The labor and delivery unit where she used to work in this rural northeastern Georgia community is no longer open. So, she asked former co-workers to be on standby around her anticipated due date. She and her midwife mapped out emergency rooms along the more-than-50-mile trek to the hospital in Greenville, South Carolina, where she planned to give birth. And, to prepare for a worst-case scenario, she curated items to keep in the car in case she went into labor en route.

“That’s a horrible place to put a pregnant woman in,” said Holden, who on Oct. 11 made the painful, hourlong trip to Greenville Memorial Hospital to deliver her son Tucker.

Holden lives roughly midway between Athens and Greenville, two of the nearest cities with labor and delivery units. Owing partly to Medicaid cuts from President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, St. Mary’s Sacred Heart Hospital in Lavonia nearly a year ago. Its closure is part of a trend touching rural communities nationwide. From South Dakota to and from to , low Medicaid reimbursement and dwindling birth rates are pushing hospitals to shutter these services. Today, of rural hospitals offer labor and delivery services.

In Georgia, only 36% of rural hospitals have a labor and delivery unit, and four have closed since 2020, according to data from the .

To address the challenge the closings pose to patients seeking care, the state — which ranks among the for maternal health outcomes — has turned to federal money from the $50 billion . This fund was created by congressional Republicans to offset concerns about the outsize fallout Trump’s signature legislation would have in rural communities.

More than $12 million — out of the nearly $219 million approved for Georgia in the program’s first year — will be allocated toward placing obstetric carts in 43 rural hospitals without labor and delivery units. The carts will be outfitted with supplies needed for a birth or obstetric emergency. For example, they’ll have neonatal resuscitation tools, thermal blankets, and essential medications such as oxytocin, which stimulates contractions, and magnesium sulfate, used to treat seizures in pregnant people with high blood pressure.

The delivery carts sound fine, in theory, said Justin Peterson, an OB-GYN who practices in southern Georgia and has seen the pressures rural health institutions face providing maternal care.

Like Holden, Peterson worries that the carts, while helpful, will put supplies in the hands of ER doctors lacking extensive obstetric experience. Instead, he wants the state to fill coverage gaps by investing more to prevent the closure of labor and delivery units in rural areas.

“You’re putting a band-aid on a hemorrhage,” he said.

‘Can’t Practice Scared’

Brittany Mitchell was about seven months pregnant when Sacred Heart’s labor and delivery unit closed. She was reassigned to an OB-GYN in Athens, even though the nearly 50-mile drive from Lavonia was stressful and inconvenient.

That OB-GYN wanted to see Mitchell weekly after finding high levels of protein in her urine — a warning sign of preeclampsia, which can cause organ damage, seizures, and other complications. To make it to those prenatal appointments, she routinely gave up a day of work as a home health aide, a job she said already didn’t pay much.

But if Mitchell were to have another baby, she said, she’d still prefer to drive to Athens to see an OB-GYN than be treated by an ER doctor. When she had her first child nine years ago, the local OB-GYN had to act quickly when her daughter briefly lost oxygen.

“If they were in that situation,” she wondered of ER doctors, “would they know how to do all that?”

In written responses to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, Lauren Williams, director of communications for the Georgia Department of Community Health, said that training ER medical staff is the main goal of the obstetric cart initiative. The rollout will include simulation drills, during which ER staff will practice high-risk procedures.

The Georgia Hospital Association will procure and distribute the carts. When exactly that will happen is unknown, but the grant funding must be spent by Sept. 30, 2027, said Anna Adams, the organization’s chief government relations officer.

The concept of obstetric carts is great, said Justin Law, an emergency doctor with SouthlandMD, a physician-owned and -operated healthcare management and staffing company. Most items planned for the carts are already available in ERs. But having them in one organized spot will be helpful, he said.

Still, while ER doctors are more frequently positioned at the front lines as labor and delivery closures persist, advocates argue that they shouldn’t be used as a stopgap in obstetric care.

In the decade he’s worked across rural Georgia, Law said, he’s never delivered a baby in the ER even though he’s trained in emergency obstetrics and has experience delivering babies as a paramedic. When a mother needs an emergency cesarean section or has another high-risk complication, she would likely be transferred to a hospital with labor and delivery capabilities, Law said.

Holden, the former obstetric nurse, said familiarity with obstetric delivery practices and procedures is essential because some complications can’t wait for a transfer. “You’re not going to save anybody’s life just because you got access to some equipment,” she said.

Adams understands the concerns and acknowledged that the ER is not the ideal location for delivering a baby. “But sometimes things happen that are outside of our control,” she said. “And when it does, we want to make sure those hospitals are prepared.”

Robin Clyatt, maternal health community outreach coordinator for , said ER doctors have vast knowledge. But they might see someone with a major maternal health complication, such as a hemorrhage, only a few times a year, and therefore may lack the skills to act immediately, she said.

“You can’t practice scared when it comes to obstetrics,” Clyatt said. “And that’s important, because when you practice scared, you do stupid things.”

Ways To Keep Access

The labor and delivery unit at the Coffee Regional Medical Center in Douglas serves six counties in southern Georgia. The number of live births there increased from to , which shows the impact when nearby facilities close, said Peterson, who practices at the Coffee Regional Hospital Women’s Center.

While he understands that hospitals must consider their bottom lines, business decisions in recent years have often taken precedence over patient care, he said.

“They just say, ‘Oh, you know, the numbers aren’t there. We’re closing,’” he said, adding that when rural labor and delivery units shutter, the chance they’ll reopen is small.

Mark Ralston, public relations manager for St. Mary’s Health Care System, which owns Sacred Heart, did not respond to multiple requests to further discuss the unit’s closure. But in its announcement, the system said the decision followed “an extensive 18-month discernment process that included intensive efforts to recruit additional physicians, create new partnerships, and pursue incremental funding sources.”

Nationwide, states are attempting to narrow gaps in maternal healthcare using federal funds. will establish maternal health hubs to determine where resources are needed and help mothers navigate the health system. in rural communities.

In its proposal for federal rural transformation money, Georgia included incentives such as funding 75 new residency slots in various specialties and creating a grant program that would reimburse physicians up to $250,000 in relocation fees if they chose to practice in rural areas.

State legislators could incentivize doctors to stay in rural areas, offer higher reimbursement rates for hospitals, and provide loan forgiveness for physicians, Peterson said. Communities should also look to incorporate certified midwives and community health workers, Holden and Clyatt said, though for both groups to practice. Currently, certified nurse midwives are allowed to practice only in partnership with a physician, which maternal health advocates argue creates a .

Holden had the ability to send her vitals to her doctor and meet with them virtually for prenatal care.

As she adorned bookshelves in baby Tucker’s cozy, sage-green nursery with vintage trinkets and family heirlooms, she said she thought of less-resourced mothers in the area, who may be on Medicaid or not have the luxury to travel an hour for a prenatal appointment.

Holden worries that without prenatal care, conditions like preeclampsia could go undiagnosed more often. “They don’t make it, and their baby doesn’t make it, because they never got that diagnosed and managed,” she said.

People like to remain optimistic that everything will go as planned, but “there are so many things that can go wrong,” she said. “And they can go wrong really quick.”

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

Within months, the state enacted a that required hospitals to proactively screen patients and give financial aid to those who qualify for it. Oregon’s new rules, which took effect in July 2024, required hospitals to skip applications for nearly all patients — a rarity among hospitals nationwide.

“They will be told up front, Hey, we got you,” said Democratic Oregon state Sen. Lisa Reynolds, who introduced the legislation. “You are here at a very scary time in your life because of illness or injury, and we got your back.”

The law worked.

Oregon Health & Science University’s hospital, one of the largest in the state, saw 64% of its patients automatically qualify for financial assistance in the early months of the new law, up from 12% previously.

In their first full fiscal year under the law, spending by Oregon hospitals on financial assistance more than doubled, on average, according to federal financial reports from about two-thirds of the state’s hospitals. That’s compared with their last full year before the change.

For patients, the switch meant direct relief from high healthcare costs, advocates said.

“They don’t have to have the late nights being like, how am I going to afford my mortgage? How am I going to afford these medical bills?” said Adam Zarrin, a director of state government affairs for the advocacy group Blood Cancer United.

Hospitals in the state have pushed back on the requirements, saying they , and they face added financial strain from the Trump administration’s domestic policy agenda. Millions of people are health insurance in coming years under cuts to Medicaid pushed through by Republicans in Congress.

Oregon’s early success is the first big test of a new approach that more states are turning to, known as . Hospitals skip the applications and screen patients automatically to determine if they qualify for aid.

North Carolina this year to include patients with income up to triple the poverty line. and are requiring hospitals to automatically grant financial aid by July 2027.

A Promising Tool To Prevent Medical Debt

As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. have healthcare debt, according to a ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ analysis. That financial burden can alter people’s lives, forcing them to skip prescriptions and follow-up care to avoid further bills.

Hospitals are a of that debt, and they have faced growing scrutiny over and billing practices.

Policymakers have focused specifically on nonprofit hospitals, which account for the sector. Nonprofit hospitals , in exchange for providing benefits to their communities — a vaguely defined standard under federal law. Many hospitals meet this requirement by providing free or discounted care to low-income patients.

That financial assistance, however, can be difficult to get. Applications can be onerous and confusing. Congress and state officials have spent years testing policies to and , with mixed results.

Research finds , as does the degree to which hospitals property, sales, or income taxes.

“Hospitals have been on the winning side of this deal for a long time,” said Reynolds, the Oregon lawmaker. “They enjoy millions and millions and millions of dollars in tax breaks, and that money is supposed to be then spent on poor people who can’t afford their care or even their copayments. It has not penciled out.”

Reynolds pressed for Oregon’s screening requirement, she said, to hold hospitals “accountable for what they should have been doing all along.”

Early evidence suggests the law is doing what Reynolds hoped. Oregon hospitals’ spending on free and discounted care increased to 2.7% of all operating expenses, on average, from 1.4%, among the roughly two-thirds of hospitals with available federal data.

That brings hospitals in Oregon closer to the national average for nonprofit hospitals, which from 2021 to 2024 was about 2.4%, according to an analysis by Johns Hopkins University researcher Hossein Zare, who studies the industry.

More Help for the Insured

Among those in Oregon who started to get more help: patients with health insurance.

OHSU’s spending on help for insured patients reached about $39 million in the first year under the law, federal data shows, about five times as much as in previous years.

Lawrence Furnstahl, then OHSU’s chief financial officer, said in a public meeting in January 2025 that, before the law, insured patients often didn’t apply for help and instead paid their share of the bills. The new automatic screening often wiped out or reduced what they owed — including for large deductibles that patients have to meet out-of-pocket before insurance will kick in.

Patients who pay hospital bills often still carry medical debt, surveys show, because many use from family, friends, or banks to afford their care.

A from the Commonwealth Fund found that 1 in 3 adults with private insurance have medical debt.

“It defies the purpose of health insurance coverage, which is to enable people to get healthcare when they need it and protect them from serious costs,” said Sara Collins, an economist and senior scholar with the Commonwealth Fund.

‘A Very Different World’

For hospitals, the new requirements come as healthcare costs are climbing and federal support for the safety net is shrinking. Nationally, an estimated will be uninsured in 2034 as a result of President Donald Trump’s signature tax-and-domestic-spending law and the expiration of enhanced Obamacare subsidies that Republican lawmakers allowed to lapse at the end of last year.

Hospitals supported Oregon’s new presumptive eligibility law, said Sean Kolmer, an executive vice president for the Hospital Association of Oregon. But they’re feeling more financial pressure, with the organization expecting the state’s uninsured rate to 10% or higher in coming years, he said, up from about 3% .

“That’s a very different world,” he said.

OHSU saw costs rise rapidly. “It is a good thing, but it is an expensive thing,” Furnstahl said in a public meeting as he gave an update on the first months under the law.

In the first year under the new law, OHSU spent about $64 million on free and discounted care — of what it spent on operations that year.

The true cost of more up-front screening is hard to quantify, medical debt experts said. It must also take into account how many people would have never paid their bills anyway and how much hospitals save by not chasing payments.

Lawmakers said hospitals pressed them for relief, and in April, Oregon to ease the state’s screening requirement.

The original law required hospitals to screen everyone on Medicaid or who was uninsured and anyone who owed $500 or more. Lawmakers raised the monetary screening threshold for a single visit . The Medicaid or uninsured requirement remains.

Reynolds, who spearheaded the original law, was unsympathetic to hospitals’ cost concerns. But she agreed to the rollback because she wanted hospitals to have some relief as they fine-tuned their screening process. Oregon hospitals reported that their screening data was less accurate for patients with higher incomes, leading some people who didn’t qualify for help to receive financial assistance.

OHSU studied economic data for Oregon’s residents and reported that about 57% likely had incomes that qualified them for its financial assistance, slightly under the 64% of patients who were receiving help.

Hospitals’ warning of increasing financial stress was a motivator for Democratic Rep. Rob Nosse, who chairs the healthcare committee in the Oregon House of Representatives.

“I don’t want any suburban or rural hospitals to close on my watch,” Nosse said.

People who are no longer automatically eligible can still apply for help with bills less than $1,500, he said.

“I’ve got to make it more expensive for someone to get healthcare so that the hospitals can stay in business,” he added. “What a country.”

This article is part of “,” an investigative series from and ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ about how hospitals can protect their patients from the life-altering harms of medical debt.

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

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 .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ senior correspondent Jordan Rau discussed the use of antipsychotic drugs in sedating dementia patients on Michigan Public’s Stateside on Oct. 6.

• , starting at 31:11.
• Read Rau’s “Drugs Are Widely Used To Sedate Dementia Patients. Her Sons Wanted To Keep Her Off Them.”

Céline Gounder, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed the death of a lab researcher in Russia who was studying the plague on CBS News 24/7’s The Daily Report on Oct. 5.

• .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ Georgia correspondent Briah Lumpkins discussed how healthcare costs and other economic challenges are being received by rural voters on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on Oct. 2.

• .
• Read “Economic Frustration Tests Trump’s Standing With Rural Voters, New KFF-AP Poll Finds,” by Sarah Jane Tribble and The Associated Press.

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

But in recent months, ’s proposed plans for a natural gas pipeline have exposed how population growth, here and across the nation, is driving a divide between wealthy newcomers and longtime residents.

Chatham has grown into one of North Carolina’s , fueled by an influx of new residents in its northeastern corner. Yet the pipeline would run from to , two communities where the per capita income is roughly $25,000 a year, or about half the income typical for the region.

And it’s raising familiar concerns. A from the Chatham County Public Health Department stated that “unjust, unfair, and uneven distribution of social and economic resources” in the county, including exposure to environmental hazards, limited people’s “ability to achieve optimal health.”

In September, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners , saying that “protecting public health, safety, environmental resources, and private property rights remains a priority.” states that the proposed pipeline could affect areas occupied by vulnerable, low-income residents. Under state law, Enbridge could still attempt to take land through eminent domain, and low-income communities affected would have fewer resources available to fight back.

The state Department of Environmental Quality typically would review applications for permits to build a natural gas pipeline. That department has not yet received a permit application for the pipeline, said Onotse Omoyeni, senior press secretary for the office of Gov. Josh Stein. The North Carolina Utilities Commission declined to comment.

Enbridge says the is needed to meet growing energy demands in the area, including Chatham, where the population has soared 21% since 2016, as well as neighboring Lee County.

Yet the proposed pipeline has set off protests at and attracted hundreds of people to a to express their opposition, many of them , retirees, or their relatives. They argue the pipeline would pose an environmental threat to wells used for drinking water and expose people in less affluent areas to that could increase the risks of cancer, preterm births, and asthma — all for the benefit of people who live nowhere near the proposed route.

“Nobody wants to be next to a pipeline,” Dorasue Burns Christian, a retired dental hygienist, told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. She said the proposed route cuts across the roughly 22-acre farm where she has lived for more than 50 years. “I’m stressed and I can’t sleep at night. I have been pushed as far as I can be pushed.”

Enbridge Gas North Carolina is a subsidiary of the Canadian energy company Enbridge. Residents point to other communities in which Enbridge has operated — such as ; and — where oil spills and a natural gas pipeline rupture led to evacuations, injuries, and at least one death.

Enbridge declined an interview request to answer questions about the location of the North Carolina pipeline and the company’s safety record. In a statement, spokesperson Persida Montanez said the pipeline is needed to accommodate population and business growth in Chatham and neighboring Lee County.

A says safety will be prioritized during construction and operation, including monitoring, maintenance, and compliance with regulatory rules.

Many residents believe the company is attempting to profit from a , which many . The company website says that Enbridge does not intend to use the pipeline for that purpose and that serving a data center would require a pipeline at least twice the size of the one planned for Chatham.

The pipeline would connect to existing natural gas infrastructure in Siler City and near Moncure, the company said.

Still, pipeline opponents say they are fed up.

“They chose this route because they probably thought people would not fight back,” said Amanda Clark, a protest organizer who grew up in Chatham. Her family roots in the county date to the 1700s. “In rural communities, we are seen as disposable.”

‘Collateral Damage’

Chatham County’s fight comes amid a in the natural gas pipeline industry and the of “American energy dominance.”

The U.S. produces more natural gas than any other country, about as much as .

Research shows natural gas pipeline leaks are concentrated in where people experience higher rates of poverty and physical disabilities and have fewer means to respond to crises.

Nationwide, there were nearly from 2010 to 2021 that were serious enough that they were required to be reported to the federal government, including fires and explosions that killed 122 people and injured more than 600.

In 2019, and six were injured in Kentucky when an Enbridge natural gas pipeline ruptured, according to a federal government report.

Enbridge reached a with the federal government after the 2010 oil spills in Michigan and Illinois. In the Michigan spill, a pipeline discharged 1 million gallons of oil into Talmadge Creek, in one of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history.

“No Pipeline. No Compromise,” read the red T-shirts worn by some of the more than 300 people who attended a Chatham County Board of Commissioners meeting in Pittsboro, North Carolina, in early August. Outside the building, they displayed signs that said “People NOT Pipelines” and “Save Our Farms.”

Under , private utilities and pipeline companies can , which give them the right of way to construct, operate, and maintain pipelines without outright taking ownership.

Enbridge will propose the final route for the pipeline based on field surveys, environmental studies, and engineering analysis, Montanez said. “The utility is also focused on delivering safe, reliable natural gas service that supports long-term economic vitality,” Montanez said.

Some residents, like Clark, argue that while the pipeline would power more housing and business development in wealthier parts of Chatham, it would create a public health risk in rural, poorer areas.

Clark, who works as the drug and injury prevention manager for the public health office in nearby Guilford County, said her great-grandparents were full-time farmers and passed down land near Siler City where her grandparents, dad, aunt, and cousin live.

Her grandfather retired from a hosiery mill and farmed part-time. He gave land to his children when they married, Clark said, because it was the only major asset he owned.

Clark said she is now in line to inherit land from her family and wants to protect the legacy of people who worked as farmers, mechanics, and schoolteachers from profit-taking by a company.

“We’re the collateral damage,” Clark said. “It makes people feel like they don’t have value.”

A Class Divide

Northern Chatham — which is an easy drive from major universities and , home to more than 250 companies — has seen a rush of newcomers.

Many have settled into places like , a community with boutique shops, gardens, and homes that can cost nearly $1 million. Another master-planned community nearby, , is expected to bring up to tens of thousands of new residents over the next 20 years.

Not far outside the county’s borders are Chapel Hill, home to the University of North Carolina; the state capital of Raleigh, home to North Carolina State University; and Durham, home to Duke University.

As those places have , Chatham has become a cheaper alternative.

But prosperity is fleeting in many parts of the county. A quarter of residents are considered low-income, and on average there are 24 candidates for every job opening, according to a by the NC Budget and Tax Center.

Christian, an 85-year-old widow who lives a few miles south of Pittsboro, spends her days on her farm, raising hay and caring for chickens, birds, dogs, and cats. She has received letters from Enbridge saying the company wants to survey her property, where she lives with her 66-year-old son, who has a disability.

Christian said she needs money to care for her son and worries that she may one day need to move to a nursing home because of declining health. She said she has been diagnosed with macular degeneration, an eye disease that blurs straight-ahead vision, making it difficult to recognize faces or read.

She had planned to make ends meet by selling multiple parcels of land, but she said potential buyers backed out once they heard about the pipeline. At the in August, she pleaded for local officials to try to stop Enbridge.

“They should be ashamed of themselves,” she told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. “It’s disheartening. They are stealing from poor people.”

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

Standing in line for U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s town hall in the state’s capital in September, she whipped out her phone to pull up a screenshot. It was of the $1,000 cashier’s check she’d picked up at the bank that day to pay down a chunk of her son’s dental bills. An early childhood special education paraprofessional, she still owed $389, even with good dental insurance. Her own cleaning a few weeks before cost $600.

She tried to talk herself down at the bank, to focus on being grateful for what she could afford.

“I’m like, ‘Tina, OK, you were in a position for this moment to do this,’” she said. “A lot of people couldn’t do what I had to do today. I couldn’t do it. But I did it. So I need to hear, how are you going to make this better for everyone?”

Many who waited in the hot sun that afternoon in a line stretching blocks through downtown Lansing shared similar anxieties. A man ahead of Starks-Clay talked about watching his brother rack up thousands of dollars in medical debt. A professor emeritus at nearby Michigan State University worried aloud about his grandkids’ medical care, because his adult kids were struggling to meet a $9,000 insurance deductible. Healthcare workers who’d turned up for the event described patients choosing between affording medication or food, or how they themselves had been financially devastated by a medical crisis.

They all knew Michigan Democrat El-Sayed’s rallying cry by heart, chanting it when the candidate took the stage: “Money out of politics! Money in your pocket! Medicare for All!”

Support for Medicare for All is at its highest in at least a decade, according to a . The survey found two-thirds of Americans now favor expanding the government health program that largely covers seniors (about are enrolled in private plans through Medicare Advantage).

But many people don’t actually know how to define Medicare for All. Traditionally, the idea has been to establish a single health insurance program, run by the federal government, that would guarantee coverage for Americans and minimize or even eliminate private insurance. How much people like the idea depends on what they’re told about it, pollsters have found.

Still, at a time when of Americans say they can afford their healthcare, Medicare for All has become a progressive shorthand for radical, systemic change.

“Too many people don’t have health insurance, too many people who do have insurance can’t afford medical care, and many people are terrified about the costs of being sick,” said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill who specializes in the politics of healthcare reform.

“And in an electorate that wants change, that is disenchanted with the status quo, Medicare for All is an important symbol,” he said.

That’s why Democrats running for Senate seats in the midterm elections in such states as Maine, Minnesota, and Florida tout their support for scrapping the current health insurance system in favor of broad Medicare coverage. But nowhere is the issue as central to a race as in Michigan, where Medicare for All has become synonymous with El-Sayed.

El-Sayed, who trained as a doctor and served as Detroit’s top public health official, has campaigned on Medicare for All since his unsuccessful bid for governor in 2018. To Starks-Clay, that means he has a plan and will “stick to it,” she said.

That’s appealing to voters right now, said Ashley Kirzinger, director of survey methodology at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. “When we ask people what do they want to hear from candidates in regards to healthcare, it’s a plan to bring down healthcare costs.”

American Dream or Pipe Dream?

Medicare for All has been the shiny object of progressive politics in previous campaigns, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid and the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. Its popularity rises and falls in cycles, Oberlander said. And today people are painfully aware their care is getting more expensive and harder to access.

In the first decade or so after the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the nation’s uninsured rate was cut . Insurance companies could no longer deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions. Since then, to cover more people, 40 states plus Washington, D.C., have expanded Medicaid, the government health program for those with low incomes or disabilities.

Now it feels as if we’re moving backward, Oberlander said. “We are now, in the past two years, in an era where the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have reversed that progress.”

Michigan, a battleground state that President Donald Trump won in 2024, saw some of the after the GOP-controlled Congress allowed enhanced tax subsidies, which helped people afford their premiums, to expire at the end of last year. Insurance companies in Michigan hiked individual marketplace rates by an average of 20%. And up to 355,000 Michiganders are expected to lose their Medicaid coverage in 2028 because of cuts included in Trump’s signature law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to estimates from the , a left-leaning think tank.

At El-Sayed’s town hall in Lansing, Darleana Ash said patients at the medical diagnostics lab where she works are increasingly skipping tests because they can’t afford them. Others drive hours from rural areas because their local labs have closed or are no longer in their insurance networks. She worries about the patients who must choose between their medications and groceries some months.

“If you got somebody that’s 75, 80 years old, guess what? They’re going to go without the medication, because they got to eat,” she said.

Packed in near the front of the crowded town hall was Cindy Lou Coolich, a boisterous retiree wearing a campaign T-shirt and cowboy hat. She spent years working for a company that helped uninsured people enroll in coverage, until she got sick herself. A bout of sepsis nearly killed her and left her disabled. Suddenly, she was the one enrolling in Medicaid and living on $900 a month from Social Security.

She lost the 15-acre horse farm she’d owned, and then everything else, she said. “Except my car.” The saving grace, oddly, was the death of her ex-husband. Because they’d been married for more than 10 years, she could benefit from his Social Security benefits. “So now I’m doing quite well!” she laughed. But to her, it hardly seemed like the mark of a functioning healthcare system that someone had to die for things to get better.

A Universal Response

Democrats aren’t the only ones responding to voters’ healthcare discontent. Republican Mike Rogers, a former Michigan congressman and El-Sayed’s opponent, recently .

“I just can’t think of a more important issue to the people of Michigan than healthcare and costs, the rising costs,” he said. At a announcing his health platform, he broadly attacked El-Sayed and Medicare for All.

“[If] the government’s going to give you something, they have to take it away from someone else,” Rogers said.

Under Medicare for All, millions of Michiganders with private health insurance would lose that coverage, he said. Pointing to estimates that Medicare for All would cost some $4 trillion per year, he said, “Guess what? People pay for that.” (A recent researchers found that the cost of implementing Medicare for All, estimated at $4.2 trillion, would save about $1 trillion in healthcare spending.) Rogers’ campaign declined an interview request from ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

Concerns about increased taxation, disruption to the current system, and reduced access to services can make Medicare for All a political liability in a close election, Oberlander said. “It doesn’t matter if the fears that they’re spreading are actually accurate,” he said. “Politically, what matters is if they can scare people.”

But even if El-Sayed wins in November, the chances of Medicare for All replacing the current system “remain very remote in the short to medium term,” Oberlander said.

Given the staunch opposition from Republicans and many moderate Democrats, not to mention the lobbying power of the healthcare industry, massively overhauling the U.S. health system won’t suddenly be achievable because of a single Senate candidate.

Thomas “Jermaine” Carey knows this. A self-described activist, he attended a recent El-Sayed town hall in Detroit feeling “kind of sold out” by what he calls the “straight-ticket” Democratic Party. Medicare for All sounds good, he said. “Do I believe it?” He shrugged.

“It’s still America,” he said. “You still have super PACs, the lobbyists that control everything.”

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

In the Associated Press-KFF survey of more than 2,000 rural voters in August, about a third said the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement had been positive for their community and about a third said it had been negative. The remaining 3 in 10, roughly, said it had no impact.

Trump promised tough enforcement on the campaign trail in 2024, and the survey highlights how a cornerstone of his base, rural supporters of his Make America Great Again movement, are especially likely to say they see a benefit where they live from the Republican president’s stringent immigration policies.

Yet many rural voters also say immigrants are a key part of their local economies, and some believe Trump’s immigration actions have gone too far.

Laura Leigh Taylor, a 37-year-old farmer who voted for Trump in 2024, said she disapproves of the wide-ranging scope of Trump’s immigration crackdown, which resulted in a friend’s hardworking father being deported.

“I understand getting rid of the rapists and the murderers,” she said. “But all the people that fell in between, that really weren’t doing nothing but taking care of their family, … they got torn from their families.”

Taylor now regrets her vote for Trump. As a resident of Smithville, Georgia, a town of about 600, Taylor thinks she will vote for Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in November because, she said, the Democrats have been the ones talking about families being uprooted by Trump’s immigration enforcement.

“Just because of that simple fact, I’m going to go with him,” Taylor said.

Most Rural Voters Want Politicians To Talk About Immigration

Roughly three-quarters of rural voters say it’s “extremely” or “very” important for midterm candidates to talk about immigration, though that’s lower than the share who want them to address the cost of living, fraud in government programs, or healthcare costs.

Rural voters don’t overwhelmingly think Trump’s immigration policies have helped their communities, but they are also less likely than the general public to say that Trump has overstepped in his efforts, which have involved mass deportations and rapid deportations of immigrants to countries where they have no ties.

Only about 4 in 10 rural voters say Trump has “gone too far” in restricting legal immigration or deporting immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization, below the 55% of U.S. adults overall who said the same in a September AP-NORC poll.

John Thomas, a 55-year-old from Liberty, Kentucky, supports Trump’s efforts to deport people without legal status. Thomas, who has just been approved for disability benefits after injuring his back in 2008, believes they put too much of a burden on the healthcare system. Regulating immigration, he said, is a means of providing better healthcare to Americans.

“They’ve been taking from everybody,” Thomas said of immigrants. “People that really need this stuff can’t get it because of them.”

David Grabowski, a professor of healthcare policy at Harvard Medical School, said that research suggests immigrants use less healthcare than native-born Americans. “It is hard to argue that they are placing an undue burden on the system,” he said, because many immigrants work in healthcare and pay taxes.

Most Rural Voters See Immigrants’ Economic Importance

Immigrants often play key roles in sustaining local industries, including by filling jobs in manufacturing, healthcare, and agriculture. The survey suggests the vast majority of rural voters see immigrants in the country legally as an important part of their local economies.

Shannon Monnat, director of the Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University and president of the Rural Sociological Society, said immigration has been a demographic lifeline for much of rural America. Rural areas have been losing young adults for years, she said.

“For a lot of small towns, immigrants are the reason the school and hospital stayed open and the county didn’t shrink,” Monnat said.

About 7 in 10 rural voters see immigrants who are in the country legally as “very” or “somewhat” important to their local economies, and a similar share say the same about temporary or seasonal agriculture workers. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants take seasonal jobs on U.S. farms each year, with most of them coming from Mexico, on H-2A visas.

Rural voters with a connection to agriculture and farming are more likely than those without one to say that temporary or seasonal workers are “very important” to their local economies, the poll found.

Jeff Miller, a 56-year-old Republican hydro blaster and vacuum technician, has mostly been pleased with Trump’s agenda, and he believes things are “heading in the right direction.” The one thing Miller has struggled with is Trump’s aggressive immigration policy, which he blames for the deportation of a “really good worker” and friend, who was removed from the U.S. when his work permit expired.

Miller, from Racine, Ohio, said he would support exceptions for hard workers, or just a less aggressive approach.

“There’s kind of an up-and-down thing because I lost a really good friend over that,” Miller said.

Rural voters are much less likely to say immigrants who are in the country illegally are beneficial, but 45% say they are at least “somewhat” important to local economies.

Albert Martinez, a 70-year-old Democrat from San Diego, Texas, voted for Trump in 2016, but he now believes the Trump administration has “gone amok.” The Army veteran said he is a proponent of getting criminals out of the country, but that is not what he is seeing happening with current immigration enforcement.

“They started doing everybody across the board,” Martinez said. “Innocent kids and women, people who work in restaurants, people who work in hotels, people who are building homes, people who are doing masonry work, and innocent, good, taxpaying people. Taxpayers. It’s insane.”

Rural MAGA Voters Support Trump’s Immigration Policies

Some of Trump’s most loyal supporters — rural Republicans who consider themselves MAGA supporters — are about twice as likely as rural, non-MAGA Republicans to see a benefit to Trump’s immigration policies where they live.

Roughly 4 in 10 rural voters identify as MAGA Republicans, while about 1 in 10 are Republicans but not MAGA supporters.

About two-thirds of rural MAGA Republicans say Trump’s immigration policies have had a positive impact where they live. Roughly half say the Trump administration has “not gone far enough” on deporting immigrants in the country illegally, while about half say his actions have been “about right.”

Katherine Reed, a 27-year-old Republican who supports the MAGA movement, has been pleased to see the Trump administration’s deportation policies play out. The resident of Mount Pleasant, Texas, believes her community has always been safe but that the administration’s policies have had a positive impact by reducing violent crime nationwide, saying, “It’s made life for people a lot safer.”

She believes if someone comes to America, they should “respect the law of the land” and “do it legally.”

“I want really amazing people to become Americans,” Reed said. “That’s the whole point of America.”

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

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ chief rural correspondent Sarah Jane Tribble discussed the findings of a KFF-Associated Press poll about rural support for the Make America Healthy Again movement on NPR’s Morning Edition on Sept. 30.

• .
• Read Tribble’s “Rural MAHA Followers Say Trump Health Policies Haven’t Reached Their Communities,” co-reported with Ali Swenson and Linley Sanders of the AP.

Céline Gounder, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed a new GLP-1 weight loss drug on CBS News’ CBS Mornings and health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s comments at a MAHA summit this week on CBS News 24/7’s Mornings, both on Sept. 30.

Gounder also discussed how Anthropic’s Claude agents might help develop new gene-editing technology on CBS News 24/7’s The Daily Report on Sept. 24.

• .
• .
• .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ senior correspondent Renuka Rayasam discussed the Rural Health Transformation Program on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on Sept. 25.

• .

• Read ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ ongoing coverage: Rural Health Payout.

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

But Democratic strongholds across the country — including Oregon, California, , and — have more ambitious goals: single-payer, universal healthcare systems.

No state is closer to that goal than Oregon. A panel created by the state legislature in 2023 is slated to send lawmakers its proposal for a universal health plan by Dec. 1. The nine-person seeks to establish, starting in 2032, medical, vision, dental, and mental health benefits for every state resident from cradle to grave — with no premiums, deductibles, or copayments. Lawmakers could vote on a plan during the 2027 legislative session or refer it to voters as a ballot measure in 2028.

If approved, the state would be the first in the U.S. to implement what’s called a single-payer health coverage system. It could serve as a model for other states — and potentially the nation.

Proponents of the proposal argue that the public supports universal healthcare more than ever as healthcare spending and complexity grow. patients often delay care due to out-of-pocket costs. And medical debt remains a in the nation.

States have often served as laboratories to test health policies later implemented nationally. The Affordable Care Act was modeled after Massachusetts’ attempt to achieve universal health insurance coverage, once single-payer efforts there stalled. And Canada’s universal healthcare system began with a provincial plan in Saskatchewan.

“In the short to medium term, there is no chance that ‘Medicare for All’ can be passed at the national level,” said , a University of North Carolina health policy professor. “That’s where the states come in. A state like Oregon provides a more hospitable political environment and a more realistic path to single-payer reform.”

But advocates of the plan expect a significant fight from healthcare behemoths, including large hospital systems, seeking to sour public opinion on making such widespread changes. are health insurers. The industry’s deep pockets have helped derail myriad universal healthcare efforts at the federal and state levels.

In 2011, the Vermont Legislature voted to implement a universal healthcare plan but, three years later, Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin, who had campaigned on the promise of single-payer, pulled the plug, citing “potential economic disruption.”

States that took the issue directly to voters have fared no better. Ballot measures in in 2016, in 2002, and in 1994 all failed by large margins.

“The aspirations of progressive reformers usually run smack into sobering political realities,” Oberlander said. “Translating a slogan into a legislative and political reality is a daunting task.”

Redirected Healthcare Dollars

Oregon’s proposal seeks to maintain the current level of spending on healthcare by government, business, and consumers with new corporate and personal taxes to replace insurance premiums and other out-of-pocket costs. Those would be combined with federal and state spending to create a single fund from which all hospitals, doctors, and other practitioners would be paid.

Board members said savings from cutting red tape, reducing fraud, and negotiating drug costs should allow the state to provide better benefits to more people.

In , the board estimated that a 30-year-old making $55,000 and purchasing a benchmark silver-level plan through the Affordable Care Act now pays $5,478 a year for insurance premiums in Oregon, but instead could pay $2,331 in taxes under the proposed plan.

Someone making $55,000 a year with coverage through their employer now pays $3,063 in premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Under the draft plan, that person could pay nothing for health services and could see any doctor in the state.

Currently, many employers pay much of the health insurance costs for their workers. The plan seeks to maintain those contributions by establishing a corporate payroll tax for companies whose payrolls exceed $500,000. Their employees could receive a partial tax credit for the taxes their employers pay. As a result, 31% to 60% of Oregonians wouldn’t pay anything for health benefits.

More affluent people, however, could end up paying more than they do now. The exact numbers would depend on how lawmakers set tax rates and payment thresholds.

“What we are proposing is something very different,” said , executive director of the Oregon board. “Everyone contributes based on the amount that they are able to contribute and not based on utilization.”

Messaging Challenge Lies Ahead

The plan’s backers will try to convince hospitals and health systems that they would benefit from reducing red tape and eliminating unpaid bills. Currently, hospitals to bill dozens of public and private health plans, each with its own coverage and billing rules. A single plan covering everyone in the state could streamline the process, saving billions.

Rural hospitals could gain financial stability. They now often struggle to stay afloat because they typically have higher rates of patients who are uninsured or on Medicaid, with its often low reimbursement rates.

Hospitals aren’t so sure.

“The universal health plan proposal preserves much of the broken, fragmented status quo and adds new taxes and complexity that Oregonians can’t afford,” said Becky Hultberg, president and CEO of the . “With federal policy changes looming, we are entering a period of tremendous upheaval. This proposal could destabilize a system that is already struggling.”

Under the proposal, doctors and other practitioners would be paid somewhere between what Medicare pays on the low end and what private insurance pays on the high end. Although total payments to doctors would remain unchanged, rates would be negotiated with physician groups to shift more money into primary care and less into specialty services.

But it is unclear whether doctors would agree that more patient time, fewer administrative hurdles, and no more unpaid bills would be worth a payment structure that could cause specialists to lose out.

“There’s always winners and losers in designing something like this, and so how to distribute those is the hardest part,” said , an associate health policy professor at Pacific University who is slated to join the Oregon board in January. “But the second-hardest part is, I think, messaging this.”

Courtni Dresser, vice president of government relations for the , said her physicians group shares many of the board’s goals in improving access to care and reducing administrative burdens. But the group has yet to declare its support or opposition to the effort.

Health insurers haven’t formally weighed in on Oregon’s proposal either, but a single-payer system would, in essence, close off Oregon to any private healthcare plans.

“We expect insurance companies to put every ounce of money they can against this idea because our system is broken and they profit from it,” said Collin Stackhouse, communications coordinator for , a consumer group advocating for universal healthcare.

, a former insurance company executive who now works to expose industry influence, said he expects health plans to hammer the Oregon proposal with claims of high taxes, loss of choice, and the specter of “socialized medicine.”

“Most people go year to year without testing the limits of their health insurance policy,” Potter said. “And so, they’re easily scared into thinking that something valuable will be taken away from them, and that they will have something that’s inferior in its place.”

Health insurers argue their health plans help shield consumers from the full impact of rising healthcare costs.

“Americans consistently report strong satisfaction with their health coverage, including more than 180 million covered through work and 36 million who choose Medicare Advantage,” said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for the health insurance . “Policy solutions are needed to rein in the ever-higher prices charged by hospitals and drugmakers and make care more affordable for everyone.”

Federal Approval Needed

It’s unclear whether Oregon could secure federal approval to redirect Medicare and Medicaid dollars into its universal plan. Backers of the proposal do not expect the Trump administration to be receptive but say it will be years before approval is needed and hope the 2028 presidential election ushers in a more supportive administration. If federal waivers are not secured, Oregon could proceed in stages, starting with the non-Medicare population.

In California, Democratic candidates for governor are not debating whether to implement single-payer but how. New York lawmakers are debating a single-payer bill called the . And in Washington, state legislators have created a commission to design a universal healthcare plan.

The Oregon board has had regular contact with teams working on single-payer proposals in California and Washington, sharing approaches and looking for ways to collaborate, McDonell said.

, an Oregon family physician and a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, said he could envision the other West Coast states joining Oregon in implementing single-payer, much as California, Washington, and Hawai‘i have in to counter changes in federal vaccine recommendations.

“If our four states could do it,” he said, “that would be the momentum we would need to get it nationally.”

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

One way patients can avoid medical debt is through hospital financial assistance, also known as charity care. Most of the nation’s hospitals offer free or discounted medical care to patients with very high medical debt or low incomes.

Getting financial assistance, however, can be challenging. Many that hospitals offer financial help, surveys show, and leave others stymied.

Hospitals often demand that applicants turn over bank statements, pay stubs, tax returns, divorce filings, or other materials, and submit their applications in person, by mail, or by fax.

“They don’t make it easy,” said Neale Mahoney, a Stanford University economist who studies medical debt.

Such hurdles leave many patients with unpaid bills they should never have had to pay in the first place. In a single year, hospitals and health systems billed patients for at least , one analysis found.

As healthcare costs climb and more people lose their coverage, states and hospitals are testing an emerging approach to fix this problem: automatically screening patients to see if they qualify for assistance and proactively wiping out debt when they do. This is known as “presumptive eligibility.”

Under this approach, patients may have the cost of their care wiped out before they see any bills — but not always. Hospitals differ on when, how, and for whom they use auto-enrollment, potentially impinging on patients’ finances.

Here’s what you need to know about how auto-enrollment works.

What is hospital financial assistance?

In many states, hospitals for whom they provide financial aid. Eligibility is typically based on income for the patient’s entire household. The closer patients are to poverty, the less they have to pay. Patients with middle incomes and insurance are sometimes eligible for discounts, especially if their bills would gobble up a big chunk of what they earn.

require hospitals to wipe out bills for low-income patients, though income cutoffs vary. Georgia, for example, mandates free care for anyone with income slightly above the federal threshold for poverty. In several states — including Oregon, North Carolina, and Maryland — patients can earn double that amount and still get free care.

But in most states, many patients must complete applications to receive assistance.

Several states in recent years have and designed to make it easier for people to get help. , however, suggests gaps persist.

How many hospitals use auto-enrollment?

Nearly all nonprofit hospitals say they screen and automatically reduce bills for certain patients.

Under the Affordable Care Act, nonprofit hospitals must make reasonable efforts to find people who are eligible for help before they take patients to court, sell their debt to collection agencies, or ding their credit over bills. Presumptive eligibility is one way hospitals can comply with the regulation, which took effect in 2016.

In the first year under the new rules, about 70% of tax-exempt hospitals nationwide said they screened patients and proactively reduced bills, according to an analysis of federal data for Tradeoffs by the independent research institute RTI International. As of 2022, that figure was nearly 90%.

The federal law doesn’t apply to for-profit and public hospitals, which don’t have to report the actions they take before going after patients for unpaid bills.

In six states, policymakers require hospitals to use presumptive eligibility and skip applications for certain patients. Those states are California, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, and Oregon.

Who is eligible to be automatically enrolled in financial assistance?

In most states, hospitals decide which patients can skip the application.

Common groups automatically screened include people who are homeless, deceased, or already enrolled in state or federal programs to help low-income households with housing, food, or prescriptions. Other hospitals have more unique criteria, like , which will write off bills for anyone in a religious order who took a vow of poverty.

Eligibility criteria are often buried in official policies and hard to find or decipher. Some hospitals share little to no public information about whom they will proactively screen. Thirteen hospitals owned by Ascension, one of the nation’s largest Catholic health systems, state only that they may screen patients “with a sufficient unpaid balance.”

Across the half-dozen states with presumptive eligibility mandates, eligibility rules vary. Maryland, for example, requires hospitals to proactively wipe out bills only for patients who already get government help for food or utilities but are ineligible for Medicaid. In Illinois, lawmakers created less-stringent requirements for rural hospitals compared with urban facilities.

In Oregon, starting in 2024, hospitals had to screen anyone who owed more than $500 and every patient on Medicaid or who is uninsured. In 2025, roughly 80% of Oregon patients who got financial help with bills never filled out an application, based on data shared publicly by the first 26 hospitals to do so. The state’s legislature this year raised the screening threshold to include patients who owe at least $1,500 for a single visit.

Without an application, how do hospitals figure out who gets help?

Hospitals have several ways to find patients eligible for financial assistance.

Typically, hospitals turn to public records, any information patients have previously volunteered, or tools from consumer credit companies to estimate whether patients qualify to have bills reduced.

For example, if a hospital sees that a patient lives in a high-poverty ZIP code or has no address listed, that could be enough to deem them eligible. Many pay companies to run employment and credit checks on patients to determine whether they qualify for free care.

Hospitals may also consider how likely patients are to pay bills, regardless of how much they earn. This is called “propensity to pay.” California and Oregon prohibit its use, concerned that hospitals may try to collect more often from people who dutifully pay their bills even though their incomes qualify them for financial assistance.

When do hospitals screen patients for financial aid?

It depends.

Illinois, North Carolina, and Oregon require hospitals to screen certain patients before they send any bills. California hospitals will have to do the same starting in 2027.

Some hospitals voluntarily screen patients before sending bills; others try to collect money from patients first. As long as they screen patients before suing them for very overdue bills, hospitals can stay within the letter of the federal law that pushed many of them to embrace presumptive eligibility.

For example, the is to screen patients only “after all other eligibility and payment sources have been exhausted.”

Anna Stelter, vice president of policy for the Texas Hospital Association, said hospitals want to investigate other options for payment — like Medicaid or county safety net programs — before they give out financial assistance.

“We do want to make sure that whoever is financially responsible for that care is identified and pays,” Stelter said. “Charity care is the relief of last resort.”

Hospitals’ publicly posted policies may also be fuzzy about when they will screen for patients likely eligible for help. For example, in Fort Worth, Texas, says its goal is to determine a patient’s eligibility “as soon as sufficient information is available.”

Who pays the bills when patients get free care?

In one sense, we all do. Taxpayers cover some or all of the cost of financial assistance, though the amount varies by hospital.

About half the nation’s hospitals are nonprofit and legally get a pass on paying most taxes. KFF estimates that nonprofit hospitals in 2020 that they would otherwise have paid as income, sales, or property taxes.

Government-owned and for-profit hospitals have their own sets of tax benefits to help offset costs for low-income patients. Government hospitals often , and for-profit hospitals generally receive smaller government subsidies, like for caring for high numbers of uninsured and Medicaid patients.

Whether taxpayer dollars fully cover hospitals’ costs for financial assistance depends on the amount of government support they receive — information often not publicly available. It also hinges on how many patients need help, how many meet hospitals’ criteria for assistance, and how many get through an application. Research shows hospitals spend on financial assistance, from less than 1% of yearly expenses to more than 7%.

Philanthropy and hospitals’ income cover costs not absorbed by tax dollars.

This article is part of “,” an investigative series from and ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ about how hospitals can protect their patients from the life-altering harms of medical debt.

Melanie Evans is a reporter for Tradeoffs, a nonprofit newsroom reporting on healthcare’s toughest choices. to get the latest stories every Thursday morning.

Tradeoffs’ reporting for this series was supported, in part, by the California Health Care Foundation, the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and the Solutions Journalism Network.

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