Blue States That Sued Kept Most CDC Grants, While Red States Feel Brunt of Trump Clawbacks

The Trump administration’s cuts to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for state and local health departments had vastly uneven effects depending on the political leanings of a state, according to a KFF Health News analysis. Democratic-led states and select blue-leaning cities fought back in court and saw money for public health efforts restored — while GOP-led states sustained big losses.

The Department of Health and Human Services in late March canceled nearly 700 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants nationwide — together worth about $11 billion. Awarded during the covid-19 pandemic, they supported efforts to vaccinate people, reduce health disparities among demographic groups, upgrade antiquated systems for detecting infectious disease outbreaks, and hire community health workers.

Initially, grant cancellations hit blue and red states roughly evenly. Four of the five jurisdictions with the largest number of terminated grants were led by Democrats: California, the District of Columbia, Illinois, and Massachusetts.

But after attorneys general and governors from about two dozen blue states sued in federal court and won an injunction, the balance flipped. Of the five states with the most canceled grants, four are led by Republicans: Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio.

In blue states, nearly 80% of the CDC grant cuts have been restored, compared with fewer than 5% in red states, according to the KFF Health News analysis. Grant amounts reported in an HHS database known as the Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System, or TAGGS, often don’t match what states confirmed. Instead, this analysis focused on the number of grants.

The divide is an example of the polarization that permeates health care issues, in which access to safety-net health programs, abortion rights, and the ability of public health officials to respond to disease threats diverge significantly depending on the political party in power.

In an emailed statement, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the agency “is committed to protecting the health of every American, regardless of politics or geography. These funds were provided in response to the COVID pandemic, which is long over. We will continue working with states to strengthen public health infrastructure and ensure communities have the tools they need to respond to outbreaks and keep people safe.”

The money in question wasn’t spent solely on covid-related activities, public health experts say; it was also used to bolster public health infrastructure and help contain many types of viruses and diseases, including the flu, measles, and RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus.

“It really supported infrastructure across the board, particularly in how states respond to public health threats,” said Susan Kansagra, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

The Trump cutbacks came as the U.S. recorded its largest measles outbreak in over three decades and 266 pediatric deaths during the most recent flu season — the highest reported outside of a pandemic since 2004. Public health departments canceled vaccine clinics, laid off staff, and put contracts on hold, health officials said in interviews.

After its funding cuts were blocked in court, California retained every grant the Trump administration attempted to claw back, while Texas remains the state with the most grants terminated, with at least 30. As the CDC slashed grants in Texas, its measles outbreak spread across the U.S. and Mexico, sickening at least 4,500 people and killing at least 16.

Colorado, which joined the lawsuit, had 11 grant terminations at first, but then 10 were retained. Meanwhile, its neighboring states that didn't sue — Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma — collectively lost 55 grants, with none retained.

In Jackson, Ohio, a half-dozen community health workers came to work one day in March to find the Trump administration had canceled their grant five months early, leaving the Jackson County Health Department half a million dollars short — and them without jobs.

“I had to lay off three employees in a single day, and I haven’t had to do that before. We don’t have those people doing outreach in Jackson County anymore,” Health Commissioner Kevin Aston said.

At one point, he said, the funding helped 11 Appalachian Ohio counties. Now it supports one.

Marsha Radabaugh, one employee who was reassigned, has scaled back her community health efforts: She’d been helping serve hot meals to homeless people and realized that many clients couldn’t read or write, so she brought forms for services such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to their encampment in a local park and helped fill them out.

“We would find them rehab places. We’d get out hygiene kits, blankets, tents, zero-degree sleeping bags, things like that,” she said. As a counselor, she’d also remind people “that they're cared for, that they're worthy of being a human — because, a lot of the time, they're not treated that way.”

Sasha Johnson, who led the community health worker program, said people like Radabaugh “were basically a walking human 411,” offering aid to those in need.

Radabaugh also partnered with a food bank to deliver meals to homebound residents.

Ashton said the abrupt way they lost the funds — which meant the county unexpectedly had to pay unemployment for more people — could have ruined the health district financially. Canceling funding midcycle, he said, “was really scary.”

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist and promoter of vaccine misinformation, has called the CDC a “cesspool of corruption.” At HHS, he has taken steps to undermine vaccination in the U.S. and abroad.

Federal CDC funding accounts for more than half of state and local health department budgets, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. States that President Donald Trump won in the 2024 election received a higher share of the $15 billion the cCDC allocated in fiscal 2023 than those that Democrat Kamala Harris won, according to KFF.

The Trump administration’s nationwide CDC grant terminations reflect this. More than half were in states that Trump won in 2024, totaling at least 370 terminations before the court action, according to KFF Health News’ analysis.

The Columbus, Ohio, health department had received $6.2 million in CDC grants, but roughly half of it — $3 million — disappeared with the Trump cuts. The city laid off 11 people who worked on investigating infectious disease outbreaks in such places as schools and nursing homes, Columbus Health Commissioner Mysheika Roberts said.

She also said the city had planned to buy a new electronic health record system for easier access to patients’ hospital records — which could improve disease detection and provide better treatment for those infected — but that was put on ice.

“We’ve never had a grant midcycle just get pulled from us for no reason,” Roberts said. “This sense of uncertainty is stressful.”

Columbus did not receive its money directly from the CDC. Rather, the state gave the city some funds it received from the federal government. Ohio, led by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine and a Republican attorney general, did not sue to block the funding cuts.

Columbus sued the federal government in April to keep its money, along with other Democratic-led municipalities in Republican-governed states: Harris County, Texas, home to Houston; the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in Tennessee; and Kansas City, Missouri. A federal judge in June blocked those cuts.

As of mid-August, Columbus was awaiting the funds. Roberts said the city won’t rehire staff because the federal funding was expected to end in December.

Joe Grogan, a senior scholar at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Institute and former director of the White House Domestic Policy Council in Trump’s first term, said state and local agencies “are not entitled” to the federal money, which was awarded “to deal with an emergency” that has ended.

“We were throwing money out the door the last five years,” Grogan said of the federal government. “I don’t understand why there would ever be a controversy in unspent covid money coming back.”

Ken Gordon, Ohio Department of Health spokesperson, wrote in an email that the $250 million in grants lost had helped with, among other things, upgrading the disease reporting system and boosting public health laboratory testing.

Some of the canceled HHS funding wasn’t slated to end for years, including four grants to strengthen public health in Indian Country, a grant to a Minnesota nonprofit focused on reducing substance use disorders, and a few to universities about occupational safety, HIV, tuberculosis, and more.

Brent Ewig, chief policy and government relations officer for the Association of Immunization Managers, said the cuts were “the predictable result of ‘boom, bust, panic, neglect’ funding” for public health.

The association represents 64 state, local, and territorial immunization programs, which Ewig said will be less prepared to respond to disease outbreaks, including measles.

“The system is blinking red,” Ewig said.

Methodology

KFF Health News’ analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants sought to answer four questions: 1) How many grants have been terminated in the U.S. under the Trump administration since March? 2) Which states saw the most grants cut? 3) What were the grants for? and 4) Did the grant terminations affect blue, red, and purple states differently? This follows a similar analysis by KFF Health News for an article on nationwide NIH grant terminations.

Our primary data source was a Department of Health and Human Services website showing grant terminations. We compared an initial list of grant terminations from April 3 with one from July 11 to determine how many grants had been restored. The USAspending.gov database helped us track grants by state.

To classify states politically, we followed the same steps from our April coverage of National Institutes of Health grant terminations. States were “blue” if Democrats had complete control of the state government or if the majority of voters favored Democratic presidential candidates in the last three elections (2016, 2020, 2024). “Red” states were classified similarly with respect to the Republican Party. “Purple” states had politically split state governments and/or were generally considered to be presidential election battleground states. The result was 25 red states, 17 blue states, and eight purple states. The District of Columbia was classified as blue using similar methods.

This analysis does not account for potential grant reinstatements in local jurisdictions where the funds were awarded indirectly rather than directly from the CDC; it accounts only for the recipients’ location, and excludes grants terminated from Compacts of Free Association states and other foreign entities that received grants directly from the CDC. At least 40 CDC grants were terminated that were meant for global health efforts or assisting public health activities in other nations following the Trump administration’s order for the CDC to withdraw support for the World Health Organization.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Estos son los aumentos de precios que también deberían preocuparte

Preocupados por la inflación, los estadounidenses han estado atentos a precios de productos cotidianos como los huevos y la gasolina. Pero un gasto menos conocido debería causar más alarma: el aumento de las primas de los seguros médicos. Llevan años subiendo, y ahora lo están haciendo a un ritmo sin precedentes.

Hay que considerar que, entre 2000 y 2020, el precio de los huevos fluctuó entre poco menos de $1 y aproximadamente $3 la docena; alcanzó los $6,23 en marzo, pero luego bajó a $3,78 en junio.

El precio promedio de la gasolina, tras oscilar entre $2 y $4 el galón durante más de una década a partir de 2005, alcanzó un máximo de $4,93 en 2022 y recientemente volvió a bajar a poco más de $3.

Mientras tanto, desde 1999, las primas de los seguros médicos para las personas con cobertura médica a través del empleador se han más que cuadruplicado. Solo entre 2023 y 2024, aumentaron más del 6% tanto para la cobertura individual como familiar, un alza más pronunciada que la de los salarios y la inflación general.

Para muchas personas que tienen planes médicos creados por la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA) —porque trabajan para pequeñas empresas o pagan su propia cobertura— es probable que las tarifas hayan aumentado de forma aún más drástica. En este mercado, los reguladores estatales examinan minuciosamente los aumentos de tarifas propuestos por las aseguradoras, pero solo si superan el 15%.

Y la situación está a punto de empeorar: para 2026, las aseguradoras en los mercados de ACA han propuesto nuevos precios exorbitantes: en Nueva York, UnitedHealthcare propuso un aumento del 66,4%. HMO Colorado solicitó un aumento promedio de más del 33% en ese estado. En Washington, el aumento promedio propuesto por todas las aseguradoras es del 21,2%, y en Rhode Island es del 23,7%.

Según Business Group on Health, un consorcio de grandes empleadores, “los costos reales de la atención médica han aumentado un 50% acumulado desde 2017”. En una encuesta independiente publicada en 2021, el 87% de las empresas afirmó que, en los próximos cinco a 10 años, el costo de proporcionar seguro médico a sus trabajadores se volvería “insostenible”.

Y las aseguradoras del mercado de ACA están aumentando las primas un promedio del 20% para el próximo año, según un nuevo análisis. Imaginemos que los pagos de alquiler o hipoteca de decenas de millones de estadounidenses aumentaran repentinamente en esa cantidad.

En teoría, los que regulan los seguros podrían exigir que se redujeran las tarifas propuestas, y esto sucede a menudo. Sin embargo, algunos estados son más activos que otros en este sentido. Y todos temen que una interferencia regulatoria excesiva pueda expulsar a las aseguradoras de sus mercados.

Las aseguradoras ofrecen muchas explicaciones para sus cálculos, algunas de las cuales están relacionadas con las recientes medidas del Congreso y del presidente Donald Trump.

Por ejemplo, se espera que los nuevos aranceles a los socios comerciales de Estados Unidos aumenten el costo de los medicamentos y los suministros médicos. Mientras tanto, las reducciones en el gasto en salud incluidas en el proyecto de ley de presupuesto del Partido Republicano, junto con la expiración de algunos subsidios a las primas de la era Biden a finales de este año, provocarán que muchas personas pierdan su seguro médico.

Se prevé que cerca de 16 millones de estadounidenses se quedarán sin seguro en 2034, en muchos casos porque mantenerlo se volverá inasequible.

Dado que es probable que la mayoría de estas personas sean jóvenes o sanas, el grupo de riesgo de quienes permanezcan asegurados será mayor y más enfermo, y por lo tanto, más costoso de cubrir.

“En última instancia, creemos que el mercado de ACA probablemente será más pequeño y estará más orientado a la necesidad del paciente el próximo año”, escribió Janey Kiryluik, vicepresidenta de comunicaciones corporativas de Elevance Health (anteriormente conocida como Anthem), en un correo electrónico. Agregó: “Nuestra postura refleja una acción disciplinada temprana”.

Recuerda que la mayoría de las aseguradoras en el país son empresas públicas con fines de lucro; por lo tanto, tienden a actuar en beneficio de sus accionistas, no de los pacientes cuya atención médica cubren.

Las grandes empresas que gestionan sus propios planes de salud podrían negociar mejores condiciones para sus trabajadores. Pero las empresas más pequeñas, en su mayoría, tendrán que aceptar las ofertas.

Las primas no son el único aspecto del seguro médico que se está volviendo más caro. Los deducibles (el dinero que los beneficiarios deben pagar de su bolsillo antes que el seguro entre en vigencia) también están aumentando. El deducible promedio para un plan plata estándar de ACA en 2025 era de casi $5.000, aproximadamente el doble que en 2014. (Para quienes tienen seguro médico a través de su empleador, el promedio es de poco menos de $2.000).

Algunos estados intentan frenar la tendencia ofreciendo una “opción pública” estatal, un plan de seguro básico y asequible que los pacientes pueden elegir. Sin embargo, han tenido dificultades porque una tasa de pago más baja para los trabajadores generalmente significa menos proveedores participantes y un acceso reducido a la atención médica.

Si los votantes prestaran tanta atención al precio del seguro médico como al costo de la gasolina y los huevos, tal vez los funcionarios electos responderían con más medidas.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Optum Rx Invokes Open Meetings Law To Fight Kentucky Counties on Opioid Suits

UnitedHealth Group’s multibillion-dollar pharmacy benefit manager, Optum Rx, is suing five Kentucky counties in an attempt to force them out of national opioid litigation against the company.

Pharmacy benefit managers, often called PBMs, act as middlemen that negotiate prescription drug prices between drug companies, insurance plans, and pharmacies. Some lawyers and advocates say PBMs helped fuel the overdose crisis by failing to restrict the flow of opioid prescriptions.

As governments begin exploring potential lawsuits against PBMs — a step that could represent the next wave in opioid-related litigation — Optum Rx is attempting to shut down those efforts, in some cases before they even fully take shape.

In June, Optum Rx sued Anderson, Boyd, Christian, Nicholas, and Oldham counties in Kentucky for allegedly making decisions about participating in the new wave of national opioid lawsuits behind closed doors, violating Kentucky’s open meetings law. Optum Rx is asking courts to effectively force those counties to make their decisions again, this time in open meetings, potentially with the hope that some won’t bother because of the administrative burden. The result could be fewer claims against the company and possibly less money for it to pay in a future settlement.

But legal experts call Optum’s case “hypertechnical” and “frivolous,” and addiction recovery advocates say it could set a dangerous precedent for companies to evade accountability for their role in fueling the overdose crisis.

Christine Minhee, an attorney, a national expert on opioid litigation, and founder of OpioidSettlementTracker.com, said Optum’s suit reminded her of an adage among lawyers: “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.”

“Right now, what we’re seeing is it pounding the table,” Minhee said of Optum Rx. The company is “desperately” trying “to find some kind of foothold” to get cases against it thrown out.

Minhee said these suits fit a pattern of Optum Rx using thin arguments to try to delay or evade opioid litigation nationwide.

Last year, Optum Rx, along with another PBM, asked a judge to throw out an opioid lawsuit filed by Los Angeles County, claiming during a December hearing that the county hadn’t shown harm. The judge appeared skeptical of the claims and ultimately rejected the companies’ request.

In April, the same companies tried to oust a federal judge overseeing national opioid litigation, claiming he was biased. Their argument was based partly on a Florida lawyer’s having said the judge was “plaintiff-oriented.” Their attempt failed.

Now, Optum Rx is working to keep five Kentucky counties out of that same sweeping opioid litigation.

That national legal undertaking began more than seven years ago, as jurisdictions saw overdose deaths climb. Many people who had become addicted to prescription painkillers were cut off by their doctors, and some transitioned to using deadlier heroin or fentanyl. Health care and public safety costs skyrocketed. Thousands of cities, counties, and states began suing health care companies for allegedly creating a public nuisance by aggressively marketing prescription painkillers and negligently distributing them.

Those cases were lassoed together into the giant multidistrict litigation, which has resulted in massive settlements. The first few waves of settlements involved opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retail pharmacies, with companies such as Johnson & Johnson, CVS, and Walgreens agreeing to pay state and local governments billions of dollars. The money is meant to be used for addiction treatment and prevention services — though its rollout has been controversial.

To add a new round of companies as defendants, jurisdictions must undertake a multistep process, said Peter Mougey, a Florida-based attorney who represents many local governments in the massive national litigation. The five Kentucky counties in question were in the early stages of that process, only having asked the judge to amend their complaint, he said. They hadn’t added Optum Rx yet.

If Optum Rx’s suits are successful, those counties would have the option of redoing the initial steps of the process in a public meeting, then continuing to add Optum Rx as a defendant, Mougey explained. The company may hope that some counties won’t undertake the extra administrative effort.

Optum Rx’s “goal is clearly just to wear down and tire out these small counties,” Mougey said. “They’re trying to have a chilling effect on the litigation.”

It’s not clear why Optum Rx targeted those five counties out of the many localities undertaking the process to add the company as a defendant. The Kentucky counties range from having fewer than 8,000 residents (Nicholas) to more than 70,000 (Christian). One is among the richest in Kentucky (Oldham), while others are poorer. Boyd County, in Appalachia, is one of the hardest hit, with a recent overdose rate twice the state average.

Optum Rx, in its filing against Boyd County, which was similar to claims against the other counties, said local authorities had taken official legal action by asking the judge to make a change in its case. The suit said such action must be done in a public meeting and that the county did not hold one.

Optum spokesperson Isaac Sorensen told KFF Health News that the company’s argument is not about “a technicality.”

It is “an important legal requirement designed to ensure accountability and transparency before a county takes legal action,” said the statement Sorensen provided. “We have found many counties ignored this requirement, alongside their duty to preserve relevant evidence, and Optum Rx will defend against these improper legal actions.”

The five Kentucky counties disagree with these assertions, according to court records. As of late July, all five had filed motions to dismiss Optum Rx’s claim.

Boyd County, like the others, argued in its motion to dismiss that asking a judge to amend its complaint was a routine, procedural step that did not require a public meeting. Optum Rx jumped the gun, the county argued, filing a case before any final action had been taken.

“No amended complaint has been filed. No new defendant, OptumRx included, has been added. No new lawsuit has been initiated,” Boyd County’s response said.

The county also pointed out that it held an open meeting in 2017 that kicked off its involvement in the national litigation and authorized future amendments to that litigation.

Hearings on the counties’ motions to dismiss Optum Rx’s suits are set for late August and early September, according to court records.

These cases are shaping up to be a Goliath-versus-David legal action. Although Oldham County is the wealthiest of the Kentucky counties that Optum Rx sued, its most recent budget is less than 0.1% of Optum Rx’s annual revenue, which the company reported as exceeding $133 billion in 2024.

Oldham County Attorney D. Berry Baxter told KFF Health News he’d seen the impact of the opioid epidemic as a prosecutor working on a growing number of drug-related cases over the years. Now, as settlement money is arriving from other companies, it has funded increased addiction treatment in local jails. More settlement money from additional companies could expand such services, Baxter said.

If Optum Rx succeeds in kicking Kentucky counties out of the national litigation, it would set “a really horrific precedent” for other PBMs and health care companies to do something similar, said Tara Hyde, CEO of the statewide nonprofit People Advocating Recovery.

Hyde said she’s been in recovery for more than a decade from an addiction that began with prescription painkillers for a broken leg. She wants to see PBMs and other companies held accountable and made to change their processes to prevent future crises.

Despite a recent decrease in overdose deaths nationwide, Hyde said people in her state, their families, and the economy are still hurting.

“Recovery doesn’t just happen overnight,” she said. “Without these dollars that have been a direct result of people being misled, mistreated, and taken advantage of, we will still be detrimentally impacted.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Recortes a Medicaid impactarían muy fuerte en esta comunidad rural de Colorado

En el Valle de San Luis, al sur de Colorado, las nubes se elevan sobre las imponentes montañas de la cordillera Sangre de Cristo. Un coro de mirlos gorjea mientras revolotea entre los juncos de un refugio de vida silvestre. Grandes campos cultivados en forma de círculo, intercalados con arbustos autóctonos, dan una sensación de tranquilidad bucólica.

Pero en medio de la austera belleza de una de las regiones agrícolas más productivas del estado, había una sensación de inquietud entre los líderes de la comunidad mientras el Congreso debatía un proyecto de ley de presupuesto que podría reformar radicalmente Medicaid, el programa de salud del gobierno gerenciado por los estados para personas de bajos ingresos.

“Intento estar preocupada y optimista”, dijo Konnie Martin, directora ejecutiva de San Luis Valley Health en Alamosa, Colorado, el centro de servicios de salud para 50.000 personas en seis condados rurales.

Martin afirmó que Medicaid es vital para la atención médica rural.

“Creo que en Colorado, en este momento, casi el 70% de los hospitales rurales están operando con un margen negativo”, en números rojos, dijo Martin.

El presupuesto anual del sistema de salud es de $140 millones, y los ingresos de Medicaid representan casi un tercio de esa cifra, según Shane Mortensen, director financiero de San Luis Valley Health.

El margen operativo es muy estrecho, por lo que los recortes federales a Medicaid podrían obligar al centro de salud a implementar recortes drásticos. “Será devastador para nosotros”, declaró Mortensen.

La región es una de las más pobres del estado. En el condado de Alamosa, 2 de cada 5 residentes están inscritos en Health First Colorado, el programa estatal de Medicaid.

Es un salvavidas, especialmente para quienes de otro modo no tendrían fácil acceso a la atención médica. Esto incluye a las personas mayores de bajos ingresos que necesitan cobertura complementaria además de Medicare, y a personas de todas las edades que viven con una discapacidad.

Imaginar un futuro con fuertes recortes a Medicaid deja a muchos pacientes en estado de incertidumbre.

“Revisé nuestro seguro y, ¡Dios mío!, solo me va a costar la mitad de mi sueldo pagarlo”, dijo Julianna Mascarenas, quien tiene seis hijos. Agregó que Medicaid la ha ayudado a cubrir a su familia durante años. Mascarenas trabaja como consejera y trata a personas con adicciones. Su ex marido trabaja en granjas —cultivando papas y arriando ganado— para empleadores que no ofrecen seguro médico.

En todo el estado, Medicaid cubre a 1 de cada 5 habitantes, más de un millón de personas.

Esto incluye a los niños en hogares temporales.

“Hemos tenido 13 niños entrando y saliendo de nuestro hogar, seis de los cuales nacieron aquí en este hospital con drogas en su organismo”, dijo Chance Padilla, cuidador temporal, refiriéndose al hospital insignia de San Luis Valley Health, en Alamosa.

“Medicaid ha sido fundamental para poder darles la vida normal que merecen”, dijo. “Estos niños requieren mucha intervención médica”.

Chris Padilla, esposo de Chance, agregó: “En un momento dado, tuvimos un preadolescente que necesitaba atención médica tres veces por semana. No habríamos podido hacerlo sin Medicaid”.

El personal y los administradores de San Luis Valley Health se preguntan si los recortes federales dificultarán que el sistema mantenga en funcionamiento su centro oncológico.

“Podría verse afectado drásticamente”, dijo Carmelo Hernández, director médico de San Luis Valley Health.

El hospital de Alamosa cuenta con su propia unidad de partos, un tipo de servicio que otros hospitales rurales de Estados Unidos han tenido dificultades para mantener abiertos. Alrededor del 85% de las pacientes de partos del hospital están cubiertas por Medicaid, dijo Hernández.

“Si no tenemos servicios de obstetricia aquí, ¿adónde irán?”, se preguntó Hernández, quien es ginecólogo obstetra. “Van a viajar una hora y 20 minutos al norte, a Salida, para atenderse. O pueden viajar a Pueblo, a otras dos horas en auto por un paso de montaña”.

Tiffany Martínez, de 34 años, se vio obligada hace poco a considerar esa posibilidad luego de dar a luz a su cuarto hijo.

Su embarazo fue de alto riesgo y tuvo que hacerse ecografías y pruebas de esfuerzo dos veces por semana en el hospital. Está inscrita en Medicaid. “Aquí abajo todo es mal pagado”, dijo Martínez. “No es que tengamos dinero solo para pagar al médico. No es que tengamos dinero para viajar seguido. Así que definitivamente es beneficioso”.

Ofreciendo atención de salud, y trabajos

Con 750 trabajadores, el sistema de salud es el mayor empleador del valle. Clint Sowards, médico de atención primaria, afirmó que la reducción de los fondos de Medicaid dificultará atraer a la próxima generación de médicos, enfermeras y otros profesionales de salud.

Ciertas especialidades médicas podrían dejar de estar disponibles, advirtió Sowards. “La gente tendrá que irse. Tendrán que irse del Valle de San Luis”.

Kristina Steinberg es médica de familia de Valley-Wide Health Systems, una red de pequeñas clínicas que atiende a miles de personas en la región. Explicó que Medicaid cubre a la mayoría de los residentes de hogares de adultos mayores de la zona.

“Si las personas mayores perdieran el acceso a Medicaid para la atención a largo plazo, perderíamos algunos hogares de adultos mayores”, dijo Steinberg. “Se consolidarían”.

Audrey Reich Loy, licenciada en trabajo social y directora de programas de San Luis Valley Health, afirmó que el sistema utiliza Medicaid “como una especie de columna vertebral de nuestra infraestructura”.

“No solo apoya a quienes reciben Medicaid”, afirmó. “Sino que, como resultado de lo que aporta a nuestra comunidad, nos permite garantizar una red de servicios que podemos ampliar y brindar a toda la comunidad”.

Buscando más eficiencia

Los republicanos en el Congreso que impulsaron la ley de gastos e impuestos, que según estimaciones resultará en grandes recortes a Medicaid, afirman que quieren ahorrar dinero y aumentar la eficiencia del gobierno.

Muchos en la región del condado de Alamosa votaron por Donald Trump. “Potencialmente está afectando en forma drástica a su base electoral”, dijo Hernández.

Agregó que los recortes a Medicaid podrían hacer reconsiderar la postura de los partidarios del presidente Trump, pero señaló que la política es un tema delicado que generalmente no aborda con los pacientes.

Sowards dijo que entiende que algunas personas crean que el sistema de Medicaid está en crisis y es costoso. Sin embargo, expresó serias dudas sobre la solución propuesta.

“Perder Medicaid tendría repercusiones drásticas que no podemos prever”, dijo Sowards.

Recortes generarían un efecto dominó

El impacto económico regional de San Luis Valley Health supera los $100 millones al año, y Medicaid representa una parte importante de esa cifra, apuntó Martin.

Cualquier recorte a Medicaid afectaría duramente al sistema de salud, pero también a las pequeñas empresas y a sus empleados. La región está sintiendo las consecuencias económicas. El estrés derivado de otros cambios, como los recientes recortes que la administración Trump implementó en la fuerza laboral federal.

El Valle de San Luis alberga a Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, el Parque Nacional Great Sand Dunes y otras tierras administradas por el gobierno federal.

Joe Martínez, presidente del Banco Federal del Valle de San Luis, afirmó que los empleados federales recientemente despedidos ya están yendo a los bancos preguntando: “¿Puede haber forma de que me condonen los pagos de la hipoteca de los próximos dos meses? ¿O podemos extenderla?”. O bien: “Perdí mi trabajo. ¿Qué podemos hacer para asegurarnos de no perder mi vehículo?”.

En abril, Ty Coleman, alcalde de Alamosa, viajó a Washington, DC, para hablar con la delegación del Congreso de Colorado. Dijo que su mensaje sobre los recortes a Medicaid fue directo: “Pueden tener un impacto económico devastador”. Coleman elaboró una larga lista de posibles problemas: más enfermedades crónicas y tasas de mortalidad más altas; tiempos de espera más largos para recibir atención; deudas médicas y presión financiera para las familias.

“No se trata solo de nuestra comunidad rural, sino también de las otras comunidades rurales de Colorado y de Estados Unidos”, dijo Coleman. “Y no creo que la gente lo esté entendiendo”.

Este artículo forma parte de una alianza entre CPR News, NPR y KFF Health News.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Guns, Race, and Profit: The Pain of America’s Other Epidemic

BOGALUSA, La. — Less than a mile from a century-old mill that sustained generations in this small town north of New Orleans, 19-year-old Tajdryn Forbes was shot to death near his mother’s house.

She found Forbes face down in the street in August 2023, two weeks before he had planned to move away from the empty storefronts, boarded-up houses, and poverty that make this one of the most troubled places in the nation.

Naketra Guy thought about how her son overcame losing his father at age 4 and was the glue of the family. She called him “humble” and “respectful,” a leader in the community and on the football field, where he shined.

Yet he could not outrun the grim statistics of his hometown. Bogalusa posts some of the worst health outcomes and poverty in Louisiana, a state that routinely ranks among the worst nationally in both. And Bogalusa has endured another indicator of poor public health: high levels of gun violence.

Since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, gun violence has shattered any sense of peace or progress here. Louisiana suffers the nation’s second-highest firearm death rate — and Bogalusa, a predominantly Black community with 10,000 residents, has seen dozens of shootings and a violent crime rate approaching twice the national average.

A nearby team refused to play football at Bogalusa High School in fall 2022, citing safety concerns.

Bogalusa’s mayor, Tyrin Truong, was elected in 2022 at age 23 on his promises to fix entrenched challenges: few youth programs and good jobs, and perpetual crime and blight.

“I ran for mayor because I got sick of seeing our city painted as mini-New Orleans,” he said, “due to the high levels of youth gun violence.”

In January, the Louisiana State Police arrested Truong, accusing him of soliciting a prostitute and participating in a drug trafficking ring that allegedly used illicit proceeds to buy firearms. He has said he is innocent. “I still haven’t been formally arraigned,” he told KFF Health News in late July, “and I haven’t been charged with anything.”

Every year tens of thousands of Americans — one every few minutes — are killed by gun violence on the scale of a public health epidemic.

Many thousands more are left to recover from severe injuries, crushing medical debt, and the mental health toll of losing loved ones.

Most headlines focus on America’s urban centers, but the numbers also reflect the growth of gun violence in places like Bogalusa, a pinprick of a town 75 miles north of New Orleans. In 2020, the gun violence death rate for rural communities was 40% higher than in large metropolitan areas, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Firearms are the No. 1 killer of children in the U.S., and no group suffers more than young Black people. More Black boys and men ages 15 to 24 in 2023 were killed in gun homicides than from the next 15 leading causes of deaths combined. Though overall U.S. homicides dropped sharply after the pandemic ended, adolescent gun deaths climbed even higher in the years after, according to research by Jonathan Jay, an associate professor in the School of Public Health at Boston University.

“It has all the markers of an epidemic. It is a major driver of death and disability,” Jay said. “Gun violence does not get the attention it deserves. It is underrecognized because it disproportionately impacts Black and brown people.”

Rather than bolstering efforts to save lives, federal, state, and local government officials have undermined them. KFF Health News undertook an examination of gun violence since the pandemic, a period when firearm death rates surged. Reporters reviewed government reports and academic research and interviewed dozens of health policy experts, activists, and victims or their relatives. They reviewed corporate earnings reports from gun manufacturers and data on the industry’s donations to politicians.

In polling published in 2023 by KFF, more than half of Americans said they or a family member had been impacted by gun violence such as by seeing a shooting or being threatened, injured, or killed with a gun.

American politicians and regulators have put in place laws and practices that have helped enrich firearm and ammunition manufacturers — which tout $91 billion in economic impact — even as gun violence has terrorized neighborhoods already damaged by white flight, systemic disinvestment, and other forms of racial discrimination.

President Donald Trump championed gun rights on the campaign trail and has received millions from the National Rifle Association, to whose members he promised, “No one will lay a finger on your firearms.” His administration has rolled back efforts under President Joe Biden to address the rise in gun violence.

Emboldened in his second term, Trump is pushing to allow more guns in schools, weaken federal oversight of the gun industry, override state and local gun laws, permit sales without background checks, and cut funding for violence intervention.

Trump ordered the attorney general to review all Biden administration actions that “purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

The Biden administration said “a historic spike in homicides” during the pandemic took its greatest toll on racially segregated and high-poverty neighborhoods.

Black youths in four major cities were 100 times as likely as white ones to experience a firearm assault, research showed. Gun suicides reached an all-time high, and for the first time the firearm suicide rate among older Black teens surpassed that of older white teens.

In Bogalusa, the pandemic gun violence spread fear. Among the victims killed were a 15-year-old attending a birthday party and a 24-year-old nationally known musician. Thirteen people were injured at a memorial for a man who himself had been shot. Residents said neighbors stopped sitting in their yards because of stray bullets.

Researchers say communities like Bogalusa endure a collective trauma that shatters their sense of safety. Two years after Forbes’ death, his mother says that when she leaves home her surviving children worry that she, too, might get shot.

Repercussions from the surge will last years, researchers said: Exposure to shootings increases risk for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, suicide, depression, substance abuse, and poor school performance for survivors and those who live near them.

“We saw gun violence exposure go up for every group of children except white children, in the cities we studied,” Jay said. “Limits on government funding into gun violence research may stop us from ever knowing exactly why.”

Politics of Pain

The year before Forbes died in Bogalusa, Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, considered the most sweeping firearm legislation in decades.

In a matter of months, Trump has systematically dismantled key provisions.

Efforts to regulate guns have long proven ineffective against the power of political and business interests that fill the streets with weapons. In 2020, the number of guns manufactured annually in the U.S. hit 11.3 million, more than double a decade earlier, according to the federal government. In 2022, the United States had nearly 78,000 licensed gun dealers, more than its combined number of McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and Subway locations, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, an advocacy group.

The Biden administration announced in 2021 it would attempt to reduce gun violence by adopting a “zero tolerance” policy toward firearm dealers who committed violations such as failing to run a required background check or selling to someone prohibited from buying a gun.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, which licenses gun dealers, has the authority to enforce laws meant to prevent illegal gun sales. In issuing an executive order, the Trump administration declared that, under Biden, the agency targeted “mom-and-pop shop small businesses who made innocent paperwork errors.”

From October 2010 to February 2022, the agency conducted more than 111,000 inspections, recommending revocation of a dealer’s license only 589 times, about 0.5% of cases, an inspector general’s report said. Even when it cited serious violations, the ATF rarely shut dealers down.

ATF leaders told the inspector general’s office that recommendations for license revocations increased after Biden’s zero-tolerance policy was implemented. In April, the Trump administration repealed it.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy last year declared firearm violence a public health crisis. Within weeks of Trump’s inauguration, his administration removed the advisory. Of the 15 leading U.S. causes of death, firearm injuries received less research funding from the National Institutes of Health for each person who died than all but poisoning and falls, according to an analysis in 2024 by Brady, an anti-gun violence organization. Trump is trying to cut that funding, too.

Trump’s Department of Justice abruptly cut 373 grants in April for projects worth about $820 million, with a large share from gun violence intervention.

“We are going to lose a generation of community violence prevention folks,” said Volkan Topalli, a gun violence researcher at Georgia State University. “People are going to die, I’m sorry to say, but that is the bleak truth of this.”

Asked about its policies, the White House did not address questions about public health considerations around gun violence.

“Illegal violence of any sort is a crime issue, and President Trump has been clear since Day One that he is committed to Making America Safe Again by empowering law enforcement to uphold law and order,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.

Trump administration officials “want safer streets and less violence,” Topalli said. “They are hurting their cause.”

Garen Wintemute, an emergency medicine professor who directs the violence prevention program at the University of California-Davis, was among the first in the nation to consider guns and violence as a public health issue. He said race plays a significant role in perceptions about gun violence.

“People look at the demographic risk for firearm homicide and depending on the demographics of the people in the audience, I can see the transformation in their faces,” Wintemute said. “It’s like they’re saying, ‘Not my people, not my problem.’”

Eroding Gun Restrictions

Trump’s incursions against public health efforts to contain gun violence are backed by lobbying power.

Firearm industry advocacy groups made millions of dollars in political donations in recent years, mostly to conservative causes and Republican candidates. That includes $1.4 million to Trump, according to OpenSecrets, which tracks campaign finance data.

The assassination of civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. helped lead to the passage of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which imposed stricter licensing rules and outlawed the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons.

While it remains the law of the land, over time, federal and state government actions have significantly weakened its protections.

Most states now allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit or background check, even though research suggests the practice can increase the risk of firearm homicides.

In Louisiana, Democratic former Gov. John Bel Edwards, in office from 2016 to 2024, vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms without a permit.

Elected in 2023, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed a law to allow any person over age 18 to conceal-carry without a permit.

The Trump administration has created a task force to implement his executive order to end most gun regulations and which would allow more people with criminal convictions, including for domestic abuse, to own guns.

Figures vary, but some researchers estimate as many as 500 million guns circulate in the U.S. Sales reached record highs during the pandemic and publicly traded firearm and ammunition companies saw profits jump.

Donald Trump Jr. this summer joined the board of GrabAGun, an online gun retailer that went public in July under the stock ticker PEW. In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the company, which markets guns to people ages 18 to 44, cited “gun violence prevention and legislative advocacy organizations that oppose sales of firearms and ammunition” as threats to its sales growth.

Dave Workman, a gun rights advocate with the Second Amendment Foundation, said firearms are not to blame for the surge in pandemic shootings.

“Bad guys are going to do what bad guys are going to do regardless of the law,” Workman said. “Taking away gun rights is not going to reduce crime.”

David Yamane, a Wake Forest University sociology professor and national authority on guns, said the U.S. firearm debate is complex and the industry is often “painted with too broad a brush.”

Most guns will never be used to kill anyone, he said. Americans tend to buy more guns during times of unrest, Yamane added: “It’s part of the American tradition. Guns are seen as a legitimate tool for defending yourself.”

‘A Low Level of Hope’

Once called “the Magic City,” Bogalusa has become a grim symbol of deindustrialization.

Bogalusa emerged as Black people formed their own communities in the time of Jim Crow racial segregation at the turn of the 20th century.

Racism concentrated Black people in neighborhoods that became epicenters of poor health, reflected in high rates of cancer, asthma, chronic stress, preterm births, pregnancy-related complications — and, over recent decades, firearm violence.

Thousands flocked to Bogalusa after the Great Southern Lumber Company built one of the world’s biggest sawmills, establishing Bogalusa as a company town. Racial tensions soon followed.

Members of the local Deacons for Defense and Justice gained national attention in the 1960s for protecting civil rights organizers from the Ku Klux Klan, a hate group that burned houses and churches, terrorizing and killing Black people.

As the mill changed hands over the decades, Bogalusa’s fortunes slid. In the mid-20th century, the population surpassed 20,000, but it is now about half that.

International Paper, a Fortune 500 company based in Tennessee, runs the mill as a containerboard factory, employing about 650 people. In 2021, the state announced incentives for the company that included a $500,000 tax break, saying the move would help bring “prosperity.”

Businesses remain boarded up along the main drag. Houses still bear damage from Hurricane Katrina, and many streets are eerily quiet.

Nearly 1 in 3 people in Bogalusa live in poverty — 2½ times the national average.

Bogalusa’s violent gun crime rate reached 646.1 per 100,000 people in 2022, higher than Louisiana’s and 1.7 times the national one, according to the nonprofit Equal Justice USA, citing FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data.

In many rural towns across the South, “there is a level of desperation that is more apparent” than in other parts of the U.S., said Luke Shaefer, a University of Michigan professor of social justice and public policy.

“They don’t have the same infrastructure to have robust social services. People are like, ‘What are my life chances?’” Shaefer said. “People feel like there is nothing that can be done. There is a low level of hope.”

Missed Opportunities

Mayor Truong lamented the violence in Bogalusa after Forbes was killed, writing on Facebook, “When are we as a community going to come together and decide enough is enough?”

The federal government had offered one path forward.

The Biden administration provided billions of dollars to local governments through the American Rescue Plan Act during the pandemic. Biden urged them to deploy money to community violence intervention programs, shown to reduce homicides by as much as 60%.

A handful of cities seized the opportunity, but most did not. Bogalusa has received $4.25 million in ARPA funds since 2021. None appears to have gone toward violence prevention.

The Louisiana legislative auditor, Michael Waguespack, found that Bogalusa used nearly $500,000 for employee bonuses, which his report said may have violated state law. In some cases, the report says, payments were not tied to work performed.

Bogalusa officials did not respond to a public records request from KFF Health News seeking detailed information about its ARPA money.

Former Mayor Wendy O’Quin-Perrette, who served from 2015 through early 2023, told Waguespack in a June 2024 letter that the city used ARPA money to improve streets and pay the bonuses. “We would not have done it without being sure it was allowed,” she said.

O’Quin-Perrette did not respond to requests for comment.

In a 2023 letter to Waguespack, O’Quin-Perrette’s successor, Truong, wrote that Bogalusa officials didn’t know how the federal money was spent. When he took office, Truong alleged, officials discovered “tens of thousands of dollars of checks and cash” stashed “in various drawers and on desks” in city offices.

Truong defended his stewardship of ARPA funds, saying that about $1 million remained when he assumed office but that the money was needed for more urgent sewer infrastructure repairs. “I wish we could have invested more, invested any money in gun violence prevention efforts,” he said.

In an interview, Truong said the city has been “intentional” about bringing down gun violence, including through a summer jobs program. He pointed to statistics that show homicides decreased from nine in 2022 to two in 2024. “If you keep them busy, they won’t have time to do anything else,” he said.

Asked about his January arrest, Truong said he has political enemies.

“I’m the only Democrat in a very red part of the state, and, you know, I’ve made a lot of changes at City Hall, and that ticks people off,” Truong told KFF Health News. He said that he ended long-standing city contracts with local businesspeople. “When you’re shaking up power structures, you become a target.”

Josie Alexander, a Louisiana-based senior strategist for Equal Justice USA, said city officials missed an opportunity when they didn’t use ARPA funds for gun violence prevention. “The sad thing is people here can now see that money was coming in,” she said. “But it just wasn’t used the way it needed to be.”

‘Too Much Trouble Here’

Truong said the city is still reeling from the pandemic spike in violent crime. He said he was at Bogalusa High School’s homecoming football game in 2022 when one teen shot another. Shots rang out, Truong said, and he grabbed his 3-month-old son and “laid in the bleachers.”

“It’s not a foreign topic to hardly anybody in town, whether you’ve heard the gunshots in the distance, whether you have attended a funeral of somebody who passed due to gun violence,” he said. Many still grapple with trauma.

In December 2022, Khlilia Daniels said, she hosted a birthday party for her teenage niece, praying no one would bring a gun.

The hosts checked guests for weapons, she said.

Yet gunfire erupted, Daniels said. Three teens were shot, including 15-year-old Ronié Taylor, who died, according to police.

“When someone you know is killed, you never forget,” said Daniels, 32, who held Taylor until emergency responders arrived.

Tajdryn Forbes was planning his future when he was killed, likely because of a dispute that started on social media over lyrics in a rap song, Guy said.

In a Facebook post in January, Bogalusa police said they had arrested someone in connection with Forbes’ killing. Authorities had previously announced the arrest of a teen in connection with the homicide.

Forbes had been a high school football standout, like his late father, Charles Forbes Jr., who played semipro. When Forbes scored a touchdown, he would look to the sky to honor his dad.

The school praised Forbes for his senior baseball season in a social media post: “This young man makes a difference on our campus and on the field with his strong character.”

When hopes for a college football scholarship did not pan out, Forbes worked as a deckhand for a marine transportation company. He saved money, looking forward to moving to Slidell, a suburb of New Orleans.

“He would always say, ‘There’s too much trouble here’” in Bogalusa, Guy recalled.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Breaking Down Why Medicare Part D Premiums Are Likely To Go Up

Medicare enrollees who buy the optional Part D drug benefit may see substantial premium price hikes — potentially up to $50 a month — when they shop for next year’s coverage.

Such drug plans are used by millions of people who enroll in what is called original Medicare, the classic federal government program that began in 1965 and added a drug benefit only in 2006. The drug plans are offered through private insurers, and enrollees must pay monthly premiums.

It’s not known whether insurers will pursue the maximum increase allowed, as premium prices for next year won’t be revealed until closer to open enrollment, which starts Oct. 15.

Increases are expected to mainly affect stand-alone Part D plans, not the drug coverage offered as part of Medicare Advantage, the private sector alternative to original Medicare. More on that later.

Policy experts say premiums are likely to go up for several reasons, including increased use of some higher-cost prescription drugs; a law that capped out-of-pocket spending for enrollees; and changes in a program aimed at stabilizing price increases that the Trump administration has continued but made less generous.

One thing is surer than ever, say many policy experts: Beneficiaries should not simply roll over their existing stand-alone Medicare drug plans.

“Everyone should shop plans in open enrollment,” said Stacie Dusetzina, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Here are three reasons prices would rise.

1. It’s the Spending!

Every year, insurers keep an eye on what they’re spending on drugs so they can build that into their premium estimates. Spending covers both the prices charged by drugmakers and volume, meaning how many people take the medications and how often.

And it’s up. Spending by insurers and government programs for prescription drugs in 2024 across the market grew more than 10%, which is slightly greater than in recent years, according to a research report published last month in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. Estimates are not yet available for this year’s trends.

Still, in 2024, researchers found that drug prices overall decreased slightly. Spending rose because of drugs coming on the market and increased utilization, especially for pricey weight loss drugs and another category of medications that treat various autoimmune conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Such increased use is evident in Medicare. Many beneficiaries, for example, are treated for autoimmune conditions. And even though Medicare doesn’t cover treatment for weight loss, many members have diabetes or other conditions that a new type of weight loss drugs can treat.

The Trump administration, according to The Washington Post, is considering a five-year pilot program in which Medicare Part D plans could voluntarily expand access to the drugs, which can cost more than $1,000 a month without insurance. Details have not yet been provided, but the pilot program would not begin in Medicare until 2027.

Another wild card for insurers is the Trump administration’s tariffs on businesses that purchase products made overseas, which could boost drug prices because the U.S. imports a lot of its pharmaceuticals. Much, however, remains unknown about whether drugmakers will pass along any additional tariff costs to consumers.

So, while rising spending is one factor, it isn’t the only reason next year’s premium prices are expected to go up.

2. New Out-of-Pocket Caps for Consumers

Changes made to Medicare aimed at helping people with high out-of-pocket costs for expensive medications may be a bigger factor.

Here’s why: Starting this year, Medicare enrollees have a limit on how much they must pay out-of-pocket for prescription drugs. It’s capped at $2,000, a threshold that will rise each year to cover inflation.

Lawmakers in Congress set those changes in the Inflation Reduction Act under President Joe Biden. The law also shifted a larger share of the cost of drugs used by Medicare beneficiaries from the federal program to insurers.

That $2,000 cap is a big change from previous years, when people taking expensive drugs had a higher threshold to meet annually and were on the hook to pay 5% of the drug’s cost even after meeting that amount. Those additional 5% payments ended last year under the provisions of the IRA.

Before that law passed, “people would spend $10,000 or $15,000 out-of-pocket each year just for a single drug,” Dusetzina said. “The Inflation Reduction Act was necessary to make Part D proper health insurance, but there’s a cost to do so.”

While the cap is a big help for affected consumers, the reduced amounts paid by some beneficiaries — coupled with the cost shift to insurers — could lead plans to spread their increased expenses across all policyholders through higher premiums. A growing number of health plans have also begun to require enrollees to pay a percentage of a drug’s cost, rather than a flat-dollar copay, which can lead to larger-than-expected costs at the pharmacy counter, Dusetzina said.

While consumers not currently taking high-cost specialty drugs may not see a benefit in the $2,000 cap initially, they might one day, say policy experts, who note that drugmaker prices continue to rise and that enrollees could fall ill with a condition like cancer or multiple sclerosis for which they need a very high-priced drug.

“It’s important to think not just in context of those groups who hit the cap every year, but also people are paying more in premiums to protect their future selves as well,” said Casey Schwarz, the senior counsel for education and federal policy at the Medicare Rights Center, an advocacy group.

The new prescription drug cap and other changes apply to both the stand-alone Part D drug plans and Medicare Advantage plans. But those Medicare Advantage plans are not expected to increase the drug portion of their premiums, partly because the private sector plans are paid more per member than what it costs taxpayers for the traditional program.

That means Advantage plans have far more money to add benefits, such as vision and dental coverage, which traditional Medicare does not include, or to use them to cushion the impact of rising spending on drug costs, thus limiting premium increases.

Those additional benefits are advertised to attract customers to Medicare Advantage, which also sometimes offers plans with minimal or no monthly premium costs. There are other differences between traditional Medicare and private sector plans. For example, Advantage members must stick to doctors and hospitals in the plan’s networks, and they may face more prior authorization or other hurdles than in the traditional program.

The growing difference between premiums — fueled by the extra rebates flowing to the private sector plans — “is increasingly tilting coverage toward Medicare Advantage and making traditional Medicare plus a stand-alone PDP [prescription drug plan] unaffordable for many enrollees,” said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the program on Medicare policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

3. Trump Administration Reduced Funding Meant To Slow Premium Growth

The final factor in the premium increase equation is a program set up to slow the rise of premiums in stand-alone Part D plans.

It began under the Biden administration to offset premium increases tied to changes in the Inflation Reduction Act by temporarily injecting additional federal dollars to help insurers adjust to the new rules.

That plan sent just over $6 billion this year to Part D insurers.

And it had an effect.

The average monthly premium for a stand-alone Part D drug plan dropped 9%, from $43 last year to $39 this year, according to KFF, even when factoring in that some plans raised prices by up to $35 a month, the maximum increase allowed under the stabilization plan for this year.

In a memo released in late July, the Trump administration said it would continue the program for next year, while shaving about 40% of the funding. A government official told The Wall Street Journal that the administration felt that keeping the full funding would have mainly benefited the insurers and cost taxpayers an “enormous, excess amount.”

The stabilization effort next year will send $10 a month per enrollee to Part D insurers to help keep premiums in check, down from $15 this year. Among other changes, it allows insurers to raise premiums by as much as $50 a month, up from the $35 allowed this year.

That would be a substantial increase, Cubanski noted, although it is not clear just how many insurers would pursue the full amount.

“We did see some plans this year were taking premium increases of that $35 amount in 2025, and I fully expect we will see some plans with increases up to $50 a month” next year, she said.

Another reason to take a close look at all the options once open enrollment begins.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Medicaid Cuts Could Have Vast Ripple Effects in This Rural Colorado Community

In southern Colorado’s San Luis Valley, clouds billow above the towering mountains of the Sangre de Cristo range. A chorus of blackbirds whistle as they flit among the reeds of a wildlife refuge. Big, circular fields of crops, interspersed with native shrubs, give it a feel of bucolic quiet.

But amid the stark beauty in one of the state’s most productive agricultural regions, there was a sense of unease among the community’s leaders as Congress debated a budget bill that could radically reshape Medicaid, the government health program for low-income people.

“I’m trying to be worried and optimistic,” said Konnie Martin, CEO of San Luis Valley Health in Alamosa, Colorado, the hub for health care services for 50,000 people in six rural counties.

Martin said Medicaid is vital to rural health care.

“I think in Colorado right now, nearly 70% of rural hospitals are operating in a negative margin,” in the red, Martin said.

The health system’s annual budget is $140 million, and Medicaid revenue makes up nearly a third of that, according to Shane Mortensen, chief financial officer for SLV Health.

The operating margin is razor-thin, so federal cuts to Medicaid could force difficult cuts at SLV. “It will be devastating to us,” Mortensen said.

The region is one of the state’s poorest. In Alamosa County, 2 in 5 residents are enrolled in Health First Colorado, the state’s Medicaid program.

It’s a lifeline, especially for people who wouldn’t otherwise have easy access to health care. That includes low-income seniors who need supplemental coverage in addition to Medicare, and people of all ages with disabilities.

Envisioning a future with deep Medicaid cutbacks leaves many patients on edge.

“I looked into our insurance and, oh my goodness, it’s just going to take half my check to pay insurance,” said Julianna Mascarenas, a mother of six. She said Medicaid has helped her cover her family for years. Mascarenas works as a counselor treating people with substance use disorders. Her ex-husband farms — potatoes and cattle — for employers that don’t offer health insurance.

Across the state, Medicaid covers 1 in 5 Coloradans, more than a million people.

That includes children in foster care.

“We’ve had 13 kids in and out of our home, six of which have been born here at this hospital with drugs in their system,” foster parent Chance Padilla said, referring to SLV’s flagship hospital in Alamosa.

“Medicaid has played a huge part in just being able to give them the normal life that they deserve,” he said. “These kids require a lot of medical intervention.”

Chris Padilla, Chance’s husband, said: “At one point, we had a preteen that needed to be seen three times a week by a mental health professional. There’s no way that we could have done that without Medicaid.”

Staff and administrators at SLV Health wonder whether federal cuts will make it hard for the system to keep its cancer center running.

“It could be pretty dramatically affected,” said Carmelo Hernandez, SLV’s chief medical officer.

The hospital in Alamosa has its own labor and delivery unit, the type of service that other rural hospitals across the U.S. have struggled to keep open. About 85% of the hospital’s labor and delivery patients are covered by Medicaid, Hernandez said.

“If we don’t have obstetric services here, then where are they going to go?” said Hernandez, whose specialty is obstetrics and gynecology. “They’re going to travel an hour and 20 minutes north to Salida to get health care. Or they can travel to Pueblo, another two-hour drive over a mountain pass.”

Tiffany Martinez, 34, was recently forced to think about that possibility after giving birth to her fourth child.

Her pregnancy was high-risk, requiring twice-a-week ultrasounds and stress tests at the hospital. She’s enrolled in Medicaid.

“Everything down here is low-pay,” Martinez said. “It’s not like we have money to just be able to pay for the doctor. It’s not like we have money to travel often to go to the doctor. So it’s definitely beneficial.”

Providing Health Care — And Jobs

With 750 workers, the health system is the valley’s largest employer. Clint Sowards, a primary care physician, said having less Medicaid funds will make it harder to attract the next generation of doctors, nurses, and other health care workers.

Certain medical specialties might no longer be available, Sowards said. “People will have to leave. They will have to leave the San Luis Valley.”

Kristina Steinberg is a family medicine physician with Valley-Wide Health Systems, a network of small clinics serving thousands in the region. She said Medicaid covers most nursing home residents in the area. “If seniors lost access to Medicaid for long-term care, we would lose some nursing homes,” she said. “They would consolidate.”

Audrey Reich Loy, a licensed social worker and SLV Health’s director of programs, said the system utilizes Medicaid “as sort of the backbone of our infrastructure.”

“It doesn’t just support those that are recipients of Medicaid,” she said. “But as a result of what it brings to our community, it allows us to ensure that we have sort of a safety net of services that we can then expand upon and provide for the entire community.”

Seeking More Efficiency

Republicans in Congress who pushed for the big spending and tax law, which estimates suggest will result in large cuts to Medicaid, say they want to save money and make the government more efficient.

Many in the Alamosa County region voted for Donald Trump. “He’s potentially affecting his voter base pretty dramatically,” Hernandez said.

He said Medicaid cuts could give President Trump’s supporters second thoughts, but he noted that politics is a sensitive topic that he mostly doesn’t discuss with patients.

Sowards said he understands that some people believe the Medicaid system is ailing and costly. But he said he has grave doubts about the proposed cure.

“Losing Medicaid would have drastic repercussions that we can’t foresee,” Sowards said.

Cuts Would Create Ripple Effect

SLV Health’s regional economic impact is more than $100 million a year, with Medicaid accounting for a major part of that, Martin said.

Any Medicaid cuts would hit the health system hard, but they would also affect small businesses and their employees. The region is feeling economic stress from other changes, like recent cuts the Trump administration made to the federal workforce.

The San Luis Valley is home to the Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, Great Sand Dunes National Park, and other federally managed lands.

Joe Martinez, president of San Luis Valley Federal Bank, said that recently laid-off federal workers are already coming to banks saying: “‘Can I find a way to get my next two months’ mortgage payments forgiven? Or can we do an extension?’ Or: ‘I lost my job. What can we do to make sure that I don’t lose my vehicle?’”

Ty Coleman, Alamosa’s mayor, traveled to Washington, D.C., in April to talk to Colorado’s congressional delegation. He said his message about Medicaid cuts was straightforward: “It can have a devastating economic impact.” Coleman put together a long list of possible troubles: More chronic disease and higher mortality rates. Longer wait times for care. Medical debt and financial strain on families.

“It’s not just our rural community but the communities, rural communities, across Colorado as well, and the United States,” Coleman said. “And I don’t think people are getting it.”

This article is from a partnership that includes CPR NewsNPR and KFF Health News.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Guía para encontrar seguro de salud a los 26

Se suponía que iba a ser más fácil.

Cuando la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA) se aprobó en marzo de 2010, el objetivo era ayudar a que más personas en el país obtuvieran seguro médico. Y, de hecho, la creación de mercados en línea y la ampliación de los criterios de elegibilidad para Medicaid lograron ese propósito.

Sin embargo,15 años después, el sistema dista mucho de ser fácil de usar.

A los jóvenes que buscan seguro médico pueden ayudarlos los navegadores que trabajan para los mercados en línea. Pero si prefieres hacerlo por tu cuenta, aquí tienes algunos consejos para buscar un plan, en base a laexperiencia de expertos.

Abróchate el cinturón.

Comienza aquí

Inicia tu búsqueda por lo menos dos meses antes de tu cumpleaños 26 (la edad en la que los jóvenes adultos deben salir del plan de salud de sus padres). En algunos casos, puedes inscribirte en un plan con anticipación para que entre en vigencia el día de tu cumpleaños.

Primero, averigua si tu plan familiar termina el día de tu cumpleaños o al final de ese mes. Algunos estados permiten que los jóvenes permanezcan en el plan familiar hasta los 29 años, bajo ciertas condiciones y, por lo general, con costos más altos.

Un navegador podrá darte más detalles.

Podrías mantener el seguro familiar a través de COBRA, un plan federal que permite extender el tiempo bajo este plan. Pero es imporante saber que puede ser muy costoso porque se debe pagar el total de la prima.

Quienes declaran una discapacidad generalmente pueden permanecer en el plan familiar después de los 26, dependiendo del tipo de seguro que tenga la familia.

Si estás en tratamiento médico y no puedes cambiar de hospital o de doctor, pagar esta prima podría ser tu mejor opción. No tendrás esta alternativa si tu familia tiene seguro a través de un plan de ACA.

Antes de empezar a buscar, haz una lista de los medicamentos y doctores de los que dependes, y destaca aquellos que son imprescindibles para ti. Incluso puedes jerarquizarlos.

Es muy probable que tengas menos opciones en el mercado que las que tenías en el plan de tus padres. Prepárate para hacer cambios y concesiones.

Encuentra tu mercado

Treinta y dos estados adoptaron el mercado federal como el lugar al que sus residentes pueden comparar y comprar cobertura. El resto administra sus propios mercados en línea. Puedes averiguar aquí dónde comprar seguro de slaud en tu estado.

Asegúrate de entrar a un sitio oficial de ACA. Hay muchas páginas que parecen oficiales pero que en realidad las operan corredores privados. El mercado federal está en cuidadodesalud.gov y en ningún otro lugar.

Ten en cuenta que los mercados estatales oficiales a veces tienen nombres poco comunes. Ejemplos son New York State of Health, Kynect (Kentucky), Covered California y CoverMe (Maine).

En los estados que usan el mercado federal, puedes encontrar ayuda aquí. En los mercados estatales, suele haber un botón o pestaña de “find local help” (buscar ayuda local) que te dirige a alguien que puede ayudarte a encontrar un buen plan.

Generalmente, te pedirán elegir entre un corredor, que recibe comisión si te inscribes, o un “asistente” que ofrece el servicio sin costo. Los asistentes han recibido capacitación especial en el mercado donde trabajan y, al no recibir comisión, no tienen incentivos para dirigirte hacia un plan que les genere ingresos.

Los asistentes suelen ser navegadores contratados por el mercado, pero a veces trabajan para hospitales, planes de salud u organizaciones sin fines de lucro. Tendrás que preguntar.

Aunque los navegadores suelen ser una fuente confiable de asesoría, podrían ser más difíciles de encontrar ahora que la administración recortó su financiamiento en los estados que dependen del mercado federal (los estados con mercado propio no han sido afectados).

Muchas organizaciones sin fines de lucro y estados ofrecen excelentes programas de asistencia gratuita. Estos expertos te guiarán paso a paso y sabrán qué opciones seleccionar para asegurarte la mejor cobertura posible al mejor precio disponible.

Inscríbete

Una vez en un sitio oficial que ofrezca planes de ACA, te pedirán ingresar tu información personal y una estimación de tus ingresos.

Cuarenta estados y el Distrito de Columbia ofrecen Medicaid a jóvenes solteros sin hijos si sus ingresos son lo suficientemente bajos para calificar. Si cumples con los requisitos, elsitio te redirige a la plataforma de Medicaid para iniciar el proceso de inscripción, o podrías inscribirte directamente desde el mercado.

Sin embargo, debes saber que la nueva ley aprobada por los republicanos ha aumentado los requisitos y la cantidad de trámites necesarios para obtener y mantener la cobertura de Medicaid.

Medicaid, un programa conjunto federal y estatal que ofrece seguro médico a personas con bajos ingresos, no cobra prima y cubre medicamentos a bajo costo o gratis. El inconveniente es que quienes están inscritos tienen menos doctores y hospitales dentro de la red para elegir.

Si tus ingresos superan el límite para Medicaid, tendrás que buscar una póliza en el mercado.

En la mayoría de los sitios, hay una herramienta para verificar si tu doctor u hospital están dentro de la red de un plan. Pero cuidado: estos directorios suelen tener errores, pese a las leyes federales que exigen su exactitud.

Por eso, antes de seleccionar un plan, llama al doctor o hospital para confirmar que aceptan el seguro que estás considerando.

Haz números

Para los cálculos, es mejor usar una computadora que un teléfono. Generalmente, puedes comparar los costos y la cobertura de solo tres planes a la vez.

Debes considerar:

  • La prima (teniendo en cuenta cualquier subsidio que recibas según tus ingresos) y otros gastos que deberás pagar, llamados “gastos compartidos”.
  • Deducible: lo que debes pagar de tu bolsillo antes de que el seguro comience a cubrir los gastos. (Algunos planes incluyen ciertas visitas al médico de atención primaria sin que cuenten para el deducible).
  • Copagos: cantidad fija que pagas por una visita al médico o a la sala de emergencias.
  • Coseguro: porcentaje de la factura total, comúnmente entre 10% y 30%, que puede ser muy alto. Por ejemplo, con el esquema común 80-20, tú pagas el 20%. Una estancia hospitalaria puede costar decenas o cientos de miles de dólares, y el 20% de eso es mucho dinero.
  • Límite de gastos de bolsillo: lo máximo que pagarás en un año, siempre que uses proveedores de la red y cumplas con el deducible.

Hacer números implica evaluar de manera integral lo que puedes pagar en primas frente a lo que puedes cubrir de los gastos mencionados antes. Si el deducible supera los $3.000 y el máximo anual de gastos es de $9.200, ¿tienes ese dinero?

En general, cuanto más baja es la prima mensual, mayor es la parte de los costos que deberás pagar si necesitas atención médica. Una misma aseguradora puede ofrecer planes muy distintos en el mismo mercado, con diferentes políticas de pago y redes.

Las personas con ingresos de hasta 2,5 veces el nivel de pobreza pueden obtener alivio en los gastos compartidos, pero solo si se inscriben en planes “Plata”. Los planes suelen clasificarse como Bronce, Plata, Oro y Platino; cada nivel refleja el porcentaje de gastos médicos que cubre el plan. Los planes de Bronce ofrecen la cobertura más baja.

Elige con sabiduría

Cuando reduzcas la lista de opciones a unos pocos planes, examínalos a fondo.

Un plan con deducible bajo podría requerir un copago diario de $1.000 o un coseguro del 50% en hospitalizaciones. Un plan que enumere tu sistema hospitalario como parte de la red podría solo incluir algunas de sus sedes, y no necesariamente las más cercanas o las que ofrecen el tipo de atención que necesitas.

Revisa el “resumen de beneficios y cobertura” para ejemplos concretos de lo que cubre el plan. Pon atención a los servicios que requieren autorización previa y, por ejemplo, cuántas visitas de fisioterapia cubren al año. La autorización previa puede ser un proceso largo y complicado.

En general, las primas más bajas implican más requisitos de autorización previa y menos cobertura. También revisa el listado de medicamentos cubiertos (llamado formulario) y confirma si tus doctores están en la red del plan.

Los planes del mercado suelen ofrecer menos opciones que los que ofrecen los empleadores: no hay tantos doctores u hospitales para elegir.

Verifica si la póliza cubre algo fuera de la red. Algunos planes pagan, por ejemplo, el 60% o 70% de los cargos aprobados, algo útil si necesitas ver un especialista fuera de la red o si la espera para una cita es muy larga.

Un estudio comprobó que las personas con planes del mercado tienen acceso, en promedio, a solo el 40% de los doctores cercanos, y en algunas zonas el acceso baja al 25%. Es probable que la cifra sea aún menor para especialistas en salud mental.

Recurso adicional

Si intentas elegir un plan y aún tienes dudas, busca uno de “precios fáciles” o estándar. Estos cumplen con ciertos requisitos básicos establecidos por los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS), que supervisan los mercados federales. Estos planes incluyen algunas citas de atención primaria antes de que tengas que pagar el deducible.

El gobierno indica que en el mercado federal deben aparecer con la etiqueta “easy pricing”, aunque en los mercados estatales pueden identificarse de otra manera. En Nueva York, por ejemplo, se marcan simplemente con las letras ST (por estándar).

Por ahora, el financiamiento para subsidios a las primas está garantizado al menos este año, y sigue habiendo asistencia experta gratuita, así que no lo dejes pasar. Hay buenas ofertas disponibles, siempre y cuando te tomes el trabajo de encontrarlas.

Que tengas suerte.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts: