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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing With Dyes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, not quite.

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

An Insurance Deal Falls Short of Promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deals and Deregulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trump administration, however, is .

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

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

Julie Rovner 吃瓜不打烊 Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 吃瓜不打烊’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Summer may be approaching its end, but the health policy stories that have marked the season continue. In Washington and across the country, public health officials are still struggling with outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles, while states and health systems are preparing for the impact of major federal funding cuts to their Medicaid programs.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 吃瓜不打烊, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Shefali Luthra The 19th

Rachel Roubein The Washington Post

Margot Sanger-Katz The New York Times

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• More Americans are struggling to afford health coverage, even before some of the biggest GOP-initiated changes to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act plans take effect next year. And the federal government’s efforts to block coverage of drugs used in gender-affirming care and to claw back ACA subsidies are creating access issues for a wider pool of Americans.
• Pennsylvania health officials this week reported two measles-related deaths amid an ongoing outbreak and the national debate over vaccines. While many of the actions taken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Robert F. Kennedy Jr. remain held up in litigation, President Donald Trump has made his personal skepticism about vaccines known, including through his recent executive order. Meanwhile, the administration is scaling back enforcement of civil rights protections for people with autism.
• The Trump administration is inviting states to participate in price negotiations with manufacturers over GLP-1 drugs if the states opt to offer the drugs through their Medicaid programs. But, amid concerns over cost, only one state has taken the federal government up on its offer.
• And farewell to Dolly Parton, the superstar country music singer and songwriter, also known for her philanthropic work, who died this week at age 80. In addition to her donation in 2020 supporting the development of the mRNA-based covid vaccine, Parton funded pediatric infectious disease research, a women’s health center in the Tennessee county where she was raised, and training for pediatric medical professionals.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Dean Rosen about his work for former Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum, a Kansas Republican and the first woman to lead a major Senate committee, who died last week at age 94.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too: 

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “,” by Tamar Haspel.  

Margot Sanger-Katz: Stat’s “,” by Anil Oza.  

Rachel Roubein: The New York Times’ “,” by Noah Daly and Andrew Jacobs.  

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post and 吃瓜不打烊’ “,” by LJ Dawson.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Stat’s “,” by Daniel Payne.
• Modern Healthcare’s “,” by Nona Tepper.
• Stat’s “,” by John Wilkerson.
• The Washington Post’s “,” by Naema Ahmed, Lena H. Sun and Aaron Steckelberg.
• CIDRAP’s “,” by Meghan Holohan.
• Stat’s “,” by Elizabeth Cooney.
• Politico’s “,” by Kelly Hooper.
• 吃瓜不打烊’ “Trump Puts Autistic Kids in the Spotlight and Cuts Agencies Built To Protect Them,” by Claire Sibonney.

Credits

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From 吃瓜不打烊” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

MILLVILLE, Pa. 鈥� In an open field, arrows whizzed through the humid June air and struck their targets. Campers and counselors cheered.

It was archery hour at . Operations director Drew Meyer watched, a few tears escaping from behind his dark sunglasses.

“They will surprise you, like, flat out,” he said of the campers, who have all survived brain injuries. “They’ll come out here, and they’ll shoot for three hours and start hitting the target.”

Campers, ranging in age from 10 to 21, have been coming to Camp Cranium in Pennsylvania’s rural Columbia County since 2008. Some of their brain injuries are so severe that they have to relearn basics, from talking to tying their shoelaces. Some use wheelchairs or crutches. But during a week at camp, they climb rock walls, swim, and whiz down a zip line through the lush forest.

The existence of Camp Cranium, and a handful of others like it, is a response to a decades-long national trend: More people, including children, now survive crises resulting in brain injury than did in the 1980s. The improvements in survival are largely due to seat belt laws and and trauma centers that can treat injuries quickly.

But recently, efforts to track and prevent one type of brain injury, traumatic ones, are in flux after Congress didn’t renew a and prevention of traumatic brain injuries, and the Trump administration fired hundreds of employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including the team tracking traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs.

“Brain injury can happen to anybody,” said , executive director of the . “This community deserves more.”

Tracking Brain Injuries

Lucas Hardy, 14, smiled at the encouraging crowd below. In a shady clearing in the woods, he climbed the 30-foot rock wall, aided by a hoist that pulled him out of his wheelchair and helped support his moves. Hardy suffered a traumatic brain injury at age 3, when a tree branch fell on him at a birthday party.

Annually, an estimated 2.8 million Americans experience a TBI 鈥� including about 475,000 children, according to the .

Recent data suggests those are undercounts. In 2018, a CDC team piloted a household survey asking about TBIs in a sample of U.S. children and adults. The results concluding that such injuries, which are often considered “hidden” because the damage is internal and unseen, are more widespread than hospitalization numbers suggest.

The mass firings at the CDC in early 2025 studying TBI, right before they were expected to launch a . A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, Emily Hilliard, did not respond to questions about the number of employees terminated, or if they were reinstated or replaced.

In a statement, she said: “The Trump Administration remains committed to supporting efforts to prevent traumatic brain injuries, improve surveillance, and ensure Americans have access to practical, evidence-based information that can help protect their health and safety.”

She said the agency’s TBI work is now handled by other staff members at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Hilliard said the CDC is deciding how to establish a cost-effective national concussion surveillance system within the bounds of current funding, and said the agency in 2026 dedicated funds to support, among other things, an about concussions, an , and concussion surveillance.

But Wolfkiel still worries about how the CDC firings and the impasse over federal funding will affect brain injury research and prevention efforts in the long term.

“The lack of resources and programs and information that’s out there is really just sort of appalling,” Wolfkiel said.

Federal Funding Uncertainty

Tony Sadowski, the camp’s , remembers when his son, Bryan, suffered a brain bleed that caused a hemorrhagic stroke at age 6. “You’re in the emergency room,” he recalled, “not knowing what version of your son’s going to wake up.”

Now 18, Bryan Sadowski has attended the camp for years.

“We’re very lucky to be able to be here,” the elder Sadowski said.

In 1996, before Bryan was born, Congress passed the Traumatic Brain Injury Act, which has provided many states with grants for TBI research, advocacy, and services. Since then, Congress reauthorized the act four times, largely with bipartisan support, until 2024.

It has remained lapsed since then. Trump’s secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, , supported when he was a senator. Congress is whether to reauthorize funding through 2030.

Despite the lapse in funding, money is still flowing to TBI programs at the CDC and in states, according to , president and CEO of the Brain Injury Association of America.

Congress did appropriate $8.25 million for TBI program activities through the . That’s far less than the $23 million Congress provided for each fiscal year, from 2020 through 2024, the last time it .

“The TBI Act is the only piece of federal funding for traumatic brain injury at the federal level,” Willis said. “We’re aiming to preserve what we have.”

The funding uncertainty has not affected the handful of brain injury camps, including Camp Cranium and in Alabama, because they are nonprofits that mostly rely on private donations.

Back at Camp Cranium, bursts of laughter, whoops of delight, and distant chatter punctuated the humid summer air.

While her fellow campers did archery or art, Brianna Engleman moved between groups, collecting song requests for a dance that evening. When she was 5, doctors performed a to relieve her of debilitating seizures. But the surgery itself can injure other parts of the brain.

She lives in Northern Virginia and first attended Camp Cranium as a teen in 2018. It was her first time being around so many people like her, said Engleman, now 21.

“I’ve gotten more confident,” Engleman said. “It made me think, well, there’s actually good people out there.”

Next time she returns to camp, she said, she plans to do so as a counselor.

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 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaching Rural Patients

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

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

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

吃瓜不打烊 is collecting states’ applications and approved plans and budgets, not all of which have been posted on state websites.

Rural Health Payout

Tracking Applications聽for Rural Health Transformation聽Funds

吃瓜不打烊 is working to collect and post complete application materials, by state, here and will update this repository as new materials, released in response to public records requests, arrive.

Dec. 4, 2025

Rural Health Payout

Tracking State Rural Health Transformation Plans

吃瓜不打烊 is working to collect and post approved plans as more states respond to emails and public records requests for their documents.

July 27, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIY Dashboards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on 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 cool, mossy spring lies just across the highway from White Mesa Mill, the nation’s , which produces yellowcake for nuclear power fuel.

For decades, the mill has sparked debate over whether radioactive contamination threatens human health by getting into the water and the air. Concerns run especially deep in the White Mesa Ute Community, where Lehi and about 200 members of his tribe live some 5 miles south of the facility.

State regulators and the company that owns the mill contend that any pollution associated with it is contained. That’s little consolation to nearby tribal members, who 鈥� aware of uranium’s deadly legacy across the Colorado Plateau 鈥� have raised questions about the potential spread of toxic waste. Many won’t drink the local water, relying on bottled water instead.

Now the tribe’s concerns have taken on new urgency as the U.S. pushes to revive domestic uranium production. A federal law, passed in 2024, by 2028, increasing pressure to develop domestic fuel supplies. President Donald Trump U.S. nuclear energy capacity by 2050. He to prioritize mining on federal lands and fast-track approval of mining projects. The Velvet-Wood uranium mine in Utah, for instance, in 11 days, to the who were given one week to offer input.

Trump’s goal of quadrupling nuclear power capacity will be hard to meet, because it would require constructing more reactors 鈥� which are difficult to build and often meet local opposition, said , a senior fellow for climate and energy at the Council on Foreign Relations. But data centers and rising electricity demand have intensified interest in nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source, he said. And are to it.

So the effort to obtain the key ingredient, uranium, is underway.

The White Mesa Mill, built in 1980 near what is now in southeastern Utah, is a focal point of this latest uranium boom 鈥� and the tensions between local tribal concerns and national economic interests. Increased demand draws a steady flow of trucks carrying uranium ore to the mill from regional mines, including one near the Grand Canyon where the Havasupai Tribe lives. That ore is trucked through the Navajo Nation. And the mill plans to expand its waste storage, as well.

A former tribal councilmember, Lehi is part of a growing opposition that includes members of the Havasupai and Navajo (Diné) tribes, who are now linked by the uranium trucking routes passing through their lands. The Havasupai and Ute Mountain Ute tribes share concerns that toxic wastewater from uranium mining and milling may move through the ground and poison drinking water for future generations.

A History of Distrust

One spring morning in White Mesa, Yolanda Badback gazed out an open door not far from the highway and watched three uranium trucks drive by.

“There goes another one,” Badback said with a tone of exhaustion. She is a Ute Mountain Ute member and leader of the advocacy group that has been fighting the mill.

The mill receives 10 to 15 trucks each weekday, said Curtis Moore, senior vice president of marketing and corporate development at , which has owned the facility since 2012. The majority pass through White Mesa.

The mill’s business is picking up after a quiet 15 years, Moore said. The White Mesa Mill produced 1 million pounds of yellowcake last year; the company that this year, he said. The mill has also diversified into processing radioactive waste from as far away as and Japan, and received a from the Defense Department to scale up its domestic processing of rare earth elements.

The new rare earths business alone could create 100 permanent jobs, Moore said. About half of the mill’s 105 workers are Indigenous; Moore estimated that no more than two belong to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.

“When it comes to tribes in the area, I do very much understand their skepticism of uranium,” Moore said. “They’ve been lied to before.”

A uranium boom driven by the U.S. government from the 1940s through the 1980s, much of it concentrated around the Four Corners area of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado, exposed miners to from lung and other cancers. Federal reviews found that the miners, many of them Navajo (Diné), even after government scientists understood the dangers. Mining companies left behind thousands of abandoned waste sites that have leached contamination into surrounding soil and water, including on and near the Navajo Nation.

But Moore said things have changed a lot since the 1950s. He said workers today are exposed to 15% to 20% of allowable radiation limits, and outside the mill it’s “effectively zero.”

Government agencies and Energy Fuels officials have said there’s no evidence that the mill is affecting White Mesa’s drinking water supply, which comes from a deep aquifer protected by a thick rock barrier known as an aquitard.

“It really is the perfect site for a uranium mill,” Moore said.

Scott Clow, environmental programs director of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, said that deep aquifer does have quality issues 鈥� including arsenic, iron, and manganese 鈥� but the public drinking water is filtered and safe to drink.

Adam Wingate, uranium recovery manager at the , said he understands why some residents are concerned. White Mesa is downslope in terms of underground water flow from the uranium mill.

If locals hear about the plume of contamination in a different, shallower aquifer beneath the mill 鈥� even if it’s not the source of their drinking water 鈥� and their own water tastes funny, “that’s a scary spot to be in,” he said. But based on available evidence, Wingate said, locals’ “health is not at risk because of the mill.”

Even so, Lehi and Badback said that the tap water smells of sulfur and has a milky color, and that people in White Mesa typically don’t drink it.

“I don’t trust it,” said Badback, whose family has been fighting the mill for decades. “My main goal is to shut the mill down.”

An sponsored by Badback’s group has grown over the past decade amid deep distrust rooted in uranium mining’s history. Much of the opposition centers on the mill’s toxic waste, which is stored in five lined pits called tailings cells occupying 284 acres of land.

Badback vows to fight expansion plans that include new tailings cells located about a quarter-mile closer to the White Mesa community than the current ones. Moore said the cells will be triple-lined per modern standards.

“They want to expand south towards my reservation,” Badback said. “That’s the reason why I am standing up and doing whatever I can to stop that from happening.”

Concerns About Air Quality

At a No Kings rally in March in Moab, about 80 miles north of White Mesa, Badback gave a speech and staffed a table offering T-shirts and information.

“No Uranium,” the T-shirts read. “Protect White Mesa Ute Community.”

In 2021, her tribe stating that the White Mesa Mill “has had severe health impacts on the residents of White Mesa and should cease entirely.”

While their psychological stress is palpable, other health effects have been hard to prove.

A 2023 concluded that radiation levels measured at the tribe’s air monitor in the center of White Mesa from 2013 to 2019 were unlikely to harm human health. But the authors said they could not evaluate whether the mill’s radon emissions could affect bordering properties or residents. They recommended that the tribe collect air samples closer to the mill, during times of heightened mill activity.

In December 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency found the mill was violating the Clean Air Act by failing to cover one of its tailings cells with liquid to limit emissions of radon, a known cause of lung cancer. The EPA called the violation “egregious in nature and duration” and temporarily barred the mill from receiving waste from Superfund cleanup sites.

The mill corrected the problem, according to state regulators, and passed its latest in 2025.

Still, some White Mesa residents remain uneasy. Badback and Lehi complained of odors, which they attribute to the mill, that smell like chemicals or rotten eggs. She has raised concerns about air quality and rates of cancer and asthma, which are being explored by a University of Utah health survey.

Moore denied that any odors from the mill could be smelled beyond the mill parking lot.

Utah air quality officials said the state does not conduct ambient air monitoring in White Mesa and does not regulate odors.

Watching the Water

That spring day, Lehi continued to look for Entrance Spring. On the horizon lay the silhouette of Sleeping Ute Mountain, a landmark of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, said to be the body of a great warrior god.

Along the way, Lehi pointed out a circle of stones that he thought looked like an ancestral burial site. After parking the Jeep, he walked down a faint trail through a lush grove of willows and found his way into a streambed that he reckoned would lead to the spring.

The tribe doesn’t rely on the spring for drinking water. But it’s one of the seeps and springs that the tribe, the state, and the company monitor, because they offer clues to whether the mill’s waste ponds are leaking into a less protected aquifer.

In the late 2000s, an found elevated contamination by radionuclides 鈥� atoms that emit radiation as they decay 鈥� at Entrance Spring. EPA water samples found that uranium concentrations at times exceeded the federal drinking water standard. EPA and U.S. Geological Survey fieldwork suggested the uranium at Entrance Spring came not from leaking waste ponds but from dust that blew off the mill’s ore storage pads.

The from 2025 showed Entrance Spring had uranium levels at 22.5 micrograms per liter (碌g/L) 鈥� within the federal drinking standard of 30 碌g/L but still elevated.

Clow said the tribe continues to keep a close eye on the seeps and springs.

“We’re concerned about the pollution of those springs,” he said. “We are looking towards many generations in the future here.”

Clow is also closely watching the Burro Canyon Aquifer, which lies beneath the mill’s toxic waste cells and feeds the local springs. A plume of chloroform and another of nitrates already pollute the aquifer, said Wingate, with the state. He said Energy Fuels is pumping out the contamination.

When contaminants increase, it’s hard to prove whether they stemmed from natural causes or mill activity, since substances such as sulfate and manganese occur naturally in the local bedrock. So Clow, the company, and state officials continually debate whether the tailings ponds are leaking. What’s not in dispute is that the mill produces radioactive waste 鈥� and once that exists, it can linger for tens of thousands of years.

Lehi followed the stream to where it ends in a curved grotto 鈥� the site of Entrance Spring. Water oozed from a rock face into a pool, offering cool relief from the desert. Lehi looked around with wonder at the dripping green moss. A descendant of medicine men, Lehi said he feels a duty to protect the landscape as his ancestors did, even if the tribe doesn’t currently use this spring for drinking water.

鈥�“Water is life,” Lehi said, “because that’s where we all began.”

This article was supported by , an independent journalism initiative based at the University of Colorado-Boulder’s Center for Environmental Journalism.

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 .

The wristbands are part of a growing initiative first launched by North Carolina-based ECU Health as Congress sought to address the nation’s growing maternal mortality crisis during the covid pandemic. , and the state’s health department have begun distributing the wristbands, to give mothers and care providers a visual reminder of the life-threatening health risks after birth.

The Connecticut state health department; large health systems in Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi; and hospitals in at least 24 other states have also embraced the program. The wristbands are intended to make emergency workers aware of postpartum risks, ensure better treatment, and help lower maternal mortality rates in the U.S., where happen after the day of delivery 鈥� and nearly 40% happen after the six-week mark.

This year, North Carolina plans to expand the initiative with part of the through the Rural Health Transformation Program, a provision of President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act, also known as HR 1.

Tamika Auguste, a physician and the board chair at the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists Foundation, praised the wristbands as a useful tool “to increase awareness and education around postpartum health.” But she and others who focus on maternal health said efforts like the wristband campaigns are only part of what’s needed to combat the broader maternal mortality crisis in the U.S.

And they noted the wristbands’ popularity is emerging as Trump’s 2025 law is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by over 10 years, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis. Medicaid, the federal-state program that covers healthcare for low-income families, pays for .

Elisabeth Wright Burak, a policy researcher at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said Trump’s tax-and-spending law is stifling the momentum states had been gaining with maternal care since 2022. That’s when Congress allowed states to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage , which nearly every state did.

Now, those extensions could end up on the chopping block, Burak said, as states seek ways to manage Medicaid losses.

“There is no question that HR 1 risks setting the clock back for maternal health,” Burak said.

warned that postpartum patients have more to worry about with the new law than simply cuts to Medicaid. States are also setting up systems that may not adequately track pregnant and postpartum enrollees who should be exempt from the law’s new work requirements, erroneously dropping them from coverage, Burak’s report said.

Maternal Mortality

U.S. maternal mortality rates have risen and fallen over the past seven years, with 649 maternal deaths in 2024, according to the most recent . Tennessee had the worst maternal mortality rate in the nation from 2020 to 2024, around 42 deaths per 100,000 births, according an analysis of CDC data by the . North Carolina’s rate was about 29 in 100,000, with a national average of 23.

In its , North Carolina said the initiative creating the “I Gave Birth” wristbands reduced postpartum readmissions by nearly a third at ECU Health Medical Center in Greenville, without elaborating. In online promotions, some hospitals the can , though many have recently launched and their impact has yet to be studied.

“Additional research is needed to conclusively confirm the outcomes of such initiatives,” said Hannah Jones, a spokesperson for the North Carolina health department.

Hospitals to patients who have given birth and instruct them to wear it for weeks or months, hoping they’ll be reminded to check in with a physician if they feel chest pain, have headaches, or start bleeding. The accessory resembles the yellow , part of a cancer awareness campaign launched by cyclist Lance Armstrong’s foundation. A nurse also talks through postpartum risks with the patients, and they’re sent home with pamphlets and guidebooks on how to care for their new child and themselves.

“The bracelet itself is simply a reminder of, 鈥楬ey, I got education,’” said Jessica Noble, a nurse with East Carolina University-connected ECU Health who pioneered the initiative.

It’s also intended to alert first responders and other healthcare providers that a woman has recently given birth and to check for postpartum complications, such as low blood pressure, bleeding, or infections. and sometimes don’t have adequate training to recognize postpartum complications, research shows, which can be dangerous when those patients end up in an emergency room.

Postpartum wristbands gained traction across the country through health awareness campaigns fueled by social media posts and evening news segments. New mothers appeared in promotional photos and videos wearing the wristband and raving about the accessory, saying it celebrated childbirth.

Some postpartum patients who faced traumatic births or mental health struggles saw it differently.

鈥楽o Many Risks’

Alexandra Mellon gave birth last year. Her daughter was stillborn. Devastated, she sought out a therapist, donated her breast milk, and tried to find meaning in her circumstances. She spent a year feeling isolated, she said, often because people don’t know what to say.

Mellon said wearing one of the wristbands would have been a painful reminder of her loss.

Now she works as a doula in Asheville, North Carolina. Mellon said what she thinks new moms need most is community and emotional support. The wristband could help encourage that for some patients, she said, but isn’t for everyone.

“There are so many risks, and it’s just like you almost become invisible,” she said.

More than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths , according to the CDC. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in March , developed during the Biden administration, that urged hospitals to create better emergency department protocols to catch postpartum complications and to measure their work against state and national maternal health data.

But those efforts faced a major threat last year when the Trump administration CDC funding for state-level maternal mortality data in its proposed 2026 budget. While Congress rejected that move, the administration did tracking postpartum patients’ health.

The Trump administration $113.5 million in CDC maternal health research in its proposed 2027 budget. Congress has instead proposed increasing funding to .

Without more research, it’s unclear how effective the wristbands are in encouraging postpartum patients to seek care when they need it. A of mass media campaigns to improve health outcomes, such as preventing risky substance use or encouraging exercise, found that the campaigns didn’t change behaviors. found that the U.S. “Back to Sleep” campaign, which educates parents on safe sleeping practices with babies, dramatically reduced rates of sudden infant death syndrome for several years after it launched in 1994, though rates .

In 2020, the CDC tried , “Hear Her,” aimed at helping women speak up when something felt wrong after delivery.

The CDC released years later that said it “had the unintended consequence of appearing to put the burden on the people who are pregnant or postpartum to speak up.”

ECU Health Medical Center created the wristband initiative in 2021 and . In it the authors noted the pregnancy-related readmission rate at the Greenville hospital fell 0.77%. It attributed the change to the “education provided to patients, family members, and medical personnel” in the initiative, without elaborating.

Campaigns like the “I Gave Birth” initiative are far from a final solution to maternal mortality, said Noble, the campaign’s architect and lead author on the ECU Health study. If she “had a magic wand,” she said, North Carolina would not just have better postpartum care but would also address the root causes of pregnancy complications. “But I don’t have one, and I can’t make system-level change immediately.”

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

Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that AI nurses can provide “concierge care” to rural patients. Mehmet Oz, who leads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “the best way to help some of these communities is going to be AI-based avatars” that connect rural patients to mental health services.

And many state health leaders agree. They are using some of their funding from the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to expand AI among rural health organizations.

AI is computer technology that performs tasks that typically rely on human intelligence by finding patterns or generating words. It has the potential to improve the healthcare system by automating back-office work or identifying patients at risk, but several reports contend there’s little evidence AI can improve access to care and patient health in rural areas. It’s unclear how well states will track and share outcomes of the tech they invest in.

Meanwhile, some rural Americans are skeptical, according to interviews with people in Hot Springs, South Dakota, a city of about 3,400 residents at the southern end of the Black Hills.

“I get artificial intelligence for certain things, but for personal healthcare 鈥� no,” Tara Haffner said while standing outside the American Legion.

Haffner said she’s worried about AI making mistakes and wants healthcare to stay between her and her doctor.

But Phillip Mues, who oversees technology at Cherry County Hospital and Clinic in rural Valentine, Nebraska, said AI is already helping clinicians save time, reduce burnout, and focus more on patient care.

“I think it will help reduce burden on actual staffing,” he said. “It won’t replace people, but I think it will help in rural communities.”

Still, Mues said, AI can’t fix every challenge. Rural hospitals at risk of closing or ending certain services probably can’t use AI to save enough money to prevent those consequences, he said.

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

The Word on the Street

Hot Springs, which has a 25-bed independent hospital and a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, is known for its sandstone buildings, veterans’ services, and, yes, hot springs. Residents must drive at least an hour for more advanced care.

Six people interviewed there by 吃瓜不打烊 said the biggest problem in rural healthcare is the cost or long wait times caused by staffing shortages.

Doug Nikkila, a heavy equipment operator, said AI and other technology come with benefits and risks.

“If it’s not utilized correctly, it becomes a burden,” he said.

Nikkila, who’s concerned about nursing home residents being neglected amid staffing shortages, said he thinks AI should send reminders to staff when their residents are due for diaper changes or other care. He also wondered whether AI-powered video monitors could send alerts when they detect falls or illness symptoms.

The healthcare industry is rapidly adopting AI despite the tools being “poorly evaluated,” according to a , a Stanford- and Harvard-led group that evaluates health-related AI. The report says that while some AI has been successful in controlled settings, there’s less evidence it can perform in the real world. It also said few studies track patient outcomes.

Evidence is especially lacking in rural areas. A found that only 26 peer-reviewed studies about AI in rural healthcare were published from 2010 through April 29, 2025. Few analyzed implementation or outcomes.

Despite the dearth of results, some states appear interested in bold experiments 鈥� such as using AI to suggest diagnoses or recommend treatments. Utah officials said in their application to the rural health program that they are interested in funding a in AI-powered prescription refill requests.

Even tools proven to work in urban settings may not work in rural ones, said Qian Huang, an assistant professor at the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University.

She said the technology is usually tested at large, academic hospitals and trained on data from urban patients, who may not have the same health issues and obstacles 鈥� such as a lack of transportation 鈥� as rural patients.

A 吃瓜不打烊 review of states’ plans for the Rural Health Transformation Program shows they’re interested in using AI to automate time-consuming, behind-the-scenes tasks, such as medical charting, coding, referrals, and prior authorization requests. Some states also mentioned ways AI can save money, such as Washington, which discussed tools that “identify and recover” money it’s owed.

Mues said the Valentine clinic has been using AI scribes that record appointments and generate notes describing the visit. He said surveys of clinicians before and after they started using the technology show the scribes have helped reduce burnout by letting providers focus on patient care with “eye contact on the patient, not the computer.”

States also mentioned funding AI that directly affects patient care, such as tools that recommend possible diagnoses and treatment options to clinicians. Mississippi wants to use predictive AI algorithms to “guide” emergency medics with “triage, routing, and treatment decisions.”

Several states want to use AI to analyze patients’ medical charts and remote monitoring devices to identify immediate or future health risks. North Dakota’s plans mention AI to “detect early signs of chronic disease and behavioral health conditions,” while New Hampshire’s discusses AI that identifies patients “at high risk of adverse drug events.”

Some states plan to give patients access to chatbots or wearable devices that transmit data to their clinicians. Utah is interested in funding AI-powered fetal-monitoring devices, while Kentucky will explore using AI chatbots to “deliver personalized nudges and education” through “health coaching, gamified incentives, and rewards.”

Whether the technology appeals to consumers is another matter. Hot Springs resident Stephanie Keller wears a smartwatch to track her fitness but has no interest in an AI chatbot using her data to encourage her to reach her health goals.

“I don’t have the time to chat with AI every day. I mean, are you kidding me? I don’t want to spend my time on a cellphone,” she said.

Rural health facilities also face challenges in implementing AI.

Huang, who has AI in rural healthcare, said rural hospitals and clinics may not have the hardware or IT staff needed to support the technology. She said clinicians and staff may already be doing three jobs at once and not have time to go through AI training.

Rural health facilities may not have fast-enough internet to use AI, while patients may have slow connections at home 鈥� if they have internet at all 鈥� or may not feel comfortable using AI, Huang said.

“In rural communities, trust and a personal relationship is essential,” she said.

Roy Ehlers, a Hot Springs resident, said he doesn’t trust AI in healthcare, or anywhere else.

“I’m old-fashioned. I don’t believe in it. Technology is not my forte,” Ehlers said.

Mues said that while some rural patients are “scared of AI,” most have let their clinicians at the Valentine facility use the scribing technology to record patients’ visits.

Will States Share AI Results?

Despite questions about implementation, the boom is on. Jordan Everson, an assistant professor at the Georgetown University Department of Family Medicine, said both urban and rural health facilities are rushing to use AI.

“The risk of signing contracts that rural healthcare organizations come to regret is pretty high,” said Everson, who previously worked in the information technology office at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Several states are addressing that risk by using their rural health funding to create groups that will help rural health facilities vet, select, or monitor AI tools while offering training, ongoing assistance, or funding for upfront costs.

CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said the agency doesn’t have any AI-specific reporting requirements but is working on a form for states to report their overall progress and outcomes.

Abraham Pritzker, who works at Julota, a company that helps health organizations track data, said states should measure more than how often AI programs are used.

For example, states can measure whether the tech reduces falls, 911 calls, or hospital admissions, said Pritzker, a former paramedic. Huang said it’s also important to ask clinicians and patients about their experiences using AI.

Yet many states’ applications to the rural health program mention tracking only AI adoption metrics, not what happens after facilities deploy the tech. Some of these states may add further reporting requirements down the road.

Vermont spokespeople did not respond when asked why their state’s requires organizations to report only how many clinicians and patients are served by the tech, not how much time they save.

States requiring recipients to report outcomes include , which will track how often AI-powered patient monitoring devices trigger accurate alerts. organizations to track cost savings, while Wisconsin lists “patient outcomes” and “productivity and efficiencies” as possible metrics.

Huang said that after collecting results, states need to share them so other states and healthcare organizations can learn from their experiences.

“We do not have a lot of resources to waste on tools that don’t work in rural areas,” she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other mergers have been proposed in , , and Minnesota.

Asheville’s Dominant Hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birth of a Monopoly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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