The unprecedented move came a few months later, when Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers agreed to pay down the loan 鈥� which grew to $4.4 billion 鈥� instead of later in the year. California’s healthcare safety net, it seemed, was buckling.

Rising healthcare costs systemwide were partly to blame. But so were several state-led expansions that made California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, one of the nation’s most generous.

Now, with congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over 10 years, California and dozens of other states must contemplate the limits of their generosity. The problem is particularly acute in the nation’s most populous state, which spends more on Medicaid than combined.

“We know we can’t afford to serve everybody we want to serve in the model that we have today,” said Mark Ghaly, the former top Newsom health official who now co-chairs , a 29-person panel with the goal of modernizing and sustaining California’s Medicaid program for those who need it. “What can we do differently? What can we do smarter?”

The 2025 law that Newsom, a Democrat, has dubbed President Donald Trump’s is expected to leave millions more Americans without health insurance, mostly because of new . It also curbs the use of healthcare provider taxes and other strategies states have deployed to maximize federal funds. Some state lawmakers and consumer advocates have argued the federal cuts, along with rising costs, present an opportunity for the next governor to overhaul a program plagued by long appointment wait times, low reimbursement rates for healthcare providers, and volatile financing.

“If we continue to just give millions and millions into the same system and expect something different 鈥� I’m sick and tired of that,” said Caroline Menjivar, a Democratic state senator representing a Los Angeles-area district where roughly half of constituents rely on Medi-Cal.

Democratic lawmakers, who have often clashed with Newsom on Medi-Cal rollbacks, succeeded in getting him to delay a number of painful cuts until 2027 in hopes that a new governor might reverse them.

So far, neither of the candidates running in the November election to replace Newsom have offered substantive proposals for weathering the upheaval health policy experts say is on the horizon for a program that covers 1 in 3 Californians 鈥� roughly 13.6 million people.

Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, wants to pare back Medi-Cal eligibility and has promised to end coverage for immigrants without legal status, citing that benefit as an example of “wildly unsustainable” state spending. Democrat Xavier Becerra, who has spent decades trying to , has promised to protect Californians from the massive federal cuts.

Expanding Coverage

President Lyndon B. Johnson that established Medicaid and Medicare in 1965 to cover certain low-income groups, such as families with children, older people, and those with disabilities. Over the past six decades, states have substantially widened that pool, most notably under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion to childless adults.

Starting in 2024, California offered healthcare coverage to all low-income residents, regardless of age or immigration status, although lawmakers scaled that back this year. At the same time, the state opted to cover a slew of non-mandated benefits such as physical therapy, hospice care, and housing assistance.

“California has always struggled with wanting to have as broad a program as possible but then having to figure out a way to pay,” said Jennifer Kent, who oversaw Medi-Cal under Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat. “There is no population that we have met that we don’t want to offer coverage to, and we’ve never met a benefit that we don’t like.”

Since 2010, California’s Medi-Cal enrollment has nearly doubled while spending has ballooned from $50 billion a year to . It now makes up more than 40% of overall state spending, according to the .

Conservatives argue the program is . They say the federal changes will force states to refocus resources on the neediest.

“The role of the safety net programs was just that 鈥� to be a safety net,” Hilton said in an interview. “I don’t think it’s a particularly positive boast to say 40% of Californians should be on a program that was designed for people living in poverty.”

Becerra declined an interview request.

Nelly, a 59-year-old from Los Angeles County, was one of millions who have benefited from the state’s Medi-Cal expansion, but she was initially reluctant to sign up.

For years after she left her corporate job to care for her ailing mother, Nelly said, she didn’t consider applying. She remained uninsured until three years ago, when she woke up and couldn’t see out of her left eye.

She enrolled in Medi-Cal in the emergency room. It now covers her appointments with specialists and transportation to and from. While her condition may exempt her from the new Medicaid work requirements, Nelly said, she’s still worried about losing coverage after experiencing numerous paperwork hiccups simply trying to renew.

Nelly, who asked that her full name not be used, because she hasn’t told her family about her condition, said she understands not everyone on the program may need it. But, she added, “it should be there for someone like me.”

Tough Choices Ahead

When Republican state lawmakers got wind of Newsom’s plan to stretch the debt repayment over a decade, they accused Democrats of trying to “paper over” the state’s structural deficit.

“This leaves future governors and legislatures to clean up the mess,” stated from GOP senators. The Legislative Analyst’s Office later called the maneuver “unusual.” That could leave Becerra, the favorite to succeed Newsom in the overwhelmingly liberal state, as the face of staggering changes to a program he spent his career defending.

More than 2 million Californians under age 65 could lose health coverage over the next four years as a result of the state and federal policy changes, according to by the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. At least 730,000 residents have already disenrolled since June 2025.

State agencies are scrambling to implement new federal work requirement rules for adult Medicaid enrollees under 65, hoping to automate as much verification as possible to blunt coverage losses. And in 2028, states will be required to charge some enrollees fees for many services, making it harder for them to maintain coverage.

Disability rights activists say new asset limits will prevent Californians from getting needed home care, which they say is more cost-effective and humane than nursing homes. Counties, deemed by state law to be healthcare providers of last resort, say they need immediate funding for the millions of uninsured patients they anticipate in the new year.

Hospital administrators have urged policymakers to help them keep their facilities stable, and the state’s most recent budget included some $390 million to assist public and .

Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital in Los Angeles treats five times the patients it was designed to serve, and 80% of patients are uninsured or on Medi-Cal. Demand is so high in the chronically underserved area, MLK Community Healthcare CEO Elaine Batchlor said, that the hospital has erected tents in the parking lot. Most emergency room patients are now treated there.

“We already have an extremely overcrowded, overburdened emergency department,” Batchlor said. “Insured care will turn into uncompensated care, and the financial burden for that will fall on providers.”

Becerra has said he opposes the state’s recent freeze on enrollment for adult immigrants without legal status, as well as new monthly premiums set to take effect next year, saying such moves will only saddle taxpayers with higher bills for ER care.

If elected, Becerra will probably need to wade into the politically toxic debate over whether to raise more revenue, , or do both.

Aside from promising to find and eliminate billions in administrative waste from the industry, the nation’s former top health official has not explained how he would cobble together the tens of billions of dollars the state is likely to need just to maintain status quo.

The next governor must tread carefully, Kent warned. “When people come and say, 鈥榃ell, you should just do this because it’s the right thing,’” she said, “all of those right things have fiscal consequences.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The most important thing is just to make Medicare whole 鈥� meaning no charge for medical care 鈥� rolling back the complexity and costs of the last 10 years,” El-Sayed told 吃瓜不打烊.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support in some parts of the industry is growing.

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

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

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

Many lawfully present immigrants will be among the first people to lose Medicaid coverage under congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is expected to cut spending by more than $900 billion through 2034 for the state-federal health program for people with low incomes or disabilities. The law will strip many more immigrants of their Affordable Care Act plan subsidies and Medicare coverage next year.

Those losing their health benefits who were previously eligible include refugees of war, asylees who fled persecution, victims of sex trafficking, and interpreters who risked their lives assisting U.S. service members in Afghanistan 鈥� all of whom are in the country with the federal government’s permission. The law does not affect coverage for a few groups, including those who hold green cards.

The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, estimated the law’s changes eliminating Medicaid eligibility for many noncitizen adults with legal status would lead to about 100,000 more immigrants being .

吃瓜不打烊 asked several states how many Medicaid enrollees they had identified as being at risk of losing coverage under the provision. More than 281,000 immigrants from nine states and the District of Columbia are expected to lose Medicaid in October.

While some may be able to obtain coverage elsewhere, the state numbers suggest hundreds of thousands of immigrants nationally are at imminent risk of becoming uninsured.

The CBO declined to comment.

Florida alone identified nearly 177,000 immigrants who would no longer qualify for the state’s Medicaid program starting in October, said Anna Holaday, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. The agency verified the enrollees’ immigration status through government databases and sent notices to people to give them an opportunity to provide more information proving they remain eligible, Holaday said.

Arizona predicts nearly 28,000 could lose eligibility. New Jersey expects 15,000 to 25,000 of its noncitizen residents to lose their Medicaid coverage. In North Carolina, it’s about 29,000, and in Washington state it’s 11,000. Final numbers from states on how many Medicaid enrollees have been terminated from the program won’t be available until later this fall.

Lawmakers rely on the CBO to understand the budgetary and economic impacts of proposed legislation. Yet the federal agency did not publish estimates on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s impact on noncitizens enrolled in Medicaid until a month after Congress passed the bill and Trump signed it into law.

Much of the attention around Medicaid changes in the law has centered on implementation of work requirements as a new condition of eligibility for many enrollees starting in January. The CBO estimates the requirements will increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 5 million by 2034.

Without health coverage, immigrants are likely to lose access to doctors, prescription drugs, and most other medical services. They still could qualify for coverage of emergency care under a separate program known as Emergency Medicaid.

“I came here to live a better life,” said Ahin, a refugee who left war-torn Syria for Turkey in 2011 and came to the U.S. in October 2024. She spoke with 吃瓜不打烊 on the condition that she be identified by only her first name, out of concern for her privacy and security.

Soon after arriving in the U.S., she developed severe abdominal pain that required intestinal surgery. Those costs, along with ongoing visits to specialists, were covered by Medicaid.

“I’m really worried about this,” she said. “It’s truly a terrible situation.”

Ahin, 25, said she doesn’t know what she will do if she needs to go to the hospital 鈥� she wouldn’t be able to pay the bill. She lives in a small apartment in New Jersey with her mother. Medicaid has also been vital to her mother, who has asthma.

Health Benefits Wane for Immigrants

The federal government required states to notify immigrants who will soon lose coverage, but immigrant rights advocates say some states did not begin sending letters until September. That’s given enrollees little time to react, including to respond if the state was mistakenly ending their coverage.

Cutting off Medicaid coverage is just the first move to drop government health benefits provided to many lawfully present immigrants. Under a change starting in January, the CBO estimates, about 1 million will lose eligibility for government subsidies to buy individual health coverage on Affordable Care Act marketplaces by 2034. And they will also lose access to Medicare, a change expected to affect about 100,000 immigrants, the agency forecasts.

Trump has argued that taxpayer-funded programs should be reserved for American citizens. As Congress debated the legislation in May 2025, the White House with the misleading claim that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would remove Medicaid coverage for people who are in the country without authorization.

Under long-standing law, people who are in the country without authorization do not qualify for the general Medicaid program that is funded by state and federal dollars.

The health coverage cuts are part of a broader Trump strategy to send a message that immigrants are not welcome in the United States, said Ben D’Avanzo, senior strategist for federal advocacy at the National Immigration Law Center. The Trump administration has also moved to kick people with legal status off the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and tried to do the same with the children’s program Head Start until a federal judge intervened. 

In addition to green card holders, people under age 19 and immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, or certain Pacific Island countries their Medicaid coverage affected by the law.

A Few States Try To Fill in the Gaps

Some states are staving off the coverage loss using their own money. California expects about 148,000 immigrants to lose Medicaid coverage. But the state is spending $365 million for a separate program to keep them covered until July 2027, according to Tony Cava, a spokesperson for the California Department of Health Care Services.

New York and Pennsylvania also have state-funded health coverage for many of the immigrants who are affected.

Carlos Alarcón, health and public benefits policy manager with the California Immigrant Policy Center, an advocacy group, said taking away health coverage for immigrants will affect the health of the state as a whole. The fewer people who have access to healthcare, the easier it will be for contagious diseases to spread, as happened during the covid pandemic, he said.

Alarcón said he hopes the state-funded coverage will be extended under California’s next governor. Polling released in September showed Democrat Xavier Becerra, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, leading Republican Steve Hilton in the gubernatorial race. Becerra to issue an executive order to maintain health coverage for every Californian affected by federal cuts.

In California Governor’s Race, Voters Face Stark Choice on Immigrant Healthcare

California’s next governor will face tough decisions on a highly controversial piece of healthcare policy: what to do about health coverage for the more than 1.4 million low-income residents without legal status. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton present starkly different choices as public opinion wavers.

By Christine Mai-Duc July 6, 2026

“I believe there’s folks in the legislature that will really want to fight to make sure that we restore things as much as we can,” Alarcón said.

Refugee assistance groups say they have been trying to educate people in their communities and direct them to health clinics that are government-funded or free.

“We’ve just been scrambling trying to find free medical care,” said , co-founder of the . “To not be a welcoming place is the most un-American thing I’ve ever experienced.”  

Andrea Mendez Perez, director at Interfaith-RISE, a refugee resettlement organization in southern New Jersey, said the Trump administration has elongated the process for people to get green cards and is now taking away coverage from those without them. Before 2025, it typically took about six months to qualify for a green card, documentation that allows a foreign national to live and work permanently in the United States, she said. Today, it’s well over a year.

For many of these immigrants on Medicaid, losing their ability to get their prescribed medications “is a life-or-death situation,” Mendez Perez said.

Ahin, the Syrian refugee, applied for permanent residency soon after arriving in the U.S. two years ago. Mendez Perez said she should have her green card by now, which would have spared her from being dropped under the GOP law. “She is stuck in the middle and has no control.”

Colleen McCauley, policy and advocacy director at the Camden Coalition, a nonprofit that helps connect people to healthcare in southern New Jersey, said the loss of coverage is devastating.

“None of them did anything wrong,” McCauley said, “and they are losing coverage.”

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

Years ago, she taught English as a second language overseas and loved it.

“It’s so exciting to me to watch someone learn a new word or have that spark of understanding,” she said.

Zulick knew she could earn enough money as a substitute teacher to make going back to school financially viable 鈥� except for the cost of health insurance. She didn’t want to risk being unable to see her doctor for her allergies, or for preventative care.

The offered through Montana State University was too expensive, Zulick said, almost as much as her tuition. But then she found a solution that allowed her to make the leap: Medicaid. She wouldn’t have to pay any monthly premiums.

It worked well for a few months, as Zulick taught by day and took online classes at night.

But in June, the state sent a letter that she said left her “completely confused.” She knew Montana was rolling out a system for work requirements over the summer, but she thought she wouldn’t have to prove she met the requirements until next year, when her Medicaid enrollment came up for renewal.

Yet the letter from the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services outlining the new requirements gave conflicting information on when Zulick would have to prove she was meeting them. First it said at her next renewal, which would be sometime next spring. Lower down it told her she would have to submit paperwork to prove compliance much earlier 鈥� “within 30 days” of the date on the letter, June 26. She wondered: Was it a boilerplate mass-mailing letter she could ignore, or was her insurance on the line?

the new work requirements by Jan. 1, but three states 鈥� Montana, , and 鈥� have already gotten started. Medicaid advocates worry that the expedited timeline in those states will lead to thousands of people losing coverage because they’re confused about the new rules, even if they are eligible for the program 鈥� and that Montana may offer a troubling preview of what will happen nationwide next year.

State health department officials maintain they are well prepared and told state lawmakers they plan to process roughly 5,000 enrollees monthly.

Growing Confusion, Dwindling Help

Rep. of the Montana House has gotten dozens of calls from confused constituents, specifically about letters like the one Zulick received.

“The notices coming from the department are very, very confusing, and it’s very hard to find help figuring out what’s going on,” said the Democratic legislator, who asked health department leaders about those letters at a hearing in early September. Letters being sent to enrollees have been updated to be clearer, state health officials told lawmakers at the hearing.

In Montana, nearly are subject to the new rules. Medicaid costs are split between the federal and state governments, and states are responsible for administering the program, which provides health insurance for people with low incomes or disabilities.

Under the new work requirements, enrollees must document that they’re working, volunteering, or studying 80 hours per month 鈥� or they must show that they qualify for one of a range of exemptions, such as being “medically frail” or being the primary caretaker for a family member.

Montana began with a soft launch of the work requirements in July and gave enrollees until Oct. 1 to comply.

Critics contend that isn’t enough time, because the state hasn’t finished setting up new computer systems or hiring the staff it said it would need. Of the 59 positions, only about 20 were filled, state health department officials told state lawmakers during the Sept. 9 hearing, adding that numbers had fluctuated amid staff turnover.

State health officials have said they’ll eventually be able to automatically verify that students are enrolled in public universities. However, that computer system isn’t expected to be up and running until next year, leaving students like Zulick to track down and submit the correct paperwork to prove their college enrollment.

However, there are fewer outside resources to help residents with these bureaucratic tasks.

For example, , a nonprofit that helps Montanans fill out such paperwork, lost federal funding last year, going from a staff of 18 to two part-time employees working a phone line.

The state does operate a helpline, but that Montanans stay on hold much longer than the national average and that many callers hang up before they connect with a state employee.

“We were worried about chaos that could be generated by the state rushing,” said , CEO of the Montana Healthcare Foundation, a nonprofit aimed at improving health in the state. “Given how little information the state has provided about what they are doing, I’m much more worried about chaos.”

Wernham pointed to a similar upheaval in 2023, when states undertook a massive process to redetermine the eligibility of all Medicaid enrollees, after regular eligibility checks were paused during the pandemic.

Many Montanans who were financially eligible lost Medicaid coverage for technical reasons, such as incorrectly filling out paperwork 鈥� roughly 87,000, according to state data from two years ago.

Even vulnerable Montanans who didn’t need to file paperwork, because their coverage should have been automatically renewed, were dropped from the Medicaid rolls, including people who were homeless.

Long-Sought Requirements in State

The Montana Legislature passed a measure expressing its desire to add work requirements to Medicaid, but the state didn’t have permission from the federal government to move forward until now.

Having work requirements creates accountability for people who rely on the social safety net, said Montana Senate President , a Republican.

“In an economy like this, if you’re an able-bodied adult that’s able to work, you really do need to step up,” he said.

Asked about confusion among enrollees about the rules, Regier responded that the Oct. 1 deadline offered more than enough time to work out the kinks in the new system.

In the end, Zulick learned she didn’t need to worry about that deadline, because she got married in July and no longer qualified for Medicaid, although she didn’t know that would be the case when she got the June letter.

But others remain scared about losing coverage, including Heather Reel, who attended a rally at the state capitol in July to push back against Montana’s early rollout.

Reel relies on Medicaid for its mental health coverage. Without it, she said, she would struggle to care for her teenage son, who has autism and is nonverbal. Between her shifts at a fast food restaurant and caring for her son, she’s scared she’ll be too busy to figure out how to report her work hours.

Montana’s Rollout a Potential Preview

The handful of states that are implementing the Medicaid work requirements early are building the plane as they’re taking off, said , who provides Medicaid analysis for The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit focused on making healthcare more equitable.

“Montana is going to be an example for what we might see nationally as things roll out,” she said.

Although most other states are sticking to the Jan. 1 deadline to build and test their Medicaid systems, they still might not have all the components in place, she said.

If states can’t automatically renew or deny coverage based on the new rules, state workers will have to do so manually, on a case-by-case basis. That could create backlogs and more disruption, leading more people to lose coverage, Coleman said.

Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson for the state’s health department, said in a statement that Montana’s Medicaid office is ready for the change on Oct. 1.

“We are committed to ensuring eligible Montanans maintain coverage while meeting requirements, and we will continue to monitor implementation closely,” Ebelt said.

Democratic state lawmakers have repeatedly asked state health officials to extend the Oct. 1 deadline for enrollees to comply with the new rules, but they’ve said they have no plans to do so.

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and 吃瓜不打烊.

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

Abortion access is important to McCoomb. She wants her daughter to grow up in a state where the option is available if needed, and the sign was a keepsake from the day Missourians voted to reverse the state’s near-total ban. McCoomb also couldn’t shake the feeling that she’d need to display the sign in her yard again soon.

“I have little faith in our Missouri government,” McCoomb said, sitting on her front porch.

Sure enough, just two years later, the state’s Republican-dominated legislature is asking Missouri voters to overturn the abortion protections they recently supported. The conflicting measures even have the same title: Amendment 3. But while a “yes” vote in 2024 supported adding protections to the state constitution, a “no” vote in 2026 would keep them. McCoomb covered the “YES” on her yard sign with a “NO” made from black duct tape before placing the sign back in her yard.

Voters will weigh in on abortion in Missouri, and three other states, in the November general election. Missouri is also one of two states voting on it for the second time since 2024. Nevada will vote again, too.

The spate of referendums comes after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections with its 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, leaving each state to make its own abortion policy. The result has been a patchwork of state rules of bans or limitations, and even a series of “shield laws” in states where abortion remains legal that aim to protect providers from prosecution in states where it’s not.

“I just think there’s a constitutional crisis that’s coming,” said , vice president of media and policy for the anti-abortion organization Students for Life Action.

“Can you have 50 state standards on whether or not a human being is a human being? Can you have 50 state standards on whether human beings have legal protection?” Hamrick said.

Advocacy Groups Work To Clarify Ballot Measures

That patchwork of abortion protections is the reason Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom introduced the 2024 ballot measure to enshrine the state’s law allowing abortions up to 24 weeks after conception into the state constitution, said , president of the coalition.

The measure received strong support two years ago, with 64% of voters in favor. Nevada law requires two majority votes to enshrine constitutional amendments, so voters will need to support the expanded protection again in November for it to be enacted.

The Nevada ballot measure wouldn’t change the state’s existing law allowing abortions up to 24 weeks after conception. But the proposal would make it more difficult to overturn abortion access, requiring voter approval of any new ban in two elections.

Lopez said Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom has been campaigning to ensure voters are still mobilized.

“Folks care about it,” she said. “They’re seeing what’s happening at the national level, and they want to make sure that whatever’s happening in our neighboring states, like Idaho and Utah, doesn’t happen here in Nevada.”

Idaho, where a ballot measure establishing abortion rights to go before voters in November, has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country. Voters will decide whether state statute should allow abortion through fetal viability, the point when a fetus can survive after birth, which is generally considered to be around 24 weeks.

In Utah, abortion is allowed up to 18 weeks while legal challenges to the state’s ban continue.

In Virginia, where abortion is already allowed through two trimesters of pregnancy, until 28 weeks, voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to codify those rights.

Missouri is the only state voting this year on removing abortion protections already on the books. The the 2024 amendment that guaranteed abortion access through fetal viability in the state and replace it with a ban on abortions with exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, and pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Abortions for rape and incest would have to occur before 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Missouri was the first state to ban abortion after the Dobbs decision in 2022. At that time, abortions had already mostly ceased in the state after three decades of state regulations targeting the practice, including a , minimum dimensions for procedure rooms and hallways in clinics that provide abortions, and a mandate that the clinicians have at nearby hospitals, among others. Only were performed in Missouri in 2021, down from , state records show.

Even though Missouri voters backed the abortion amendment in 2024, it took nearly two years for medication abortions to resume in the state.

A Second Vote Causes Confusion

, CEO of St. Louis-based Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, said the whiplash of a second statewide vote on abortion mirrors the confusion that patients have experienced about whether abortion is available in the state.

“Chaos is kind of the point here,” Riphagen-Dunn said, “and it is absolutely a tactic that gets in the way of being able to provide.”

The confusion has presented problems for abortion opponents in the state as well.

“I think it’s unfortunate,” said Reagan Barklage, who is a vice president of Students for Life of America and the treasurer of the Missouri Students for Life Ballot Committee. “People need to be very clear on what they’re voting for.”

Barklage said she has had to correct anti-abortion voters while out canvassing to remind them that they are voting “yes” on Amendment 3 this year even though they voted “no” on Amendment 3 last time.

“It is crazy that it ended up being even the same number. I do not think that was intentional, but we’ve got to deal with what we’ve got,” Barklage said, adding, “I hope the pro-choicers kept their yard signs from last time.”

In Maplewood, Missouri, McCoomb said she was happy that her repurposed sign supporting abortion access had been noticed.

“I hope lots of people see and remember to revote,” McCoomb said.

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

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing or texting “988.”

Paul Nestadt is about as steeped in suicide prevention as a person can be.

He treats suicidal patients as a psychiatrist, has co-authored scores of research papers on how and why people kill themselves, and teaches graduate courses on the subject.

But he’ll be the first to admit: “I can’t tell you which of my patients is likely to die by suicide in the next six months.”

Almost nobody can.

predictions of who will be suicidal are only slightly better than a coin toss. And they haven’t improved over 50 years.

But that doesn’t make Nestadt hopeless. Instead, it pushes him to pursue interventions that don’t require pinpointing people at risk.

Chief among them: making it harder for people to carry out the act of killing themselves.

“Instead of asking every doctor to figure out which patient will die by suicide and locking that patient up, it might be that we need to make sure there aren’t loaded guns available,” Nestadt said.

In an ongoing series, 吃瓜不打烊 is examining approaches to suicide prevention that expand beyond providing people at risk with medication and therapy. Although those are lifesaving measures, many clinicians, researchers, and people who have lost loved ones to suicide agree that more is needed. The challenge is that when it comes to firearms, broad policy approaches quickly become constitutionally complicated and politically polarizing.

Research shows that limiting access to lethal means is one of to save lives. It can involve on buildings to prevent people from jumping, as well as someone can buy or be prescribed at once.

And .

“That’s the one that will save the most lives,” said Nestadt, medical director at the Johns Hopkins Center for Suicide Prevention.

It may also be the most difficult to achieve.

killed themselves with a gun last year, representing more than half of all suicide deaths in the U.S., according to preliminary federal data. Even as overall suicide rates have dipped recently, gun suicides have hit record highs for five years in a row.

Many of the deaths are among , two groups that have had high suicide rates for years. But more recently, gun suicides have risen among and among some and men. Researchers say a during the covid pandemic underscores the need for prevention efforts that can be applied widely.

Some people assume it’s futile to restrict access to bridges, pills, or guns. The thinking goes: Those who want to kill themselves will simply find another way.

But . Creating barriers for one method doesn’t typically push people to another.

Suicide risk can surge quickly, with people spending or even five minutes between deciding to die and acting on it. Anything that delays such action 鈥� for example, having to unlock a safe to access a gun 鈥� gives them time to reconsider or for someone to intervene.

However, in the U.S., discussion around guns 鈥� even in the context of a traditionally bipartisan topic such as suicide prevention 鈥� is a political lightning rod. Mentions of background checks, waiting periods, or red flag laws often send people running to their respective corners. Gun owners and the firearm industry say many of the policies suicide prevention advocates seek threaten their Second Amendment rights, and many policymakers see the topic as a nonstarter.

President Donald Trump has been a of gun owners. His administration has dozens of firearms regulations and rescinded a previous that called gun violence a public health crisis. It has also revoked grants focused on and working on the issue.

The White House did not respond to specific questions about how these actions may affect the nation’s high rate of gun suicides or what it’s doing to prevent such deaths. But spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement that “President Trump is committed to Making America Healthy Again and that includes mental health.” She pointed to the administration’s for mental illness and an announcement of for veteran suicide prevention.

The Limits of Red Flag Laws

One gun policy that has gained some traction, , is the , more commonly known as a red flag law.

Adopted in some form in , these laws allow judges to temporarily remove a person’s guns when evidence suggests they pose a danger to themself or others.

Although such laws are often passed in the wake of , they’re more effective at preventing suicide.

Still, they require identifying someone at risk.

Someone like Dorothy Paugh’s dad.

In 1965, when Paugh was a young girl, her dad lost his job. He was distressed, not knowing how he’d support his wife and five children, Paugh said. He reviewed his life insurance policy, told his wife where he kept important documents, and bought a handgun.

“If my mom had been able to get an extreme risk protection order or if Dad’s best friend had asked to hold his gun for a while, maybe my dad would not have shot himself. He might have lived,” Paugh said.

Decades later, Paugh in Maryland and sat in the legislative gallery when the measure was passed.

She believes the law is saving lives.

across show that for every 10 to 20 guns removed under red flag laws, one suicide is averted, .

But Paugh also recognizes the law’s limitations.

“It wouldn’t have saved my son,” she said.

Her 25-year-old son, Peter, . He’d recently bought a house with his girlfriend and hosted a birthday celebration for his brother. He’d purchased a gift ahead of Mother’s Day 鈥� five novels by Charles Dickens, Paugh’s favorite author 鈥� that Paugh received after .

Unlike in her father’s case, Paugh said, no one saw warning signs for Peter. “I did not know that my son was suicidal. I didn’t have a clue,” she said. Even if a red flag law existed then, she wouldn’t have thought to use it.

The people most vulnerable to firearm suicide usually aren’t identified as such by family members or clinicians, said , a clinical psychologist and the executive director of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center.

Studies have shown that among people who die by suicide, those who used guns were less likely to have in the past. And most veterans and service members who die by gun suicide about their suicidal thoughts in the months leading to their death.

That’s why red flag laws are just a first step in suicide prevention, Anestis said. They target specific individuals at high risk 鈥� the aspect that makes such laws more politically palatable 鈥� but they do not apply to the many other people who are quietly suicidal.

Lessons From Road Safety

Nestadt, the Johns Hopkins psychiatrist, said the nation needs to approach suicide prevention the way it approaches car accidents.

“You’re not trying to figure out who’s at risk of an accident” by testing people’s reaction time or cataloging who gets into fender benders, Nestadt said.

Instead, speed limits, passed seat belt laws, and required auto manufacturers to install air bags and shatter-resistant windshields. The significantly.

Applying a similar strategy to suicide might involve requiring permits and background checks to buy a gun, as well as instituting before completing the purchase.

found that enacting a permit-to-purchase law in Connecticut was associated with a roughly 15% decrease in gun suicide rates, while repealing such a law in Missouri was linked to a 16% increase in firearm suicide rates.

About have enacted laws requiring owners to lock up their guns in homes where children live, a practice shown to . That’s an issue of particular importance, with 245% among Black youths and 98% among Latino youths since 2014.

Anestis said laws requiring permits and safe storage can also reduce homicides and other gun injuries.

Those types of violence not only hurt people directly but also increase their risk of suicide. people who are exposed to gun violence in their community experience trauma and become habituated to the idea of injury or death. That “double whammy” makes them more likely to kill themselves, Anestis said.

Responsibility, Rights, and Saving Lives

Gun owners and firearm trade associations generally oppose universal measures, such as requiring permits and waiting periods. They prefer education campaigns that teach people how to recognize warning signs, talk about mental health, and safely store guns 鈥� initiatives that place .

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the firearms industry, has partnered with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention to create to be posted in gun shops.

“Our purpose is to provide educational materials to the firearm-owning community on how to help prevent suicide and save lives,” Bill Brassard, the NSSF’s senior director of suicide prevention initiatives, said in a statement.

The National Rifle Association said policies focused on guns miss deeper concerns that make someone suicidal, such as mental illness.

“Suicide is a serious issue that deserves serious solutions focused on the underlying causes, not on political efforts to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans,” NRA spokesperson Justin Davis said in a statement. “A truly dangerous individual needs to be incapacitated, not just deprived of one particular means of harm.”

Some initiatives have managed to bring together unlikely bedfellows 鈥� gun store owners, public health experts, and even libraries 鈥� to to secure firearms at home, identify locations that will while they’re in crisis, and educate people on how to .

Those efforts give Paugh hope and fuel her passion to continue advocating for better mental health care, open conversations about suicide, and policies that decrease access to guns.

“It’s not a cure-all,” Paugh said of those policies. But “it does save lives.”

Having lost a parent and a child, she knows how valuable that can be.

“If you’re that one person or that person’s family, it’s all the difference in the world,” she said.

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

Can’t see the audio player? Visit kffhealthnews.org to listen.

---

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. 鈥� Carlos A. grew up in a family on Medicaid, which made healthcare an afterthought since the public insurance is free for low-income enrollees. But when he received a raise two years ago, he found himself earning too much to qualify for the safety net program. And when he browsed Covered California plans, he found that marketplace prices were still too steep for his comfort.

“It was a panic at first,” Carlos said.

He has a chronic immune condition that needs to be managed by regular medication. KVPR and 吃瓜不打烊 agreed to withhold his diagnosis and last name to protect him from repercussions related to his health.

“I have to be able to afford my health insurance to go to the doctor, because if not, then there’s no peace of mind,” he added.

Now in his late 20s, he receives employer-based coverage through his job at an Amazon warehouse. In addition to adjusting to monthly premiums and copays for medical visits and prescriptions, he also learned he needs for that medication he had been on for a decade. Without it, he could get only the generic version, which he’s nervous to try. He felt his insurer failed to justify the switch.

“I felt that this was a slap in the face because I’m paying for my premiums,” he said. “It’s a contract. I’m going to pay my premiums, you cover my insurance, and if there’s a copay to my medicine, I’ll pay it. So why are you playing funny business with my medication?”

Carlos is one of many voters weighing healthcare costs in California’s 22nd Congressional District, which stretches from Bakersfield up to parts of western Fresno County. It’s to improve Democrats’ chances, but it remains among the nation’s this cycle and could determine control of the U.S. House. It’s long been held by Republican Rep. David Valadao, who’s been voted into the seat in almost every election since 2012.

Carlos was among dozens of people who attended a rally in Bakersfield this month in support of Democratic challenger Randy Villegas. Carlos said healthcare costs will be among the key considerations in his vote in this fall’s midterm election, calling it an issue that both candidates need to address.

“I do expect them to campaign on healthcare,” Carlos said. “They’d be very foolish not to.”

Democrats are calling out Valadao’s vote for , the GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut billions in healthcare for poor people. The last time healthcare was on the ballot to this extent, Valadao lost his Central Valley seat during a “blue wave” after the Republican lawmaker voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He retook his seat in 2020 by just 1,522 votes.

Valadao has said he because it protected Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California, for the most vulnerable, including children, pregnant women, disabled people, and seniors. He supported a rural health fund for hospitals in underserved areas. At the same time, he said the legislation’s work requirements for nondisabled adults and would help maintain the program.

“Polling shows that the majority of Americans want us to have our programs to be sustainable,” Valadao in Bakersfield before the vote. “Sustainable means taking care of those who need it most, and those who should be working in part of society and being productive should be. And it’s not an unfair ask.”

The work requirement’s documentation mandate will take effect in 2027 for Medi-Cal enrollees. According to the California Health Care Foundation, an estimated people are expected to lose coverage by 2030 due to the eligibility and administrative changes.

Villegas, a and is backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has highlighted how Valadao’s HR 1 vote will be felt by low-income residents across the district. The Visalia school board member said he grew up as a Medi-Cal recipient. As of 2024, the current 22nd District, which has some overlap with its redistricted replacement, had the 鈥� 64% 鈥� of any Republican-held seat in the nation, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes 吃瓜不打烊.

“David Valadao voted to cut healthcare for nearly 70,000 people in the Valley to give tax breaks to billionaires and his wealthy donors,” Villegas said in a statement. “In Congress, I’ll fight to reverse those cuts and lower healthcare costs.”

Valadao’s office didn’t return requests for comment. touts his support for quality, affordable health coverage and maintaining access for the most vulnerable. Polling also finds that the Trump administration’s recent from states is resonating with Republicans, with for candidates to discuss fraud in government health programs. Republicans in swing districts, including Valadao, have begun emphasizing reform.

But many in the electorate remain undecided in this district where nearly a quarter of voter registrations are nonpartisan. Some said they haven’t heard enough from candidates about affordability solutions, which they hope will change because healthcare costs of their economic anxieties.

Matthew Depue, who lives in Hanford and has private health insurance through his employer, said he has been fortunate to have reliable coverage. His healthcare premiums affect his monthly budget, but he said he hasn’t had to delay care or choose between paying medical bills and other necessities.

Still, Depue said, rising healthcare costs are quickly becoming harder to ignore. Last year, federal lawmakers declined to extend enhanced tax credits, which state officials say contributed to an average for Covered California plans.

He also sees how affordability is pushing people across borders to find cheaper treatments and medications.

“People go from here to Mexico to get stuff done because it’s so much cheaper,” Depue said.

Even though healthcare is important to him, it isn’t the only issue driving his vote. Depue, who doesn’t know whom he’ll vote for, said he would evaluate candidates based on everything they stand for, including their positions on things like taxes and the difficult job market. District 22’s voter registration is 42% Democratic, 26% Republican, and 24% no party preference, according to the California secretary of state’s , the latest available.

For Hanford resident Patreza Newton, affording healthcare has become deeply cumbersome. She hopes that whoever wins the election will work to prioritize healthcare, saying the current health system is unaffordable.

She used to purchase her own plan under Obamacare and is now covered by her church’s insurance. But to keep monthly premiums affordable, she chose a high-deductible plan, which means she has to pay out-of-pocket for some prescriptions and specialist visits.

Newton said she falls into what she calls “the in-between,” people who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but still struggle to afford coverage.

Years ago, Newton was hit with a hospital bill of roughly $65,000 after surgery and had to apply for financial hardship assistance because she couldn’t afford to pay the bill.

As she considers how to vote this fall, she said she isn’t looking for overwhelming promises but rather a leader who understands what families are experiencing. She’s undecided on a candidate, saying none has shown the initiative she is looking for.

“I do think there should be a way that people can afford it,” she said, “no matter who they are.”

This article is from a partnership that includes , an NPR affiliate in central California, and 吃瓜不打烊.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carter’s specialty is reeling in grants to support students in the Omaha Nation school district, where she is a finance manager. One paid for the garden that sits next to the district’s campus. Another allowed the school system, in one of Nebraska’s lowest-income counties, to pay students to maintain it.

“They’re out in the sun. They’re watering plants,” she said. “It’s the first time they get a paycheck in their life.”

Carter, 41, is paralyzed from the chest down, an injury she’s lived with since a fall in her early 20s. It didn’t slow her down as she built her accounting career and got a master’s degree in human resource management.

But in November 2023, Carter 鈥� who lives in Sioux City, Iowa 鈥� got a letter from Iowa’s Department of Health and Human Services. It said that her income was too high for her to stay on Medicaid and that she might lose her benefits in two weeks if she didn’t take action.

States are scrambling to get ready for a new federal requirement to double-check that many people on Medicaid qualify for the benefit, by showing they are working, volunteering, or studying at least 80 hours per month. Politicians’ focus on requiring work has angered many people with disabilities who have Medicaid and say current policies that apply to them have the opposite effect 鈥� making them choose between working or receiving benefits.

鈥業 Have No Options’

When Carter got the letter, she was making $110,000 a year, well above Iowa’s 2023 income limit for working people with disabilities: $36,450 for a household of one.

“I had no time at all to prepare,” she said. “I had a decision to make.”

At the time, Carter got her health coverage through Iowa’s , a buy-in program that allows working disabled Iowans to pay part of their income to the state to maintain access to Medicaid benefits. Forty-seven states offer , but eligibility through limits on income and assets.

For years, disability rights advocates have pushed state legislatures to change the limits, arguing they prevent people like Carter from accepting raises or building savings, for fear of losing crucial medical benefits. Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have eliminated such limits over the past five years.

To keep her Medicaid coverage, Carter would’ve had to find a job paying her far less than she was making. Or she could drop her Medicaid coverage and enroll in the school district’s health plan. But that plan didn’t cover many of the disability-related expenses that Medicaid did.

Carter decided to keep her job and leave the Medicaid buy-in program. In the end, the decision felt like a no-brainer, she said.

“I like getting up and going to work every day, and I really like what I do,” she said. “Why would I throw that away?”

But it’s been hard on her finances. Carter said she now spends about $35,000 a year out-of-pocket for expenses her old plan covered, such as the nurse who visits her three times a week, modifications to her car, and wheelchair repairs.

“I had the motors go out on my wheelchair,” she said. “So that was like $4,000 to fix.”

Over the next year, Carter picked up extra jobs and cashed in some of her retirement savings.

“I want to pay my own way. I don’t mind paying taxes,” she said. She doesn’t want to hide her income, either. “I just want an option,” she said. “I have no options right now.”

A Program Intended To Encourage Work

Congress to create Medicaid buy-in programs in the 1990s, intending to incentivize more people with disabilities to work. Iowa was one of the first states to adopt the program.

According to state data, 11,640 Iowans were participating in the buy-in program as of late January, or 1.7% of all Medicaid recipients in Iowa.

The income caps have inched up since Carter got her letter. , set at 250% of the federal poverty level, is $39,900 for a household of one this year.

The rules also restrict recipients from accumulating too much in assets. The is $12,000 for an individual or $24,000 for a married couple, excluding some assets, such as a primary home or vehicle.

Carlyn Crowe, the public policy manager at the , said the limits can prevent disabled Iowans from reaching their goals. “Work full-time and be able to buy a house, live in the community, buy a car,” she said. “Those limits placed on what they can earn and save are keeping them from doing that.”

Crowe’s organization, which has counterparts in every state, is and advocates for people with disabilities. In Iowa, such advocates have asked legislators to drop the hard limits on income and assets. Instead, they suggest that disabled Iowans pay 6% of their income to buy into the Medicaid program, an approach modeled after a 2024 that created a Medicaid buy-in program with no income and asset limits. (Tennessee is waiting on federal approval before starting its program.)

In recent years, these efforts have built bipartisan support and gained traction. An Iowa House committee unanimously in 2025 to remove the income and asset caps, but the bill died after failing to move forward during this spring’s legislative session.

State legislatures now in Medicaid spending estimated at more than $900 billion over 10 years, as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

, an associate director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the specific worry is that buy-in programs, though they’re a small part of the larger Medicaid system, could increase overall Medicaid spending if eligibility changes.

“The premiums charged in buy-in programs are nowhere near close to the expected costs of covering people,” Burns said. (KFF is a health policy research, polling, and news organization that includes 吃瓜不打烊.)

Focusing on initial cost increases is myopic, said , the director of disability policy at at Iowa’s Drake University. More workers mean additional income tax revenue for states. It also enables some people with disabilities to earn enough to transition off other government assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

“Three, five, seven years from now, you may be recouping those expenses by having people be able to work their way off,” Van Sant said.

Falling Through the Cracks

Iowa lawmakers tried a more modest adjustment during this year’s legislative session. Instead of removing the income limit entirely, they introduced legislation that would raise the cap to 300% of the federal poverty level and exempt pension accounts and a spouse’s income, among other things, from the asset cap.

In the end, the provision was stripped from a wide-ranging public assistance bill. If it had passed, the new income limit would have been one of the for a buy-in program, according to KFF.

, a former City Council member in Sioux City who was paralyzed from the chest down after a diving accident, told state lawmakers during a hearing in February that the proposal was a step in the right direction, but not enough.

“I fear that we’re going to lose people to other states,” said Watters, who added that he was considering moving to Minnesota, which never had an income cap and eliminated asset caps for its in 2024.

Even if Iowa had raised its income limit, Carter would still have been ineligible.

Carter remains committed to her primary job at the school district. She plans to keep working there and taking on additional jobs, seven days a week, so she can pay for her medical needs and continue helping students.

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and .

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

And as a federal court mulls a case that could result in significant restrictions on a pill used in most abortions, healthcare providers say they have alternatives to preserve access even in states with bans in place. Read more here.

A Ban Won’t Stop Abortion Pill Access, Telehealth Providers Say

By Kate Wells June 24, 2026

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