The administration of President Donald Trump has used claims of widespread wrongdoing to justify investigations, suspensions of billions of dollars in payments to states, and the cancellation of Affordable Care Act health coverage for hundreds of thousands of people.

has opened a broader political fight over the extent of fraud and the administration’s response to it. Republicans say they’re safeguarding taxpayer dollars by going after bad actors. Democrats contend the administration has relied on insufficient evidence to target blue states and cut programs Republicans have long tried to shrink. Meanwhile, Trump’s pardons of executives convicted of healthcare fraud, administration moves to weaken some protections against abuses, and a high-profile error by Trump regulators stand in contrast with the administration’s proclaimed fraud-fighting goals.

The dispute is becoming a talking point for both parties leading up to the November election.

Republican candidates are trying to win voters’ confidence by emphasizing their efforts to halt what they say is the misuse of taxpayer dollars in federal health programs.

“Going after fraud gives Republicans a healthcare message when they would otherwise just be defending cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. The approach, he said, helps “blunt” those attacks.

Democrats, however, traditionally have an advantage on healthcare in general, with are with such issues. Now Democrats are portraying Republicans’ fraud crackdown as a cover for the GOP’s weakening of safety net programs. But the GOP messaging could resonate at the ballot box.

About 44% of voters — and 54% of Republican voters — say fraud in government programs is “extremely important” for candidates to talk about, conducted in mid-September, suggesting the fraud focus might be connecting with the GOP base. Such fraud is also the top issue rural Republican voters want candidates to talk about, based on a by KFF and the Associated Press.

It’s an issue that is hardly new, and government watchdogs have repeatedly documented fraud by health providers and brokers, as well as improper enrollment in government health programs. A report by the in March warned that the “sheer amount of payments in the Medicare program creates significant fraud risks.” And in a , GAO investigators were able to get subsidized insurance for fake ACA enrollees.

What has changed is the prominence the issue now occupies in national politics.

Administration’s Fraud Targets

Trump administration authorities have this year charged hundreds of people, , in alleged billing schemes. It has announced and increased scrutiny of enrollment in federal programs, withholding in federal Medicaid payments over claims of lax oversight — with what Democrats say is a laser focus on blue states despite a lack of evidence.

The administration’s more expansive claims about fraud — and the actions it has taken in response — have generated fierce political clashes.

Most recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services canceled ACA enrollments covering 760,000 people. While Democrats have questioned the methods that found them to be fraudulent, federal officials said they included nonexistent consumers whose applications were submitted by brokers or agents who can earn commissions from insurers.

CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz that the cancellations included people who had coverage through the ACA but hadn’t used it. He also said some had no Social Security numbers, calling that evidence of problems.

“About 35% of current people on the Obamacare system — 35%, more than a third — had never used the program. They haven’t bought a prescription medication. They haven’t seen a doctor. That just is not possible,” Oz said. “So we know there is fraud.”

Democrats and some health policy analysts challenge that conclusion. They say that younger and healthier people are much less likely to use their insurance and that not using their coverage doesn’t mean they were improperly enrolled. Critics also say the absence of Social Security numbers doesn’t necessarily establish fraud; for example, newborns can be added to their parents’ plans before receiving a number.

“This is yet another attempt by the Trump administration to kick hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans off their healthcare,” on the social media site X. “Millions are already struggling to access healthcare—and this is their plan?”

There are political risks for the GOP as well. The disenrollment of alleged phantom accounts is likely to ensnare legitimate consumers, say health analysts and ACA advocates, leading to a potential backlash against Republicans if scores of people lose coverage just before the midterm elections.

States that tend to deliver for GOP candidates will be hit especially hard, they say, because ACA enrollees are concentrated in those states. The 4.5 million people in Florida and 4.1 million in Texas who have marketplace coverage account for nearly 40% of the country’s ACA enrollment, according to .

Conservative health policy advisers say the administration took multiple steps to avoid canceling legitimate coverage, including attempts to contact consumers and requirements that additional criteria be met before coverage was terminated.

“Those criticizing the action either don’t understand it or see some political advantage in mischaracterizing it,” said Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute and a former Trump health policy adviser.

Democrats, meanwhile, highlight inconsistencies in the administration’s broader anti-fraud campaign.

They note that the Department of Health and Human Services last year of insurance brokers and agents who had been suspended in 2024 by the Biden administration for suspected fraud or abuse. The Trump administration also laid off from involved in regional oversight of the ACA marketplace.

On Oct. 3, to pass legislation with mandatory prison terms for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid, eliminating probation as an option.

But Trump has also pardoned health industry executives convicted of major fraud schemes, including people who are connected to his political allies or who spent heavily on lobbying on their behalf. The pardons included a sentenced to three years in prison for a nearly $40 million tax scheme and, in Trump’s first term, convicted for Medicaid fraud.

Trump’s pardons in 2021 of executives who profited from massive public healthcare fraud spurred criticism from the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association. Critics now say the administration is portraying cuts to Medicare and Medicaid as necessary for weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse while exonerating criminals who have engaged in some of the biggest schemes in federal health programs.

Blue State Allegations

HHS has raised concerns about Medicaid fraud and program integrity in several states, and the administration has deferred or threatened to cut federal Medicaid funding while disputes are investigated.

Democrats say the administration is itself engaging in fraud by using unsubstantiated allegations of abuse to politically target blue states.

One of the most striking clashes occurred in New York.

Federal officials launched an investigation of the state’s Medicaid program after claiming that personal care services — including help with bathing, dressing, and meal preparation — had been provided to more than 5 million people, which would have amounted to roughly three-quarters of the state’s Medicaid population — an almost impossibly large proportion.

“It is time for New York to come clean about its Medicaid program,” CMS’ Oz .

CMS its calculations were wrong. The agency said that it had misunderstood the state’s billing codes and that the actual number of beneficiaries who received the services was closer to 450,000. The administration continued its scrutiny of the New York program, however, and later suspended millions of dollars in federal funding for the state’s Medicaid fraud unit, wasn’t producing enough indictments.

The administration also withheld about from California, citing concerns about program integrity and oversight of some home medical services. State officials deny the allegations, saying has grown because of factors such as higher wages for home health aides and an increase the number of older people receiving care.

The White House announced plans to in federal funds from Minnesota, claiming the state had failed to protect its Medicaid program from abuse. State officials have and gone to court to challenge the decision.

Vice President JD Vance, who chairs Trump’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, and other administration officials announced the state deferrals at the White House, giving what traditionally would have been technical disputes between state and federal health officials a much higher political profile. Vance’s office did not respond to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ questions about the administration’s anti-fraud activities related to healthcare.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” said , a Georgetown University research professor and a senior adviser at CMS during the Obama administration. “It’s a deferral, not a finding of fraud. This is being elevated by political decision-makers.”

Republican candidates have pounced on the investigations and allegations. In Minnesota, Republican gubernatorial candidate , who is speaker of the Minnesota House, released claiming that her Democratic opponent, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, “has never done anything to stop the fraud here in Minnesota.” Klobuchar has said that as governor she would “launch a top-to-bottom audit of state government to root out fraud.”

In New York, , a Democrat whose office runs the Medicaid fraud unit, criticized the decision to withhold funds and said weakening the operation would benefit criminals. Her Republican challenger in the November election, , has cited the Trump administration’s claims , telling Fox News Digital that James is “totally failing to prosecute Medicaid fraud.”

The administration says its actions are necessary because fraud diverts taxpayer money from people who legitimately qualify for government programs.

“The fraud doesn’t just steal money — it steals our trust,” Oz said in August on .

Democrats and healthcare advocates say the White House’s anti-fraud crusade is being used by Republicans to distract from criticisms over its to Medicaid, the ACA, and other federal health programs.

Republican-backed legislation enacted last year is projected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade.

Congressional Republicans also declined to extend enhanced ACA premium subsidies that expired , increasing premium costs for many people who buy insurance through the marketplaces. Enrollment has since declined by millions.

Overall, the combined effect of GOP-led changes will result in more uninsured people by 2034, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

Those changes have given Democrats an opening to campaign on protecting healthcare coverage and affordability while Republicans seek to shift some of the debate toward fraud and government spending.

“It’s really a way to distract and reframe the cuts in a different way, to say it’s part of an anti-fraud effort,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group focused on expanding health coverage. “Fighting fraud shouldn’t result in people losing coverage.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How It Played Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Smaller Patient Pool

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

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

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

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

But people outside the administration have been vocal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As that campaign has unfolded, administration officials have granted tech companies an unusual opportunity to nudge the nation’s health department toward a loosely regulated future for AI health apps in which the government reimburses them for services as it does medical professionals.

In February, federal health officials invited those businesses — including tech giants Microsoft, Anthropic, OpenAI, Apple, and Google — to a listening session on conversational AI products for patients, such as chatbots. Representatives from at least 35 industry organizations attended the meeting held by the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating health apps as medical devices. Companies were prompted in advance to explain their AI products and how they access patients’ sensitive medical information.

But the meeting did not appear on the FDA’s public calendar or regulatory notices, nor was the public invited. Rather, the invitation for a select group to help shape federal policy governing AI in healthcare was extended in a chat room on the messaging service Slack.

“This is a great opportunity to support HHS’ goals and share your state-of-the-art understanding of safe Conversational AI development and monitoring to help FDA shape future guidance,” CMS senior policy adviser Morgan Taylor wrote in the Slack workspace.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has not formally announced the chat room through federal regulatory channels, though CMS officials have talked about it at industry conferences. Legal experts said the chat room resembles a federal advisory panel, which would be required to operate in public view.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ reviewed thousands of Slack messages, meeting transcripts, and video recordings that reveal how the Trump administration has granted the industry a direct line to top government officials — including former head of the Department of Government Efficiency .

The conversation took place behind the scenes as federal health officials publicly worked to integrate AI and other technology into nearly every aspect of healthcare, a plan they’ve branded the “.”

“We wanted to give industry a chance to play in the sandbox of government-supported healthcare,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz at the public launch of an initiative that allows health apps to bill Medicare for AI services such as wearable device tracking. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered an enthusiastic endorsement of AI in healthcare, claiming it is “much better informed than any doctor in the country.”

Meanwhile, HHS staff even promised that a recently launched would serve as a lucrative pipeline for those businesses to get new users. The library’s webpage currently promotes only two dozen commercial apps to millions of American seniors and those with disabilities.

, Americans will get easier access to their medical records so apps can swiftly provide health or wellness advice. In practice, however, so will the tech companies.

Doctors, meanwhile, are increasingly worried about how patients use and share their medical records with the nascent technology.

“Some of these tools just aren’t ready for primetime,” said John Whyte, CEO of the American Medical Association. “We don’t have enough data about them. We don’t understand how they work, how they’re using the information. There’s no liability if these tools get things wrong.”

CMS officials declined to answer several questions about the Slack workspace, including about its legality.

“CMS is focused on giving Medicare beneficiaries greater access to their health information and useful digital tools while promoting an open, interoperable healthcare system,” Gleason, now chief product officer for the newly created Office of Health Technology and Products at CMS, wrote in an emailed statement. “The Health Technology Ecosystem is an open, voluntary technical collaboration. CMS will continue working with patients, providers, payers, technology organizations, and other stakeholders to make health information more accessible and useful to the Americans it serves.”

The FDA did not respond to a request for comment.

The Conversation Begins

The behind-the-scenes effort to funnel more Americans to AI-powered health apps began in August 2025 in the Slack workspace.

“Welcome all!” Gleason wrote. “Please be sure to read the Code of Conduct and see the Channel list as well to help you find channels that are relevant to you.”

Gleason is best known as the acting administrator of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, as it to millions of Americans’ sensitive personal and financial data, including at the Social Security Administration.

As her work with DOGE wound down last year, Gleason welcomed a variety of tech leaders, investors, and entrepreneurs to the chat room.

The Slack workspace’s participants include representatives from major digital wellness companies like Oura Health, AI companies like Palantir, and investment outfits like 8VC, associated with Kennedy’s . While the Slack’s member count has ballooned to 1,700 over the past year, only a handful of patient advocates, doctors, and hospital representatives are in it.

The code of conduct Gleason shared on Slack in August 2025 documented that CMS had quietly established a technology working group.

The document also set ground rules for the Slack workspace, noting that the group does not constitute an “advisory committee,” nor would it be used “to obtain advice or recommendations for HHS, CMS, or any HHS/CMS officials.” The code also advises that federal employees “are prohibited from endorsing any product, service, or enterprise.”

Joseph Daval, a former FDA lawyer who is now a research specialist at Harvard Medical School, reviewed messages from the Slack workspace at the request of ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. He said the chat room in some ways resembles a federal advisory committee — an independent panel that can be formally stood up by an agency head, Congress, or the president to ensure agencies act in the best interest of the public rather than industry.

The law on advisory committees “was passed in part out of a concern about interest group capture, about anticompetitive capture of agency policymaking, about corruption,” he said.

Daval said the chat group looks like a committee, with members interacting with one another and building consensus on preferred courses of action.

If it were a formal advisory committee, though, Daval said, it would be subject to certain “membership requirements having to do with independence and fair balance.”

A ‘Sales Engine’

Over a series of video calls, CMS officials promised tech leaders participating in the Slack workspace that the agency would promote their health apps.

Jacob Shiff, the chief AI and technology officer at CMS’ Innovation Center, told industry representatives in a Zoom meeting in February that he hoped the agency’s work would be a “sales engine” for the health apps.

“We’re going to have a directory of all the organizations,” Shiff said in a video recording reviewed by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. “The people on this call who hopefully will have amazing solutions that work will be the winners, and you have every incentive to obviously drive down your costs so you can be extremely profitable and scale. So hopefully we’re selling — or enabling you guys to thrive.”

A recording of the call had been publicly available through a Google Drive link but was made private the day after ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ asked about comments made during the meeting.

CMS did not respond to queries about how the agency has decided which AI-powered health apps appear in the Medicare App Library or why federal employees have promised to promote the products.

Days before publicly launching the Medicare App Library, CMS officials promised AI tech leaders during an informal meeting that the new webpage would become an important distribution channel for health apps because Medicare enrollees would place trust in products listed on the CMS website.

“If medicare.gov is promoting it, for lack of a better word, then yeah, it would be an app that I would trust and explore,” CMS’ Taylor said during the April 7 meeting, channeling enrollees, according to a transcript of the call.

The Medicare App Library’s webpage encourages older and disabled Americans to manage health conditions such as obesity, cancer, or diabetes using two dozen AI-driven apps developed by some of the world’s largest corporations, including Microsoft and Google. Many of the apps promise in their product descriptions to give insight, perform analyses, or develop plans that will help patients lose weight or manage diabetes.

CMS officials have suggested to tech representatives during at least two meetings this year that those apps will be prioritized for a new agency program that reimburses companies for AI chatbot advice or wearable device tracking, according to video recordings.

CMS has not publicly divulged all the criteria it uses to decide which apps are listed in its library, but the webpage promotes apps still in their infancy.

Among them is Slothwise, a health app launched this year from a San Francisco apartment by a young, biotech entrepreneur and triple citizen of Russia, Israel, and the U.S. says it “knows your whole health” by analyzing medical records and tracking health data, offering users a free option with limited functionality or its full features for $9.99 a month. It has been reviewed on the Apple and Google app stores only a handful of times.

“I trusted slothwise with my health info because it was endorsed by medicare,” one reviewer wrote in a in August. “Connecting info was smooth and I learned a lot about my health.”

In a statement, Slothwise CEO Sofia Sigal-Passeck did not answer questions about the size and medical expertise of her current team, nor about the availability of a doctor to consult with patients who use the app. The app, she said, is only “informational” at this time.

“I’ve spent years building at the intersection of AI and complex biological data,” Sigal-Passeck wrote in an email. “A small team is not the same thing as an inexperienced team. Slothwise is built by physicians, PhD researchers and engineers.”

‘No Regulation, No Rulemaking’

What’s often less clear — and buried deep in lengthy privacy policies — is that these apps are tapping into the intimate details of patients’ medical records to fuel their AI-driven analyses.

Tech vendors have to treat these apps, once they are vetted and authorized by a third-party organization, like a patient requesting records. That position gives apps sweeping access to pull sensitive health data from the national network through which providers electronically exchange medical records, called the , or TEFCA.

A small but influential group of those tech company executives directly made the case to federal health officials during a in May, arguing that when health apps request medical records they should be treated as if they are standing “in the shoes” of a patient.

On Slack, tech vendors have lobbied for a “frictionless pathway” for verified users, after they’ve consented once, that allows the app to gain limitless access to patients’ medical records from the TEFCA network.

Ryan Howells, a healthcare management consultant who lobbies for a Washington, D.C.-based digital health tech organization called the CARIN Alliance, has spearheaded an effort for patients — vis-à-vis apps — to more easily access medical records. He has regularly noted in Slack that health apps accessing TEFCA must be vetted by a third-party organization — one of which he sits on the board of — and agree to a code of conduct, developed by the alliance he lobbies for.

“What more can you do to have trust in these apps?” he wrote in a March Slack message, responding to concerns about how much patient consent is needed for apps to access medical records on the network.

Kristen Valdes, the CEO of b.well, a company that also connects apps to the TEFCA network, made a similar argument.

“My opinion is that we need to stop protecting patients from themselves,” she wrote in the same message thread. “Full stop.”

Howells did not respond to an emailed list of questions from ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. In an interview, Valdes told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ that her comment reflected her frustration at the “paternalism” of the healthcare system, which she said has historically made it difficult for patients to access their records. Although, she said, “there are going to be good and bad apps.”

Other tech leaders worried in Slack about the approach.

One startup founder cautioned the group to think about the pitfalls of giving health apps broad leeway to pull medical records.

“We might all be good, honest actors here but security & privacy systems have to be designed around the presence of malicious actors – especially if we want this system to scale up to thousands of apps,” wrote Jason Kulatunga, who runs Fasten Health, a medical records management platform.

Gleason, the CMS official, has publicly championed the vision shared by Howells and Valdes. In her speeches, she frequently urges doctors to accept patient medical records directly from apps and calls on them to “,” also the title of a 2025 co-authored by Howells that urges doctors’ offices to abandon paper records.

Last month, Gleason spoke to a crowd gathered at a swanky hotel in Washington for an event hosted by the MAHA Institute, a think tank that supports Secretary Kennedy’s agenda. She laid out her work with tech companies over the past year as she discussed the Trump administration’s efforts to make medical records more digitally accessible.

As she told it, more Americans can now download an app and access their medical records.

“Once you’ve verified your identity you can just click a simple button and say, I’d like my medical records into whatever app I choose,” Gleason said.

She continued: “That was all done just — no regulation, no rulemaking — just by challenging industry to work together.”

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

Many will be stuck without a lot of options. In some cases, no other companies in their area may offer Medicare Advantage plans to replace them. This isn’t the first time this has happened. Last year, almost 3 million seniors found themselves in similar situations.

An Arm and a Leg host Dan Weissmann and producer Emily Pisacreta looked into what happened when those cancellations hit Minnesota. The collapse of a major Medicare Advantage carrier there led to “total chaos,” according to the director of the state’s Medicare assistance agency. Everyday people stepped up to help one another in the fallout.

Plus, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ senior correspondent Julie Appleby joins to discuss the role of private health insurance companies in Medicare. She explains how these companies shape seniors’ choices, including in Medicare supplemental plans, whose premiums have skyrocketed.

Credits

An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and Public Road Productions.

For more from the team at An Arm and a Leg, subscribe to its weekly newsletter, . You can also follow the show on , , , and . And if you’ve got stories to tell about the healthcare system, the producers would love to .

To hear all ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to An Arm and a Leg on , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reasons for the shrinkage?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with .

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

Court papers indicate a settlement in the case against the Department of Labor , although the parameters of any such deal are unknown.

It would come amid premium surges on Affordable Care Act marketplaces that have led millions to drop coverage this year. The Trump administration has also been sharply focused on expanding access to alternative coverage, such that avoid ACA rules on preexisting conditions and benefit requirements.

“Depending on what happens with the settlement, this could be an even bigger expansion,” said , director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. “People are worried that it is the opening salvo into promoting junk plans that don’t meet the ACA requirements.”

The plaintiff, Data Marketing Partnership, against the Department of Labor in 2019, during the first Trump administration. It wants official recognition as an employer so it can continue to allow its limited partners to buy into a type of job-based health insurance that doesn’t have to comply with state insurance rules or offer coverage as robust as required under the ACA.

But to grasp the claim, one also has to understand how the coverage works.

A consumer shopping for health insurance may come across information online or from a marketer about this concept, sometimes called “limited partnership” coverage. The pitch? Buy insurance offered through Data Marketing Partnership and handled by LP Management Services. To qualify, the consumer must download an app that tracks their internet searches. The company could then sell that data.

Some potential consumers may be turned off by the thought of their internet searches being tracked, but others may find it appealing because it allows them to become a limited partner eligible to buy into the company’s employee health insurance plans. But can these partners be considered employees?

The court’s answer has potential implications for regulators and consumers. Some health policy and market experts warn that a green light could lead to a proliferation of aggressively marketed and potentially questionable insurance with limited recourse for consumers because the plans would be exempt from state oversight.

“If this took off, you logically could see the rise of a whole bunch of what, functionally, would be unregulated insurance companies,” said , who was the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration during Joe Biden’s presidency and now runs his own consulting outfit.

No one knows if the department is going to change its long-running stance defending the case. But any settlement could add more uncertainty to insurance markets.

Already insurers are requesting double-digit increases in ACA premiums again next year, partly because declining enrollment often means that the healthiest policyholders are leaving. That trend could accelerate in coming years as more people are drawn into alternatives such as limited-partnership policies.

States Act as Federal Case Plays Out

The Department of Labor defended the case throughout the first Trump administration and the Biden era, issuing a sharply worded in early 2020 stating that people who simply download software to “capture data as they browse the Internet” are not “employees or bona fide partners.”

A district court judge in Texas, the ACA unconstitutional in a decision ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court, called the advisory opinion “” in a 2020 ruling in favor of the data marketer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the largely upheld the lower court’s decision but ordered it whether someone who downloads software is either a “working owner” or a “bona fide partner.”

The employer-employee relationship is at the heart of the case because of a designed to help large, self-insured employers offer retirement and health benefits to workers without having to meet varying rules from multiple states.

That law — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — allows such plans to avoid most rules set by the states, which generally regulate most other types of insurance and assist consumers who report problems with their policies. As self-insured employer plans, the policies also don’t have to comply with some ACA rules, such as the 10 broad categories of “essential health benefits.”

“If the case goes the wrong way, it could impact consumers or hamstring the states,” said Marie Grant, Maryland’s insurance commissioner.

Arguments over what constitutes an employer plan are not new, and other organizations have tried offering such coverage. Some states have taken action against purveyors of limited-partner policies.

Maryland in 2024 , The Vitamin Patch, for offering limited-partnership insurance after investigating complaints and determining it was not licensed to sell coverage in the state.

Washington in 2021 to stop offering its plans in the state and fined it $25,000.

and in 2024 warned consumers about this type of coverage.

“These plans do not provide comprehensive medical coverage and can leave consumers with large, unpaid medical bills,” according to Connecticut’s notice.

Maine’s announcement noted that entities offering these types of health insurance included The Vitamin Patch as well as Affiliated Workers Alliance, Consumer Data Partners, Employers Business Alliance, Socios Buenos, and Strategic Limited Partners.

State insurance commissioners in the Department of Labor case citing their concerns about losing the ability to enforce consumer protections.

“This is not a Republican-Democrat thing,” Khawar said. “It’s really a story about state authority, the way such authority would be significantly undermined in insurance markets.”

What’s the Risk?

Still, these limited-partnership plans are viewed by proponents as a needed additional choice for consumers, at potentially lower cost than ACA plans.

When the case was filed, attorneys general , for example, urged the Department of Labor to back Data Marketing’s request to designate its limited partners as employees. That would provide an option for people who “earn too much to qualify” for ACA subsidies and be an interim solution until the ACA could be repealed and replaced, they wrote. They argued that states would retain some regulatory authority and added that the Department of Labor, which oversees self-insured employer plans, could set requirements to “encourage” stable companies to enter the market.

Critics, the attorneys general wrote, might fear that ACA alternatives will draw away younger or healthier people, thus affecting those who remain, but they argued that had already happened.

Data Marketing’s attorneys emailed ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ that they could not provide a comment for this article because the case is in active litigation. Neither the White House nor the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees the ACA marketplaces, responded to questions from ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ about whether the Department of Labor has changed its stance and how the administration views limited-partnership health plans.

In court filings, however, Data Marketing said that without an employer designation, it would have to end the insurance coverage, affecting about 50,000 policyholders. That would also hurt its ability to generate revenue, it argued, because offering insurance is “a significant attractor” to get people to join its partnership and let it access their electronic data.

, who helped oversee ACA implementation in the Biden administration and is now a managing director at consultancy Manatt Health, had a different take. “The only reason why these sorts of products exist is because they aren’t beholden to consumer protection rules of the ACA and can essentially make money by attracting good risk, people who are healthy,” she said.

Maryland’s Grant echoed this warning, saying that proliferation of such plans could lead to even higher premiums in the ACA markets, if those who remain are older or sicker than those who leave.

Nineteen patient advocacy groups to the Department of Labor Aug. 11 urging it to continue its defense in the case, warning that a settlement that says such arrangements create an employer-employee relationship could “significantly” undermine “both state regulatory authority and decades of bipartisan efforts to promote stable, well-functioning health insurance markets.” Some of those groups in support of the department in 2021.

Days after the August letter, U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), the ranking member of the House education and workforce committee, warned the department against increasing the availability of “questionable employment relationships” and the insurance they offer.

He cited reports of call centers’ misleading consumers “who think they are enrolling in comprehensive health insurance but instead sign up for junk coverage under the guise of creating an employment relationship with what the consumer believed to be a traditional health insurer.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing With Dyes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, not quite.

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

An Insurance Deal Falls Short of Promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deals and Deregulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trump administration, however, is .

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

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

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 .