining commissions and avoid detection.” The report also cites ACA enrollees who file no medical claims as suspicious.

Policy experts question the assumptions behind those concerns.

Younger or lower-income people use healthcare less often, for example, which can explain why they may make no claims — particularly when they must first spend thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to meet high deductibles.

And very low-income people may switch to plans with higher deductibles in exchange for making no premium payment because they struggle to come up with the $50 or $80 monthly share that other plans might require.

“People are hurting for money,” said Florida insurance agent Jason Fine. “I literally have people who can’t afford to pay $15. I would not immediately assume that a person who went from a silver plan to a bronze plan, that it’s fraud,” referring to two types of ACA plans.

Fine said the administration needs to focus on better enforcement of existing rules, saying he has reported to regulators dozens of unscrupulous agents who have switched clients without authorization, yet none were barred from selling ACA policies.

He and other agents continue to push for adding multifactor identification, as banks and other financial institutions use, to the federal ACA marketplace. Some states that run their own exchanges have two-factor authentication or other types of ID verification and have not reported problems with unauthorized switching.

CMS — under both Biden and Trump — has not added two-factor authentication to the federal marketplace, healthcare.gov.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) to require it in June, but its prospects are murky.

“It will help reduce fraud,” said Ronnell Nolan, who leads Health Agents for America, a lobbying group that has long urged CMS to add the feature. Grothman’s legislation, she said, might “encourage CMS to do it themselves.”

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

Time is precious for him. Last year, doctors told the 76-year-old former truck driver that a combination of heart failure, lung disease, and liver damage had left him with only six months to live. “That was about 11 months ago,” Vantrease said in a May interview, smiling at having, for the moment, cheated death.

In June 2025, Vantrease began hospice, which focuses on quality of life for terminally ill patients, receiving regular visits from a nurse in his home in Novato, California. Medicare is covering those services for him. His hospice caregivers reminded him of the attention his unit received from medical staff in Vietnam.

“We used to call them guardian angels,” he said, “because they took such great care of you.”

But the Trump administration’s allegations of unchecked hospice fraud in California have tainted the industry’s reputation, prompting concerns that fewer patients will seek the care they need. Health policy researchers and hospice administrators worry that the negative attention on the industry and potential for overly punitive regulations could put California patients and taxpayers on the losing end.

“The fraud situation has done a lot of damage to the reputation of hospices overall and undone a lot of the progress that had been made in destigmatizing hospice,” said Lauren Hunt, an associate professor at the University of California-San Francisco’s Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies who focuses on hospice care. “Policymakers should pursue targeted strategies that root out fraud and abuse without overburdening the many providers who are doing the right thing.”

Hospice care is facing sweeping restrictions. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in May announced a six-month national moratorium on hospice provider enrollment in Medicare and increased oversight in California and several other states with “elevated fraud risk”: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas.

In a statement, CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said state inaction on hospice programs rife with fraud drove the need for federal intervention. Foster said CMS believes the crackdown won’t affect patients’ ability to obtain services, with roughly 7,000 hospices still approved nationwide, and that it will help ensure the hospices that remain provide the care “individuals near end of life deserve.”

“Ensuring patient safety and access to quality hospices and other certified healthcare services is paramount to CMS’ work,” Foster said.

Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, has said also protects taxpayer money. that even as for-profit hospices have expanded, the industry has saved Medicare money by offsetting other expensive care. A 2023 University of Chicago report commissioned by industry associations estimated that Medicare patients who used hospice over hospitals in 2019 .

California has already been cracking down on the problems, with Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta deeming hospice fraud an “” last year and asserting that The state has had its own since 2021, with crimes over the years, and implemented to curb fraud this June.

Hunt said she’s heard from California healthcare providers who are reluctant to refer patients to hospice because they’re unsure the patients will receive high-quality care and from patients who don’t know which hospice providers they can trust. California hospice organizations of any state — as of 2022, according to the California state auditor’s office. That same year, CMS nationwide.

Hospice administrators in good standing have already found themselves in the crosshairs: A found that the federal government’s new anti-fraud task force has already suspended licenses for 43 legitimate hospices.

Still, Hunt and other policy researchers welcome the efforts to target unscrupulous operators.

“While most hospices are committed to providing high-quality care, there are serious concerns about a subset that exploit patients and the system for financial gain,” she said.

The hospice industry is uniquely vulnerable to fraud because of insufficient licensing regulations and inadequate oversight, according to industry researchers. And the percentage of the population aging into Medicare is rapidly rising, with spending expected to accelerate in the next 10 years.

Most of the rapid growth in operators has been among for-profit hospices, a state auditor’s report in 2022 noted. In California, about 94% of hospice providers are now for-profit, a shift from 20 years ago, when nonprofits in California and nationally. On average, for-profit operators per patient in pretax profit and $49 more per patient-day than nonprofit hospice operators, according to one study.

Skelly Wingard, CEO of By the Bay Health, a Northern California nonprofit that provides services to Vantrease, acknowledges that fraud is a big problem in the industry. “These organizations that have exploited patients were extremely savvy,” she said.

But Wingard warns against losing sight of the bigger picture.

“Hospice, when done well, is one of the most compassionate and meaningful benefits in healthcare,” she said. “We should be working to protect that, not inadvertently erode confidence in it.”

By the Bay Health has been in business for 50 years and serves around 750 hospice patients in the Bay Area. About 89% of them are covered by Medicare, 3% by California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, and the rest by commercial health plans, Wingard said.

At home in Novato, Vantrease lifts his shirt to show where a catheter was surgically implanted to drain uncomfortable fluid buildup in his abdomen. The hospital trained his wife, Paula Vantrease, a retired career counselor, to connect a suctioning device to the catheter to siphon the excess fluid. A hospice nurse from By the Bay, Blake Knier, helped her master the technique the first few times she tried it at home.

“Paula is the rock in my foundation,” Mark Vantrease said.

Knier orders all of Vantrease’s medications and rejiggers them when necessary to manage his bouts of intense nausea and pain. Every week, Knier checks the surgical incision around the catheter for infection, listens to Vantrease’s lungs, checks his blood pressure, and cleans and dresses the open wounds that sometimes form from burst blisters on his legs, a complication of the fluid buildup and weakened skin.

Knier helps usher hospice patients and their families through critical turning points. He recalled guiding one patient’s daughter through her mother’s loss of appetite.

“It’s OK if your mother isn’t eating vegetables,” he told the patient’s daughter. “Let her eat ice cream, if that’s what she wants.”

California’s emergency regulations against fraud took effect in late June. In addition to tighter prescreening of license applicants, they call for minimum professional qualifications for management, higher nurse-to-patient ratios, stricter rules around physical office space, and other restrictions.

Hunt said the new regulations are a step in the right direction but urged caution.

“The broader impact on the industry should be closely monitored, particularly to ensure that well-intentioned, high-quality providers are not placed under undue strain or forced to close,” she said.

Late one night last year, when Knier wasn’t available, another hospice nurse from By the Bay Health came promptly to the Vantreases’ home in response to an urgent call from Paula.

“I felt like I was about to die,” Mark Vantrease said, explaining he’d just had a premonition that he wouldn’t wake up in the morning. His sons were called to his bedside. The family needed reassurance. So a nurse arrived, examined him, and checked their father’s vitals.

By midnight, he was sleeping.

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

Overnight, a nurse aide walked into their room and saw blood splattered on the floor, walls, and ceiling, according to a grand jury transcript. Cecchetto’s face “looked twisted and smashed,” the aide testified. A Banning city police officer testified that Timaloa, 77, told him that he had punched Cecchetto twice.

“He just kept saying that Attilio was being too loud: ‘He talks too much,’” the officer said.

Cecchetto died two days later from blunt force facial trauma.

“You get placed in a facility like this to be taken care of, not to be murdered,” one of his sons, Gino Cecchetto, said in an interview. “This was completely preventable at many different points.”

Timaloa pleaded not guilty to assault. The charges were later upgraded to murder, and a judge ordered a mental health evaluation. The judge will rule as early as August on whether Timaloa is competent to stand trial.

PACS Group, the nursing home chain that owns Sunrise, denied negligence. “We strive to provide quality care to everyone we serve, and our hearts continue to go out to the Cecchetto family for their loss,” PACS spokesman Brooks Stevenson said in an email.

In nursing homes primarily occupied by impoverished people as well as posh assisted living facilities that cost upward of $10,000 a month, agitated residents have shoved, punched, bit, and kicked others. They have wielded canes, walkers, pens, a plate, a mop stick, a shoe, a belt buckle, and even the footrests of wheelchairs as weapons, federal inspection reports show.

How often these altercations take place nationwide is unknown, but an of 14 assisted living facilities in New York state led by Cornell University researchers estimated 1 in 7 residents experienced aggression within a month, including verbal, physical, or sexual acts. Their of 10 New York state nursing homes estimated 1 in 5 residents experienced an altercation in a month. Researchers have found that these assailants are to have dementia.

The diseases that cause dementia can impair brain circuits involved in impulse control and threat perception, raising the risk of aggressive behavior. Residents with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias constitute more than living in these settings, many of which include specialized units.

Often, altercations involving a resident with dementia erupt after danger signals are missed or ineffectively addressed, according to a ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ examination of court records, police reports, and state and federal inspection reports.

Since the start of 2024, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has faulted nursing homes at least 700 times for failing to protect residents from physical, sexual, or verbal abuse by other residents, CMS inspection reports show. The federal records do not include assisted living facilities, which are regulated by states.

In the first three months of this year, CMS cited nursing homes more often for resident-to-resident abuse than for any other type of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, including abuse by employees, the reports show.

Resident Clashes Are the Most Frequent Type of Nursing Home Abuse or Neglect

The federal government requires that nursing homes keep all residents free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. In the first three months of 2026, federal inspectors cited nursing homes over resident-to-resident altercations more often than other types of mistreatment.

Note: ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ analyzed inspection citations for violations of the federal requirement to keep residents free of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Only citations for actual harm or immediate jeopardy were examined. The analysis included inspection reports from January 2026 through March 2026.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services nursing home <a href=” statement of deficiencies</a>, May 2026

The long-term care industry says not every clash can be averted. Presbyterian Homes & Services, a nonprofit Christian chain of senior living facilities, said in a statement: “Caring for individuals living with advanced dementia is complex, and behaviors can change in ways that are difficult to fully predict or prevent, even with clinical interventions in place.”

Eilon Caspi, a and researcher who studies resident-on-resident altercations, said that usually there is a specific unmet need that precedes an altercation. “In the vast majority of incidents,” he said, “there are warning signs in the months, weeks, days, hours, and sometimes minutes and seconds prior.”

Fertile Battlegrounds

One about Alzheimer’s, the most common dementia disease, holds that as the brain’s networks deteriorate, the balance shifts between the prefrontal cortex, which helps govern judgment and self-control, and limbic regions including the amygdala, which helps process fear and threat responses.

As cognition clouds, people lose the ability to understand what is happening around them and to put distress into words, researchers say. Pain, infection, medication side effects, and other physical and emotional distresses through shouting, intimidating gestures, kicking, pushing, or punching. Long-term care facilities can be triggering environments, with intimate care often delivered by a changing stream of aides whom residents can’t recognize. Amid noise, close quarters, and rigid routines, interactions become flash points.

“You don’t feel safe, because you don’t know these strangers who are coming in and taking off your clothes,” said Al Power, a geriatrician and an advocate for alternative models of care for people with cognitive issues. “These things will be distressing to anybody.”

The Cornell researchers found verbal altercations were the most common type of aggressive interaction but estimated 4% of assisted living residents and 5% of nursing home residents in their studies experienced physical assaults in a month.

Another Cornell study found that Connecticut police were called to nursing homes for more often than allegations of staff abuse, theft, and residents wandering away without supervision combined. A national analysis of survey data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calculated in assisted living facilities engaged in physical aggression or abuse toward other residents or staff members.

Many of the physical aggressions ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ identified in CMS inspection reports were perpetrated by residents with diagnoses of dementia, schizophrenia, or other cognitive disorders. In some physical altercations, both residents were aggressors, while other fights were one-sided. Sometimes the residents were roommates.

Laura Mosqueda, a geriatrician at the University of Southern California’s Keck Medicine in Los Angeles and a senior adviser to the National Center on Elder Abuse, said: “What worries me is that we just end up blaming two people who have either cognitive impairment or severe, uncontrolled mental health issues, when they’re supposed to be in an environment where people are safe.”

‘Only a Matter of Time’

Gladys Lynch, a retired department store accountant, transferred into the memory care unit at Harbor Crossing in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, in September 2025. Her monthly cost was more than $10,000, according to an invoice provided by the family.

One of Lynch’s daughters, Rebecca Norton, installed web cameras in her room and often saw another resident inside. “Every day I looked at it, this woman would be walking into my mom’s room, harassing her, digging through her things, using her bathroom, yelling at her,” Norton said in an interview. She informed Harbor Crossing’s administration, and the facility said it would start locking her mother’s door.

Norton emailed a Harbor Crossing administrator a list of issues with her mother’s care. “My biggest concern,” she wrote, was that her mother’s door was not consistently locked and the webcam showed the woman had again entered, rummaged through the bathroom, and taken a couple of adult diapers.

Unknown to Norton, Harbor aides had raised concerns about the other resident, who like Lynch was new to Harbor Crossing’s memory unit, according to a . Diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, severe dementia with agitation, depression, and anxiety, the woman was confused, had difficulty communicating her needs, and hit aides.

Aides repeatedly reported that the woman had “ongoing aggression, entered other residents’ apartments, invaded others’ personal space, and was difficult to redirect,” the health report said. They said medications had been ineffective and pressed for new ones. The report said one nurse told the woman’s doctor it was “only a matter of time before” she “hurts another resident.”

Captured on Camera

On the last day of September, she entered Lynch’s room and resisted leaving, the state report said. The next morning, she reappeared. Video of the incident was described in the police and state reports and reviewed by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. It shows Lynch guided the woman out and appeared to attempt to lock the door, but the woman opened it and returned once more.

The woman declared it was her house, went into Lynch’s bathroom, used the toilet, and then returned to the room Lynch was in. Lynch can be seen repeatedly pressing the alert pendant around her neck to signal nurses for help.

The video shows the woman was almost out of her apartment door when she attempted to touch an object near the door. Lynch put her hands up to block her. The woman slapped at her hands and said, “I’m going to kill you if you don’t quit it.” She pushed Lynch, who fell, her head hitting the floor and blood seeping out.

Aides arrived 13 minutes after she had initially pressed her pendant, the state report said. Lynch suffered a brain hemorrhage and fractures to her eye socket and ribs, according to the state report. She died in the hospital five days later at age 96; the medical examiner’s office declared it a homicide.

Norton said her mother was kind and pleasant and never combative. “My mom deserved better than what they gave her,” she said.

Prosecutors declined to bring charges, according to the police report. The Harbor Crossing was responsible for neglect because it was aware the woman “exhibited violent and aggressive behaviors” and yet had failed to put in place effective interventions. Harbor Crossing has requested the state reconsider its findings.

In June, Suzanne Scheller, the attorney for Lynch’s family, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Presbyterian Homes, which owns Harbor Crossing.

Presbyterian said in a statement: “We are deeply saddened by the loss of Ms. Lynch, and our thoughts remain with her family and all those impacted.” It declined to comment further on the incident or the lawsuit.

Preventive Tactics

Geriatricians, researchers, and resident advocates say long-term care homes should to reduce the risk of altercations, including closer supervision of residents at high risk, relocating them closer to nursing stations, separating residents with repeated conflicts, and adjusting roommate assignments or seating in shared spaces.

Each resident should have a care plan, and homes should train staff to be alert to a resident’s triggers and intervene quickly, dementia specialists say. Organized activities are essential to keep residents occupied and engaged. Antipsychotics and other psychotropic medications are often prescribed, but they can increase the risk of falls, strokes, and .

An aide can be assigned to watch a particularly challenging resident one-on-one, but many places lack enough staff for protracted, dedicated supervision. Some assisted living facilities will tell a resident’s family they must hire a personal aide, who can cost thousands of dollars extra each month. In extreme situations, facilities might send a resident to an emergency room for evaluation or to a psychiatric hospital, or .

Camille Russell, who served as Kansas’ long-term care ombudsman until 2024, said she observed nurses and aides were often “woefully undertrained” in basic elements of dementia care.

“We’ve gotten too far away from making decisions that are caring decisions,” Russell said. “There has to be a balance, and the balance has gotten too far to the profit side.”

A Debilitating Kick

Many physical altercations between residents result in a scratch or a bruise, but nonfatal scraps can leave permanent damage on deeply frail residents.

Linda Twiddy’s first weeks in a Chesapeake, Virginia, memory care unit in August 2024 were happy, her daughter, Barbara Howerin, said in a May interview. Twiddy, a former church secretary with vascular dementia, sang along with a visiting church choir, decorated pumpkins, and visited a cat cafe. The facility, The Vero at Chesapeake, charged Twiddy a one-time $6,825 move-in fee and monthly charges of $7,475, according to the lease.

Seven weeks after Twiddy started living there, a nurse called Howerin. She told her that her mother had been kicked in an altercation with another resident and was being sent to the hospital.

When Howerin arrived at the hospital, she was shocked by the extent of the injury. “It was like 10 inches long by 6 inches wide, the whole front of her shin,” she said. “The calf was just like dangling down.”

According to an internal facility incident report the family obtained, an aide heard Twiddy scream for help and raced over to see a male resident with dementia trying to hit Twiddy as she sat on the floor in “a pool of blood.” The report said, “Linda was screaming get him away from me, he pushed and kicked me.”

The man had prior episodes of aggression, according to documents Twiddy’s family obtained in a lawsuit they brought against The Vero in Chesapeake Circuit Court. At his previous facility, a progress note from 2023 stated, he was “becoming very aggressive in tone and actions to residents and staff.” He “grabbed another resident by the wrists and pushed her,” according to the note. He was sent to an emergency room for evaluation of agitation, according to a hospital report. It did not make clear whether he was discharged back to the facility or elsewhere.

Agitation Tied to Pain

The male resident’s medical records at The Vero said he was diagnosed with late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, agitation, and anxiety, according to his doctor’s deposition. He had chronic pain in his back and trouble sleeping. He could answer simple yes-or-no questions but had trouble providing more extensive answers and couldn’t communicate that he was in pain, she testified. His behavioral changes usually occurred when he had a urinary tract infection, the doctor said.

When he was agitated, aides could sometimes calm him by turning on the television so he could watch his beloved New England Patriots, one aide testified in a deposition. A former aide said she tried to avoid dealing with him altogether. “If you go up to him and he was agitated, he’d reach out to try to grab you,” she testified. “If he had that cane, he would swing that cane or he would punch at you.”

In a court filing, The Vero denied allegations by Twiddy’s family that it should have protected residents from him. The filing said The Vero complied with all standards of care and that any injuries Twiddy sustained “were caused by her own negligence” or acts of others.

In their investigation of the incident, Virginia regulators alleged The Vero had for the health, safety, and well-being of its residents. The inspection report said The Vero pledged to appropriately staff the memory care unit based on the number of residents and to ensure someone completed rounds at least every two hours during sleeping hours.

Twiddy underwent three surgeries at the hospital for her leg, including a skin graft, then spent a month in rehabilitation. “She was never able to walk again,” her son, Doug Twiddy, said in a May interview.

The family moved Linda Twiddy to a different memory care facility where the nursing station had a clear view of all the rooms. She lived there until her death earlier this year.

The lawsuit was settled on confidential terms in early June. Carlton Bennett, the family’s attorney, declined to comment. In an email, Lauren Rogers, a spokesperson for Sinceri Senior Living, which operates The Vero, said the company was pleased the legal case had been resolved but could not comment further, citing confidentiality and patient privacy.

“The Vero at Chesapeake is committed to providing a caring, supportive environment where resident health, safety, and well-being remain our highest priorities,” she said.

A History of Violence

After Attilio Cecchetto was fatally bludgeoned at Sunrise Post Acute, his adult children and their attorney, Jody Moore, discovered disturbing details about Sam Ato Timaloa. He had been imprisoned in 1999 after being convicted of raping an underage girl and sentenced in 2008 to 24 years in prison for attempted murder involving domestic violence, according to Riverside County court records. His public defender declined to comment.

Cecchetto’s sons, Moore, and her colleagues at Moore Hutchins Moore also learned more about the home’s owner, PACS Group, a publicly traded company with more than 300 long-term care facilities. Last year, PACS earned $191 million on revenue of $5.3 billion, according to its .

In the Cecchettos and their father’s widow filed against PACS, they accused the company’s founders, Jason Murray and Mark Hancock, of draining resources from their nursing homes to pay for the chain’s expansion and swell their personal wealth.

The two had earned more than $650 million through stock sales since taking the company public and bought two private luxury jets, according to the lawsuit and securities filings. PACS has also purchased corporate sponsorships for Utah sports teams even though it owns no nursing homes in the state, the lawsuit said.

California regulators fined Sunrise $120,000 for Cecchetto and for not taking Timaloa’s articulated dislike of noise into account when assigning rooms. Medicare issued its own $62,810 fine.

In responding to the Cecchettos’ lawsuit, PACS denied negligence for his death and alleged he “failed to exercise ordinary care on his own behalf for his own safety.” It has sued to overturn the $120,000 state fine, saying it was issued too late and that Sunrise “did what might reasonably be expected of a long-term health care facility licensee acting under similar circumstances” to comply with state rules.

The Cecchettos’ lawsuit asks for a judge to impose robust procedures PACS homes must follow for admissions, staff training, room changes, and the reporting of altercations between residents. The suit asks for a court-appointed monitor to oversee compliance. In its written statement to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, PACS said “important context” would come out during the process and declined further comment.

In an interview, Cecchetto’s three sons, Dino, Gino, and Marco Cecchetto, described their father’s life. He spent his childhood on a farm in Italy, growing up under Benito Mussolini. After World War II he moved to Canada, where he learned to tile and lay marble and terrazzo, a decorative flooring material made of chips of stone, glass, or other materials embedded in cement or resin. He relocated to California in the early 1960s, became naturalized, and worked as a tile journeyman and a contractor for decades.

“We don’t want this to happen to somebody again,” Gino Cecchetto said. “With the life he led, he deserved a quiet, dignified death. Instead, he ended his life in pain and fear.”

Data Methodology

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ analysis of federal nursing home inspection reports focused on citations for violations of stating that each resident has the right to be free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

The analysis looked at the most serious levels of citations, those in which inspectors determined that one or more residents had been harmed, or that the facility’s actions caused — or were likely to place residents in immediate jeopardy of — serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. We reviewed the reports since January 2024 and tallied those that explicitly described resident-to-resident altercations.

We conducted a more granular analysis of a subset of the inspection reports from January through March 2026 involving harm or immediate jeopardy. Each report was reviewed and categorized by the type of abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

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

Her team tends to “cringe” anytime they hear about patients having to fill out lots of paperwork, like when applying for Social Security Disability payments, because it can be a difficult, burdensome process.

Thornton tries to support her patients, she said, but understands the limits of her training.

“A lot of times the forms are so complex that I don’t really know what’s the true definition of what this form is asking me,” she said. “We refer them to a disability provider.”

Doctors including Thornton worry they’ll see more of those kinds of requests because of coming changes to Medicaid, the government health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities. Starting Jan. 1 in most of the country, some enrollees — mainly adults without dependents — must prove they’re working or performing other qualifying activities 80 hours a month.

issued in June say people can obtain an exemption if they’re “medically frail,” or too sick or disabled to work, which may require them to submit documentation from a medical professional. That standard prompted a lawsuit at the end of June from dozens of mostly Democratic-led states and has Thornton worried it could force her and her staff to assess things like how much a patient can lift or how far they can walk.

“If I’m asked, ‘Is this person medically frail?’ What does that even mean?” Thornton said. “I don’t know, and I’ve been doing this for 25 years.”

Last year’s GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act established the work rule, which will affect an estimated when more states start enforcing it. The mandate is expected to cause a larger increase in the number of people without health insurance than any other part of the law, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

Doctors say they aren’t trained to accurately assess whether someone’s health keeps them from working. Many don’t have time to handle another administrative task that takes them away from patient care. And being involved in whether someone gains access to a public benefit undermines the doctor-patient relationship, several doctor groups and physicians said.

“When you introduce unnecessary, non-evidence-based, confusing, and bureaucratic policies like this into clinical care, it just raises the level of moral distress for providers,” said Christopher Chen, a senior healthcare adviser at the consulting firm Manatt.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declined to respond on the record about doctors’ concerns. But the agency confirmed that enrollees may need to get documentation from a clinician to prove they’re too sick to work and said states would make final determinations.

The Trump administration has previously said states should use available data sources — such as medical claims and payment data — before making patients submit proof of medical frailty from a provider.

“Documentation should be relatively easy to provide,” Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said during a June 1 press call.

But deciding whether a patient is too sick to work is a subjective, high-stakes decision, said Chen, who also practices as a hospitalist at Valley Medical Center in Renton, Washington.

“We’re trained to take care of people,” he said. “We’re trained to learn about someone’s symptoms, make diagnoses, treat them. We’re not trained to make these kinds of work determinations.”

When they apply and every six months after, Medicaid enrollees subject to the rule will have to prove that they’re performing the minimum monthly hours of qualifying activities — or will likely have to prove as frequently that they qualify for an exemption.

If states can’t find sufficient evidence that someone is too sick to work, that person will be able to self-attest to it under penalty of perjury — but only for a short time. States may take someone’s word that they’re medically frail twice in 2027 and only once in 2028.

Last month, 25 mostly Democratic-led states over the final regulations, arguing the medical frailty standard would be too hard for enrollees to meet — and for states to assess.

The standard, they argue, requires state Medicaid agencies to “take on the role of occupational medicine experts” or adds that burden to physicians who are not necessarily trained in occupational medicine.

CMS declined to comment on the litigation.

The Trump administration has crusaded against fraud in government health programs including Medicaid. It recently — including medical professionals — over more than $6.5 billion in alleged fraud schemes.

CMS has said it will keep a close watch on how states administer the work requirements and may take corrective action if states step out of line.

That has doctors concerned about the potential repercussions if they incorrectly assess whether someone is too sick to work, as farfetched as those worries might be, said Rahul Vanjani, a primary care and addiction medicine physician and researcher at Brown University.

“We, using our imaginations, wonder if someone is auditing these forms in the background and if they’re going to reach out to the licensing board.”

The country is short of primary care providers, and it could be hard for people seeking an exemption to find a clinician to help them document that they’re too sick to work, doctors said.

It will be even more challenging for someone without insurance, said Jennifer Wagner, who researches Medicaid eligibility at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“How could an applicant who doesn’t have health coverage get a doctor’s note?” she asked.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest professional association of doctors and medical students, lobbied federal officials to change the standard for documenting medical frailty in the days before the final regulations were made public.

In May, the AMA sent to Oz, the CMS administrator, arguing that forcing doctors to attest to their patients’ ability to work wouldn’t just be an administrative headache but would affect the way they interact with those in their care.

In a statement, the association’s president, Willie Underwood III, said the work rule “transforms the clinical encounter into an eligibility gatekeeping process.”

“Patients will likely sense that shift,” he said. “And if they begin to suspect that what they share with their physician could affect their coverage, the conditions for open and honest communication will start to break down.”

Doctors have a fixed amount of time to spend with patients and would rather focus on treating medical conditions than filling out forms, especially ones that put them in a position to “represent the state,” said John Ayanian, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Michigan.

“Their first obligation is to serve the best interest of their patients,” Ayanian said.

Lauren Davis, an attorney with Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, helps clients navigate other public benefit programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which has a similar work rule. Enrollees can get an exemption from it if they’re too sick to work.

She recalled a client with a cognitive condition that affected her memory. The client’s doctor wasn’t comfortable filling out an exemption form without seeing her in person, but she kept forgetting to make an appointment and eventually gave up, said Davis, who worries Medicaid enrollees could face similar barriers to getting exemptions.

“This person is eligible,” Davis said. “The reason that they’re not able to get what they need to show that they’re eligible is because of their medical condition.”

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 .

California lawmakers an expired law that would require the state to identify companies that employ 100 or more people and have employees enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. Nevada has had a similar law in place since 2017, though a proposal for one in Oregon stalled when its legislative session ended in March.

The California bill author, Democratic state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, said she is deeply troubled by what is going to happen when work requirements kick in. According to the state, out of more than on Medi-Cal will be subject to the rule.

“We think this is a bill that’s about fairness,” Smallwood-Cuevas said. “It’s a basic principle that taxpayers deserve transparency about which large employers are shifting their healthcare costs onto the public.”

Large employers that regularly top Nevada’s list, such as Walmart and Amazon, have said that the state included part-time and seasonal workers in their counts and that their full-time hourly employees to qualify for Medicaid.

Walmart spokesperson Katrina Proffitt said that the company offers affordable medical coverage to most employees, including eligible part-time workers, and that most of its plans include no-cost virtual care options.

“Healthcare affordability and access to quality care remain real barriers for many Americans, and Walmart continues to be committed to being part of the solution,” Proffitt said.

The push to name and shame companies reflects dueling narratives about the biggest abusers of the joint state-federal Medicaid program, which reached nearly in government spending in 2024. The Trump administration, led by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, has called out blue states for not doing enough to fight insurer fraud and abuse. State Democratic leaders, meanwhile, are pushing back by calling attention to big employers that don’t offer affordable health benefits, which leaves taxpayers subsidizing healthcare costs for the low-wage workforce.

Some states have considered financial penalties. Democratic New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a bill in June that have at least 50 Medicaid-enrolled employees. Companies with 50 to 249 workers on Medicaid per person, and those with at least 500 will pay $725.

Bills that would have penalized companies with workers enrolled in Medicaid failed in this year.

In Sacramento, California, Democrats want to figure out a way to make large businesses pay for their employees’ health coverage. State lawmakers struck a deal with Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is contemplating a presidential bid as he wraps up his final year in the governor’s office, to explore tax options. Any tax hike would be up to the new governor.

States face of dollars under HR 1, the GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, notably through that requires nondisabled Medicaid enrollees ages 19 to 64 in most states to prove they are working, volunteering, or going to school at least 80 hours a month to keep their coverage.

Yet federal work requirements are projected to increase the number of uninsured people nationwide by more than 5 million by 2034, according to the . Nebraska and Montana have begun enforcing the rule.

One health policy researcher said employer Medicaid reports highlight the lack of affordable healthcare options available to low-wage workers. More than half of adults enrolled in Medicaid who don’t have dependent children already meet the 80-hour-a-month requirement or face challenges that would likely qualify them for an exemption, .

“There’s a whole set of people who are working — they may not satisfy the work requirement provisions, they may not get the exemption that they’re qualified for, and they don’t have access to that employer-sponsored insurance either,” said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University.

Employers Push Back

While employer lists haven’t succeeded in bringing down Medicaid costs, supporters say measuring the burden can be the first step and help lawmakers make the case for further action.

In Nevada, Amazon has employed more Medicaid enrollees than any other company since 2020, according to the state’s report . For state fiscal year 2025, Walmart, the Clark County School District, the state government, and Tesla rounded out the top five.

Employers that the reports are misleading because they have included part-time and seasonal employees. The state’s includes only full-time employees, plus those who could not be confirmed as either full- or part-time employees.

That came to 4,914 Amazon employees and 3,503 Walmart workers in Nevada on Medicaid in 2025.

There are no penalties for companies on the list.

Amazon said it pays its workers more than double the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage and noted that Medicaid eligibility is based on household income and size rather than an individual’s wage. That means two employees who earn the same pay may have different eligibility depending on whether they have children or live with parents.

“Pointing fingers at Amazon over Medicaid is a red herring,” said spokesperson Alisa Carroll. “What really needs to happen is a significant and large increase in the federal minimum wage — that would be a big boost for American families.”

Nevada Medicaid spent nearly $950 million on healthcare for more than 133,000 full-time employees and more than 140,000 of their dependents. While the total amount spent dipped in fiscal year 2025, the average cost per member per year increased by nearly 17%.

Yvanna Cancela, a former Nevada lawmaker who sponsored the legislation on Medicaid work reports, said the annual reports force an important conversation “about whether or not this is the kind of economy we want and whether or not it is right or just that people who work full-time don’t make enough to have health insurance.”

A Fraying Safety Net

Health researchers say that uninsured people delay or skip and that their children may end up losing coverage, too.

One analysis found that more than were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program this April than in January 2025. California is among the states with the among children.

The loss in healthcare coverage among residents will be compounded by the loss of public food assistance benefits, Smallwood-Cuevas said. is pending in the legislature.

She compared Medi-Cal to a trampoline that has become a “very tattered kind of fishnet” overwhelmed by people falling into it. President Donald Trump’s spending-and-tax law pulls and rips at the safety net, she said.

When people lose food assistance and health benefits, they must choose between paying for medicine and paying for rent, Smallwood-Cuevas said.

“We’re going to see more people in their cars, more people on the street, and a lot more people in the emergency room,” she said. “That is dangerous for all of California.”

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

The Republican blasted California during back-to-back political attacks in May, saying the heavily Democratic state is committing “outrageous fraud” and “stealing” by spending state and federal Medicaid money meant for basic medical treatment on unconventional services such as housing and nutrition assistance, gym memberships, and even tribal prayers and, he claimed, exorcisms.

“The California Medicaid program will pay for herbal medicines, meal deliveries. They’ll pay for housing,” Kennedy said. “I don’t know what housing has to do with healthcare.”

“California, they’re just setting all kind of records,” he added. “They’re wild people.”

Despite criticism from congressional Republicans and growing scrutiny from the Trump administration, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat considering a presidential run, said he’s proud of California’s spending on social services in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. It’s a multibillion-dollar experiment to help medically frail patients meet their housing, food, and other social needs that Newsom says is not only legal but also a more cost-effective and evidence-backed approach to providing healthcare for Californians with complex health conditions. He counters that investing in services outside clinical settings can help people avoid emergency rooms and hospital admissions, improve their long-term health, and ultimately save taxpayers money.

“It’s about whole-person care,” Newsom said, adding that he hopes President Donald Trump’s administration sees California’s leadership and agrees with the “reforms we’re advancing as national best practices.”

Now one of the governor’s marquee health initiatives is at the center of an intensifying partisan battle with Republicans in Washington, D.C., who have moved to rein in billions in healthcare spending on low-income and disabled people across red and blue states. It’s a philosophical divide: Conservatives say social services are a financial strain on Medicaid and shouldn’t be considered healthcare, while liberals argue that investing in prevention ultimately saves money. While experiments proliferated across the country under President Joe Biden, the Trump administration federal policy encouraging state Medicaid programs to address health-related social needs.

The Medicaid fight is putting patients in limbo.

Lucy Rodriguez teaches Mexican folk dancing in the town of Hollister, in California’s Central Coast region. She said her life turned around this year once an intensive case manager with Titanium Healthcare, which contracts with health insurers to provide services, began helping her manage her chronic diseases and stay on top of her medical appointments and prescriptions, even picking up free food boxes for her. The 73-year-old is on Medicare and Medi-Cal, which offers more extensive benefits. The low-income health program has helped pay her utility bills, and she was recently approved for home-delivered meals.

“This has been a godsend,” said Rodriguez, who has diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney disease. “I was getting so stressed out and depressed. It’s really hard when you’re on a fixed income. Groceries are so expensive, and with summer, electricity gets even more expensive. But this is really improving my life.”

She worries the Trump administration will cut benefits to low-income older people.

Last year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services warned states that federal funding for social services would be determined on a . CMS spokesperson Christopher Krepich said the agency is not ending current agreements, known as waivers, that grant states temporary permission to provide social services, which are paid for with state and federal dollars. But future applications, for new services or to extend existing initiatives, could be at risk if they veer too far from traditional healthcare.

“Moving forward, CMS will work with states on innovative waivers that address core healthcare needs, as consistent with evidence-based approaches tied to clinical diagnoses and services, to the goal of ultimately improving health outcomes in the Medicaid population,” Krepich said in a statement.

In a further escalation, the Justice Department put out a allowing states to institutionalize people with disabilities and severe mental illness instead of providing community-based care. Republicans have also targeted states, mostly blue ones, for what they say is a failure to go after waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid. In May, CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz stood alongside JD Vance as the vice president announced the deferral of in Medicaid money to California over suspicions of fraud.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Republicans are simply trying to score political points while ignoring the healthcare needs of poor people. “The federal government wants to politicize fraud,” Bonta said, “and use it, unfortunately, as a bludgeon and a cajole to beat up on blue states.”

Social Healthcare

Health policy researchers say roughly are linked to socioeconomic, environmental, and behavioral factors, such as housing instability, homelessness, food insecurity, and exposure to violence, whereas 20% is associated with medical care delivered in hospitals and clinics. That evidence to tackle social services.

At least 24 states use their own money while drawing federal Medicaid funds for . Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Pennsylvania are among those that provide housing and nutrition assistance.

As the Trump administration pulls back on social services, states are rethinking how to fund benefits that have improved preventive care for low-income people. Some have launched new benefits under what’s known as a state plan amendment, a mechanism states use to modify their Medicaid programs that doesn’t need federal waiver approval. and , for example, use this to add recuperative care for homeless patients after hospitalization. These short-term care facilities offer people the opportunity to recover, bridging the gap between hospital discharge and independent living.

This approach “has the advantage of establishing a permanent, statewide benefit that does not require ongoing federal renewals, offering greater stability and predictability,” said Lynn Sutfin, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

Other states, meanwhile, rely on federal waivers, which require renewal to provide social services. Arizona officials said the state intends to submit a request by the end of September to continue to provide housing and other services to homeless patients, or those at risk of homelessness, with a serious mental illness and a chronic health condition or recent incarceration.

“When members have access to stable housing and supportive services, they are more likely to engage in ongoing care and less likely to experience avoidable emergency department visits and inpatient admissions,” said Roberta Harrison, interim director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.

California, which has been the most aggressive state in adopting social services, has taken a two-pronged approach to keep its vast offerings funded past this year. The state is using its authority to make most of its existing social services and benefits permanent in Medi-Cal managed-care coverage. That regulatory maneuver bypasses federal waiver approval — a move that could attract further Republican scrutiny.

But not everything the state offers can be funded without permission from the federal government. As some services are made permanent, the Newsom administration is seeking new waivers to continue other social services, while also adding more.

It’s an ambitious approach that would expand California’s social healthcare experiment. Newsom said he’s worried that the federal government will decline the . “How could you not be with this administration?” he said. “I’m always concerned.”

New Front in Healthcare

California offers most of its health-related social services under within Medi-Cal, which has a proposed budget of . Although there are more than 14 million residents on Medi-Cal, the state has been selective about who gets help from in its program, called California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal, or . Patients with complex needs can also receive help navigating their health and social needs from specialized social workers under a benefit known as .

Since 2022, California has been offering social services, spending nearly $12 billion in joint state and federal money, long-term Medi-Cal spending by keeping enrollees out of costly institutions including emergency rooms, jails, nursing homes, and mental health crisis centers.

CalAIM had provided social services to more than patients as of September 2025, the most recent state data available. And nearly low-income Californians have received intensive . Some patients receive both services.

Among the services California is making permanent: Homeless patients can get help finding an apartment, with Medi-Cal paying rental and six months of rent. Patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease are eligible for home-delivered meals. Asthmatic patients can get mold removed from their homes to control flare-ups. Low-income seniors with disabilities can get a wheelchair ramp installed free of charge. And inmates leaving jail or prison can be connected immediately with primary care, mental health, and substance use treatment.

The social services — especially housing, food assistance, and home modifications — are success in stabilizing the health of the most complex patients, while achieving savings for Medi-Cal through reductions in emergency room visits and hospitalizations and less reliance on institutional care such as nursing homes, the state Department of Health Care Services.

In the Central Valley, for instance, Health Plan of San Joaquin CEO Lizeth Granados said CalAIM has helped place homeless patients who were routinely hospitalized into housing. And patients with uncontrolled diabetes saw their blood sugar drop after receiving nutrition counseling and home-delivered meals.

Overall, Granados said, the health plan has seen major improvements in chronic disease management and reductions in hospital stays, dropping to 44 inpatient hospitalizations per 1,000 members since it launched in 2022, down from 61 per 1,000 before CalAIM.

In Orange County, officials with CalOptima Health credited CalAIM housing services for contributing to a nearly . “We’ve been able to expand our street medicine programs, too,” said Yunkyung Kim, the insurer’s chief operating officer.

Around the state, Medi-Cal health insurers said they’re optimistic that CalAIM will continue to save money and improve patient health. Yet, the fate of some services will be decided by the Trump administration.

California has asked CMS to continue enrolling jail and prison inmates in Medi-Cal 90 days before their release to maintain consistent treatment for substance use, mental disorders, or physical conditions, a .

The state has also proposed a new job assistance benefit that counties could opt into to help patients find and retain work in response to upcoming federal work requirements imposed by congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by Trump last summer.

And the state wants to continue its array of traditional healers and natural helpers for Californians with tribal affiliations, including music therapy, dancing, drumming, and referrals to sweat lodges for mental health treatment and substance use recovery. While it covers spiritual services, such as ceremonies, rituals, and herbal remedies, state officials said Medi-Cal does not cover exorcisms.

Already, the Trump administration’s positioning has forced the state to eliminate room-and-board benefits, which is threatening local efforts to provide recovery beds.

The state is cutting short-term post-hospitalization housing, which was meant to prevent hospitals from or those at risk of homelessness onto the streets. The CalAIM service providing up to six months of temporary housing and ongoing care is ending at the close of this year. And the state is cutting recuperative care benefits, no longer paying for beds for patients to recover from illness or injury, instead offering only wraparound services.

In San Francisco, these beds have been crucial in reducing overdose deaths, helping transition homeless people off the streets and into housing, and reducing hospital bed usage, said Neal Sheran, a medical director with the city’s Department of Public Health. The city’s health plan operates a sobering center, and recuperative care facilities where patients can recover from hospitalizations.

“We’re concerned,” Sheran said. “Funding for the overnight piece of these programs is really crucial to their success.”

Cuts on the Horizon

Even without federal threats, state budget pressures have strained CalAIM financing. Newsom has proposed for social services by $68.3 million this fiscal year. The cut will deepen next year and remain at $150.2 million per year beginning in 2028.

Providers worry that Medi-Cal patients will lose access. And services, such as home-delivered meals and housing assistance, will be further restricted.

“It’s moving us back to the old days where our healthcare system is more expensive and reactive, instead of investing in prevention,” said Anwar Zoueihid, a vice president and the chief strategy officer at the Los Angeles-based Partners in Care Foundation, a CalAIM provider. “It’s contradictory to Make America Healthy Again.”

To save money, the state is tightening eligibility to limit services and . For instance, Medi-Cal patients with food insecurity would no longer be eligible for home-delivered healthy meals without a qualifying condition like diabetes. And a homeless patient would get capped at six months for help finding an apartment.

Some of the biggest providers of CalAIM say services should be continuously evaluated and curtailed if health plans were too permissive. In some cases, food and housing services were given to low-income patients who didn’t necessarily qualify as the highest-need.

“It’s important everybody takes a look with a very sober view at whether we’re truly benefiting people so we’re spending money in the right places,” said Charlie Robinson, the chief health equity officer at L.A. Care, one of the state’s largest Medi-Cal health insurers.

Dorothy Seleski, the Medi-Cal president for Health Net, said the health insurer isn’t deterred by state and federal cuts.

“Regardless of what happens at the federal level, we are committed,” she said. “This is a significant transformation of the healthcare system, and we are already seeing major reductions in avoidable emergency room trips, avoidable hospital admissions, and we’ve closed gaps in preventive care.”

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