Now she worries the cost of those drugs could rise — not because of price increases, but because of a tax system revamp put on the ballot by the state’s Republican-dominated legislature and backed by the Republican governor.

Prescription drugs and doctor visits are currently exempt from taxes in the state. But in August, Missouri voters will weigh in on a proposed constitutional amendment to give the legislature the power to replace the state’s income tax with expanded sales taxes, including on goods and services currently exempt.

“Politicians want Missourians to trust them when they say not to worry about our medications and healthcare being up for grabs,” Ortbals said at a June press event organized by Progress MO, a progressive advocacy group.

“I have spent enough time in Jefferson City to know better,” said Ortbals, who works for a Democratic state legislator but was speaking in her personal capacity. “I have watched them speak about protecting life while making lifesaving healthcare less accessible.”

Taxes on healthcare are unusual in the United States but not unprecedented. Most states over-the-counter drugs. Illinois, Missouri’s neighbor, prescription drugs. Delaware, Hawai‘i, New Mexico, and Washington all on services by physicians, dentists, out-of-hospital nursing providers, and medical laboratories.

Critics of the amendment to eliminate income tax in Missouri say it’d be difficult to make up the lost revenue without also imposing taxes on healthcare. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s general revenue budget comes from income taxes, about $8.7 billion in 2026. Failing to make up that revenue could lead to steep cuts in state services.

The proposed tax cut comes at an already precarious time for the state budget. Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe in spending in this year’s budget over concerns of lagging revenues. The state legislature has passed a since 2022, including . Federal covid aid has propped up the budget in recent years, but the that the surplus is dwindling. And the state is projected to in federal Medicaid funding over 10 years due to cuts from President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Proponents of the Missouri income tax proposal, such as of the Show-Me Institute, a conservative think tank, say the cut would in the state, both of which have been flat in recent years. He doubts healthcare would be among the things subject to sales tax. But even if it were, he said, it could be done in ways that wouldn’t target lower-income residents. New Jersey, for example, (excluding reconstructive surgeries), which tend to be performed on wealthier people.

In a statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Kehoe spokesperson Gabby Picard said the governor “will never support extending sales taxes on agriculture, healthcare, or real estate,” noting that the legislature would have to decide what to exempt if the ballot measure passes.

Federal law already prohibits states from imposing taxes on many healthcare services covered by government programs such as Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors, and Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, Picard wrote. More than were insured through those two programs in 2024.

But Jay Hardenbrook, advocacy director for AARP Missouri, argued that raising taxes on healthcare, real estate, and agriculture is the for the amendment, considering the legislature doesn’t need special permission to cut income taxes. He cautioned that because the amendment opens the door to new taxes on anything, it could unleash a “weird feeding frenzy” with special-interest groups lobbying for exemptions.

“Let’s say we do protect prescription drugs from a tax increase; does that mean that the cost of food goes up?” Hardenbrook said.

And if the Missouri measure passes and the legislature exempts healthcare and real estate from new taxes, Hardenbrook worries about cuts to state-funded services like home and community-based care.

“When I talk about taxes going up, and the price of every good and services going up, that’s the best-case scenario,” Hardenbrook said. “The worst-case scenario is that the income tax just goes away, and we just don’t have the money to do the things that we need to do.”

have no income tax, and Washington taxes only capital gains, but of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank, said the way Missouri is going about its elimination is nearly unprecedented. Only Alaska has repealed a broad-based personal income tax that had previously accounted for a significant portion of the state budget, Davis said.

“The situation in Alaska was they struck oil, and they had this gusher of economic activity and tax revenue that resulted from that,” Davis said. “Missouri has not struck oil.”

A 2012 tax cut in Kansas that reduced income taxes for individuals and eliminated them for some types of businesses created a large budget hole, prompting lawmakers there to the cuts five years later.

Tsapelas of the Show-Me Institute said Missouri’s income tax elimination wouldn’t happen overnight but would instead be more akin to in the state: phased in and tied to revenue targets that would shield the state from massive budget gaps.

“It’s not as doom and gloom as some people are worried about,” Tsapelas said.

But Ortbals, the healthcare advocate, said too many Missourians are already delaying medical care because of costs.

“I want a Missouri where young people can afford to stay, where families can afford to grow, where chronic illness does not become financial ruin,” Ortbals said.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

More and more Americans are being exposed to these parasites as climate change expands the range where they can survive. That means more people are also exposed to the bevy of health conditions they can cause, such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever, the alpha-gal-triggered red meat allergy, and, most common of all, Lyme disease.

For the latter, there may be some additional protection on the horizon. Pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Valneva they plan to seek regulatory approval for a vaccine to protect against Lyme disease. A for Lyme became available in the late 1990s but was pulled only three years later due to lawsuits, public fear of side effects, and a lack of interest.

It’s unclear whether this latest stab at a Lyme disease vaccine will get a warmer reception if it’s approved, especially in the postcovid era of vaccine skepticism.

For a sense of how it might go over with rural populations at high risk of Lyme, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News spoke with a group of hunters.

Few people spend more time in the woods exposed to ticks.

At the same time, as a collective, hunters , according to a survey from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. And these are identities increased or vaccines, according to Ashley Kirzinger, associate director for Public Opinion and Survey Research at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

At the same time, few people spend more time in the woods exposed to ticks and the possibility of Lyme disease.

Left untreated, Lyme can cause a , from fevers, chills, and headaches to arthritis, shooting pains, and inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About in the U.S. may be diagnosed and treated for Lyme disease each year, the CDC says; that’s at least in part because the where cases have been reported has “expanded significantly” since 1995.

So would hunters get the Lyme vaccine if it became available?

“Given my proclivity for the outdoors, absolutely,” said Jess Manganelli, one of seven hunters (and one hiker) who spoke with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News on a recent Saturday at the Busch Shooting Range in Weldon Spring, Missouri, just outside of St. Louis.

Of the eight, Manganelli, who had been hunting turkeys the weekend before, was the most positive toward the vaccine. Six others said they would consider it but would want more information about its safety and effectiveness as well as their risk for contracting the disease.

But Manganelli was the only one who believed she may have previously contracted Lyme disease, although she was never formally diagnosed with it. Two years ago, she experienced muscle weakness, tiredness, fatigue, swelling, and headaches after a tick bite, but when she went to urgent care she was told they didn’t test for Lyme.

Nearly all the hunters knew someone who had had Lyme disease — an old roommate, a family member, friends, a former student. Lyme can be and to treat and is often misdiagnosed at first. Many of the hunters witnessed their acquaintances navigating those challenges and struggling with sometimes debilitating symptoms.

That familiarity among the hunters in Missouri was unsurprising to author and conservationist Steven Rinella, host of the hunting show MeatEater.

“I’m a turkey hunter. In talking about turkey hunting, you talk about ticks as much as you talk about turkeys,” Rinella said. “Just the nature of turkey hunting puts you into exposure. You’re sitting for long periods of time trying to use vegetation for concealment.”

In fact, both Rinella and his older son contracted Lyme disease 13 years ago during a bluegill fishing trip in the Hudson Valley in New York. His son developed Bell’s palsy, a sudden paralysis on one side of the face, but recovered quickly after a course of oral antibiotics. Steven Rinella’s symptoms, on the other hand, lingered for months, leaving him unable to walk down stairs without a handrail or to ride a bike. He ended up receiving intravenous antibiotic treatments for a month.

“I thought my life had changed,” Rinella said, “but I recovered, as far as I know.”

That experience is one reason Rinella said he would absolutely consider getting a Lyme vaccine if it proved safe and provided considerable protection against the disease. Unlike with some other diseases, prior infection does not provide permanent immunity, so a person who has had Lyme could still benefit from a vaccine.

Knowledge of similar challenges influenced the thinking of the hunters in Missouri as well.

Jeremy Hollingshead said he may be less inclined to take a vaccine owing to his former roommate’s experience with Lyme disease, which is not to say the experience was pleasant. In fact, Hollingshead said he thinks his old pal is still dealing with lingering effects of it 10 years later. But Hollingshead has spent his whole life in the woods, and of hundreds of people he knows who have done the same, he knows of only one of them contracting Lyme.

“I know it was a bad outcome for him,” Hollingshead said, but he thinks the odds of getting Lyme himself seem pretty slim.

Meanwhile, Julian Barnes said seeing a relative struggle with Lyme makes him more open to a potential vaccine. It took a long time for doctors to come to that diagnosis, and finding a good treatment has been equally difficult.

“I would say I am vaccine-hesitant, generally speaking,” Barnes said. “But Lyme, I’ve seen the way it affects people in my life.”

“I would definitely have to really understand the vaccine, how it works,” Barnes added.

The new, four-dose vaccine candidate technically missed one of the bars set out in trials because Lyme. Still, the companies say it’s about 75% effective in reducing cases, and they plan to submit it to regulators for approval. A Pfizer spokesperson said there were no updates to share on the company’s regulatory efforts when contacted by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News in June.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was a noted anti-vaccine activist before taking over as head of the agency that oversees vaccine approvals, and he’s remade it in ways that have prompted some vaccine makers to on development.

But he’s also been an advocate on Lyme disease. In May, he announced an . And during his Senate confirmation hearings, he said his family had been deeply affected by Lyme disease and that than he would to find a vaccine or treatment.

If the vaccine is approved by the FDA, an endorsement from Kennedy would go a long way, according to KFF’s Kirzinger, particularly among supporters of his Make America Healthy Again movement, who tend to be more vaccine-skeptical.

“They trust him as much as they trust their own doctors to tell them what to do with their health and for health information,” Kirzinger said. “If he comes out as a strong proponent of this vaccine and says, ‘Look what my administration did, and we made this available,’ I would imagine there would be less vaccine resistance among that group.”

Kirzinger also said this vaccine could be ripe for misinformation. New polling from KFF shows people who don’t have a trusted medical provider as well as those who use social media and AI for health information are common vaccine myths.

Only one of the hunters who spoke with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News said they definitely would not be interested in a Lyme vaccine if it became available.

“I kind of hand it off to God and the body he gave me. I’m pretty durable,” JP Cummings said. But even while he’s not interested in it for himself, he’s curious to see what his fellow hunters do as more information comes out.

“Hunters care about the wildlife; hunters care about health,” Cummings said. “They love the wildlife, they love their deer, and they love their fellow hunters.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

The , the public health insurance program that pairs state and federal money. Federal officials have announced unprecedented actions in Minnesota this year, declaring they could withhold over $2 billion in payments slated for the state and claw back nearly $260 million from last year.

The actions in Minnesota came as part of the administration’s declared crackdown on fraud, but critics have likened them to using a bludgeon instead of a scalpel, probably harming patients who rely on Medicaid for care but are not responsible for fraud in the program.

“It’s going to hurt a lot of people if they end up going through with this,” said Sumukha Terakanambi, a 27-year-old who has Duchenne muscular dystrophy and works as a public policy consultant with the Minnesota Council on Disability.

“Of course we support going after fraud,” Terakanambi said, but “this overly aggressive action is missing the point. It’s not punishing fraudsters. It’s punishing the people.”

Longtime Medicaid observers also doubt the federal actions will achieve their purported objective.

, a senior managing director with the consulting firm Manatt, that actions of this magnitude by the federal government are unprecedented, partly because punitive measures against states have “really never been an effective way to address fraud.”

Meanwhile, fraud prosecutions as the U.S. attorney’s office there grapples with the exodus of nearly half its attorneys and a surge in cases from the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Despite these concerns, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services head Mehmet Oz said the techniques the federal government is using in Minnesota could be applied to other states, and he has launched social media campaigns alleging high-dollar public benefit fraud in , , , and . And a February release of by the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency appears to be part of a campaign to paint the program as riddled by fraud, Guyer said.

, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said that campaign by the administration seems particularly focused on services designed to keep people with disabilities out of institutions, and he described withholding $2 billion from Minnesota’s Medicaid program as “.”

A ‘Political Football’

Scrutiny of Minnesota’s public benefit programs began early in the Biden administration, years before the most recent investigations. The spotlight on the state’s Medicaid system grew after FBI raids in December 2024.

The following May, an into Medicaid housing stabilization services in Minnesota prompted further scrutiny from federal prosecutors, and from Gov. Tim Walz.

Under the Democratic governor, the state launched investigations into 85 autism providers, ordered a third-party audit of 14 types of Medicaid services deemed to be “high-risk” for fraud, and delayed payments for those services for up to 90 days. Many of the services are ones people with disabilities receive at home, making them more difficult to monitor.  

Terakanambi worried the state’s “heavy-handed approach” would destabilize the entire home care system. While his own care was not disrupted — his parents provide the 10 hours of daily personal care he qualifies for through Medicaid — other Minnesotans with disabilities have said they experienced interruptions and .

In December, one man was after losing his in-home care services amid the crackdown.

“We’re losing sight of the people that have done nothing wrong, that rely on these supports and services to live in the community,” said Sue Schettle, chief executive of , a Minnesota nonprofit that represents organizations supporting people with disabilities. “It becomes a political football.”

Schettle said she took her concerns about the crackdown to state officials, who have since met routinely with her and other advocates. The subsequent federal actions, however, have left her “shell-shocked,” she said.

The ‘Nuclear Option’

In December, a , with help from state Republicans, supercharged the issue in Minnesota, alleging widespread fraud in child care centers owned by members of the Somali community. A follow-up state investigation of the child care centers that were featured in the video determined that all were “.”

On Jan. 6, CMS’ Oz sent Walz a letter alleging Minnesota’s Medicaid program was out of compliance with federal rules on fraud, waste, and abuse, setting the stage for the Trump administration’s move to withhold over $2 billion in federal Medicaid funds to Minnesota this year, about 18% of what the state received the year before.

Minnesota is appealing.

The Republican-aligned Paragon Health Institute, a think tank that recently published a calling for similar enforcement actions across the country, applauded the federal moves.

“That will spur states to take necessary action, thus ensuring that Medicaid funds go to those who are truly eligible,” said , a legal research analyst who co-authored the brief.

Georgetown’s Schneider questioned the necessity and effectiveness of withholding the money.

“I don’t see any relationship between that and actually reducing fraud against the Minnesota Medicaid program, given the state has already taken a lot of action,” he said.

In late February, Oz went further, announcing that on top of withholding $2 billion in future payments to Minnesota, the administration was in federal Medicaid payments to the state.

“We have notified the state that we will give them the money, but we are going to hold it and only release it after they propose and act on a comprehensive corrective action plan to solve the problem,” Oz said at with Vice President JD Vance.

Minnesota the deferment in court.

“We’re waiting for feedback from CMS on our corrective action plan, which is why we were surprised and confused when Dr. Oz said in a news conference with the vice president last week that we needed to provide one,” Minnesota Medicaid director John Connolly said at a March 3 news briefing.

‘Another Minnesota’

Oz and Vance both said during the February news conference that they are not specifically targeting Democratic-led states. Oz noted Florida has a “big fraud problem” and in mid-March sent a letter to state officials with a list of questions about their Medicaid program. Until then, the letters and most of Oz’s social media videos had been limited to California, Maine, and New York, all led by Democrats.

“We might have another Minnesota on our hands,” Oz said in posted the same day as sent to Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, requesting information on how the state was addressing Medicaid fraud.

“And if we’re not satisfied with their progress, we reserve the right to cut off payments entirely,” Oz said in the video.

The video and letter were prompted by a in Maine that found the state had made at least $45.6 million in improper Medicaid payments. Similar audits in , , and had comparable findings.

In , Mills called Oz’s letter a “pretense to send ICE and other weaponized federal agents into states led by Democrats.”

CMS spokesperson Chris Krepich said the agency does not take funding actions lightly. “The focus is on strengthening oversight, improving accountability, and ensuring that vulnerable patients receive the services they are entitled to,” Krepich said.

But Terakanambi said it’s not difficult to see how federal actions like those in Minnesota could put services in jeopardy. The amount of money Minnesota could lose from the CMS actions announced this year is already equivalent to about two-thirds of the state’s rainy-day fund.

Many states are looking to or even funding for home care services over much smaller budget shortfalls. And further cuts are anticipated, with congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last year, expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over the next decade.

“People will die,” Terakanambi said. “People will lose critical supports and will no longer be able to participate in their community the way they want to.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Services at risk include the 24/7 care that allows a 39-year-old with cerebral palsy to live independently; the in-home caregiving that lets a 26-year-old with brain damage from a hemorrhage at birth stay in his family home; and private duty nursing for a 19-year-old with cerebral palsy who has qualified for hospice care for complications including pulmonary decline from a spinal cord injury.

Concerns for such care arose when Idaho Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, proposed cutting $22 million from Medicaid — the joint state-federal health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities — to balance the state budget. Home- and community-based services such as caregiving, nursing, and residential rehabilitation are optional under Medicaid, and Little for the cuts.

Across the country, people with disabilities and their families are confronting similar plans to cut Medicaid as states grapple with budget challenges compounded by congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is expected to reduce federal spending on Medicaid by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.

A four-hour town hall on the proposal in Idaho drew to the state capitol. Colorado lawmakers heard from concerned residents before pausing a pay cut for family caregivers. In Missouri, families raised alarms about a to services for people with disabilities.

“We saw this coming. We’ve tried to educate members of Congress,” said Kim Musheno, the senior director of Medicaid policy at The Arc, a national disability rights organization.

“Whenever there’s pressure on state budgets like those that are caused by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, they go after Medicaid, and then they go after optional services,” Musheno said.

Many cuts included in the GOP bill, which President Donald Trump signed into law in July, haven’t yet taken effect, but the law is already impacting state budgets, particularly in states that align their tax rules with federal regulations.

Conforming to the federal law is expected to cost Idaho this year. Colorado lawmakers were called into a special session last year to address a created by the law. Those shortfalls — combined with national trends of increased Medicaid costs, , and further tax cuts passed by some state legislatures — are putting pressure on Medicaid programs.

Still, Musheno said she was surprised by how quickly Idaho targeted services for people with disabilities. “I couldn’t believe it.”

Little had already ordered Medicaid cuts last year as part of an effort to address a budget shortfall after years of and increasing program costs. That led to a in September for medical providers’ work with Medicaid patients. Little’s new proposed would be on top of those previous rate cuts.

“We were told by the legislature that they want to save some money in Medicaid, and so what we put together was a list of seven different options that were there,” Little said at a Feb. 17 press event. “There’s only so many levers we can pull in the Medicaid area that doesn’t jeopardize our funding.”

‘We Just Hold Our Breath’

Amber Grant said any further cuts for the nursing agency that provides care for her 19-year-old son, Matty, could be catastrophic.

He was born with brain damage and cerebral palsy before suffering a spinal cord injury when he was 10. In 2024, he briefly received hospice care before the family decided to work with a palliative care team to help him live out his life.

Through Medicaid, Matty qualifies for 120 hours of in-home private duty nursing care per week. But because of a nursing shortage, he typically receives only about half of that care, and Grant said it would get worse if the nursing agency is subjected to any more reductions.

“The reality is that any of us at any point in time could become disabled,” Grant said. “What kind of quality of care would we want?”

The potential cuts run even deeper for Grant’s family. Through another optional in-home Medicaid program, she and her husband, Jason, are both eligible to be paid for caring for their older son, Luke. The 24-year-old has autism, epilepsy, and an autoimmune condition and requires supervision 24 hours a day.

Jason primarily works as a self-employed remodeler, but Grant’s only income is the $21 an hour she gets to care for Luke. But she can be compensated only for the time she has him one-on-one, meaning when someone else is taking care of Matty, such as Jason or his nurses.

Grant said keeping up with the family’s house payments will be nearly impossible if they lose that income, and she said it seems like only a matter of time before some or all of her sons’ in-home care is disrupted. Idaho is in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade as a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to KFF, a national health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

“We just hold our breath every legislative session,” Grant said. “I feel like I’m always trying to prove their worth, to prove their value, and it’s exhausting.”

State Rep. Josh Tanner, a Republican who co-chairs the legislature’s powerful budget committee, said he opposed cutting home- and community-based services, but it was up to a separate committee and workgroup to finalize cuts to the Medicaid program.

Medicaid covers . , the federal government picked up 80% of the state program’s $3.6 billion tab in 2023. Tanner said tapping the state’s $1.3 billion in reserves to fill the $22 million gap was a nonstarter.

“We don’t really have an overall revenue problem in the state right now,” Tanner said, “but we do have a spending problem, and part of that has been Medicaid in general.”

Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, a Democrat on the budget committee, disagreed, pointing instead to five years of tax cuts passed by the Republican supermajority that have in lost revenue, including last year.

“What we need to do is restore the revenue that we cut and put it back and admit the mistake and stop harming people and the very services that Idahoans depend on,” Wintrow said.

‘It Keeps Me Awake at Night’

It’s also unclear whether cuts to community-based care would save Idaho money, something Tanner acknowledged. For optional Medicaid programs to be approved by the federal government, states must demonstrate that they are cheaper than existing alternatives, such as being cared for in a nursing home. Cutting community-based care would probably push many people with disabilities into more costly institutional care.

That’s what Toni Belknap-Brinegar fears for her son Antahn Brinegar.

A brain hemorrhage at birth left Antahn, now 26, with severe brain damage, physical and developmental issues, and a seizure disorder. Belknap-Brinegar is his primary caregiver, but she realized when Antahn was 8 or 9 that she wasn’t physically capable of caring for her growing son. Now 200 pounds, he has two paid in-home caregivers, Belknap-Brinegar said, both single mothers whose own livelihoods may be in the balance amid talks of cuts.

Nursing homes aren’t equipped to properly care for Antahn, Belknap-Brinegar said. He needs to be constantly monitored for seizures. He can’t communicate his needs well, for example when he has to go to the bathroom.

“Without the services that he has and the care that he gets now, he would end up in a care center, and frankly, he would die,” Belknap-Brinegar said.

While home and community-based services are technically optional parts of Medicaid, a required states to provide them to people with disabilities when appropriate. A Justice Department investigation in the waning days of the Biden administration found that Idaho was into nursing homes, in violation of that ruling. The Trump administration is attempting to slash access to the lawyers who help ensure those rules are followed.

Documents also show the state agency that oversees Medicaid does not think the state has enough space in its residential facilities to care for all the people whose home- and community-based services could be cut under the governor’s plan.

That’s Ned Fowkes’ worry for his 39-year-old daughter, Eva.

A brain bleed when she was an infant left Eva with severe cerebral palsy and significant developmental disabilities. Although Eva is unable to speak, she has a “wonderful awareness,” Fowkes said, and is able to communicate through her expressions and convey her preferences.

After being cared for by her parents for 21 years, Eva was eager for the chance to move into a supported living home, where she could get round-the-clock care while living with another person with disabilities.

“Like most 21-year-olds, she probably wanted to hit the road and not be under the roof of her parents anymore,” Fowkes recalled. “She’s always been courageous in that sense.”

Fowkes and his wife visit at least three times a week, but at 79 and 76, they are no longer able to provide their daughter’s direct care.

The staff at Eva’s home already barely make a living wage, Fowkes said. Cuts to the program that pays for her care would trigger more turnover — or, worse, shutter the agency that staffs the home.

“I don’t know what we would do,” Fowkes said. “Eventually we’d lose our home. We would be bankrupt. Where would Eva go? Where would her roommate go? Who would care for them?”

“It keeps me awake at night,” he said. “Believe me.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Hayat Norimine contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Republicans have hitched themselves to the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, banking on its popularity to give them an electoral bounce. But the strategy carries risks.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist who rails against Big Pharma and ultraprocessed food, is the leader of the movement. And Americans’ .

Plus, polls show about reducing health care costs than MAHA priorities such as ending vaccine mandates and promoting raw milk.

Enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies expired at the end of 2025, fueling a nationwide affordability debate. Roughly 24 million people buy coverage on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and many are now facing premium payments more than double what they faced last year.

After taking a political back seat in recent years, health care may dominate the 2026 election races.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Now, though, it seems unlikely to become state law. In November, a vote to advance beyond a legislative subcommittee failed. Four out of six Republicans on the Senate Medical Affairs Committee subpanel refused to vote on the measure.

Republican state Sen. Jeff Zell said during a November subcommittee hearing that he wanted to help “move this pro-life football down the field and to save as many babies as we can.” Still, he could not support the bill as written.

“What I am interested in is speaking on behalf of the South Carolinian,” he said, “and they’re not interested in this bill right now or this issue right now.”

While that bill stalled, it signals that abortion will continue to loom large during 2026 legislative sessions. More than three years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, measures related to abortion have already been prefiled in several states, including Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia.

Meanwhile, the South Carolina bill also exposed a rift among Republicans. Some GOP lawmakers are eager to appeal to their most conservative supporters by pursuing more restrictive abortion laws, despite the lack of support for such measures among most voters.

Until recently, the idea of charging women who obtain abortions with a crime was considered “politically toxic,” said Steven Greene, a political science professor at North Carolina State University.

Yet introduced “abortion as homicide” bills during 2024-2025 legislative sessions, many of which included the death penalty as a potential sentence, according to Dana Sussman, senior vice president of Pregnancy Justice, an organization that tracks the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes.

Even though none of those bills was signed into law, Sussman called this “a hugely alarming trend.”

“My fear is that one of these will end up passing,” she said.

Less than a month after the bill stalled in South Carolina, — which would create criminal penalties for “coercion to obtain an abortion” — was prefiled ahead of the Jan. 13 start of the state’s legislative session.

“The issue is not going away. It’s a moral issue,” said state Sen. Richard Cash, who introduced the abortion bill that stalled in the subcommittee. “How far we can go, and what successes we can have, remain to be seen.”

‘Wrongful Death’

Florida law already bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. But a Republican lawmaker introduced for the “wrongful death” of a fetus. If enacted, the measure will allow parents to sue for the death of an unborn child, making them eligible for compensation, including damages for mental pain and suffering.

The bill says neither the mother nor a medical provider giving “lawful” care could be sued. But anyone else deemed to have acted with “negligence,” including someone who helps procure abortion-inducing pills or a doctor who performs an abortion after six weeks, could be sued by one of the parents.

In Missouri, a constitutional amendment to legalize abortion passed in 2024 with 51.6% of the vote. In 2026, state lawmakers are asking voters to repeal the amendment they just passed. A new proposed amendment would effectively reinstate the state’s ban on most abortions, with new exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and medical emergencies.

“I think that’s a middle-of-the-road, common sense proposal that most Missourians will agree with,” said , a Republican state representative who to put the measure on the ballot.

Lewis said the 2024 amendment went too far in allowing a legal basis to challenge all of Missouri’s abortion restrictions, sometimes called “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” or TRAP, laws. Even before Missouri’s outright ban, the number of abortions recorded in the state had dropped from to .

Meanwhile, Lewis backed another proposed constitutional amendment that will appear on the 2026 ballot. That measure would make it harder for Missourians to amend the state constitution, by requiring any amendment to receive a majority of votes in each congressional district.

One analysis suggested as few as any ballot measure under the proposal. Lewis dismissed the analysis as a “Democratic talking point.”

‘Gerrymandered’ Districts

Republican lawmakers aren’t necessarily aiming to pass abortion laws that appeal to the broadest swath of voters in their states.

Polling conducted ahead of Missouri’s vote in 2024 showed 52% of the state’s likely voters supported the constitutional amendment to protect access to abortion, a narrow majority that was consistent with the final vote.

In Texas, state law offers no exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest, even though a 2025 survey found 83% of Texans believe the procedure should be legal under those conditions.

In South Carolina, a 2024 poll found only 31% of respondents supported the state’s existing six-week abortion ban, which prohibits the procedure in most cases after fetal cardiac activity can be detected.

But Republicans hold supermajorities in the South Carolina General Assembly, and some continue to push for a near-total abortion ban even though such a law would probably be broadly unpopular. That’s because district lines have been drawn in such a way that politicians are more likely to be ousted by a more conservative member of their own party in a primary than defeated by a Democrat in a general election, said Scott Huffmon, director of the Center for Public Opinion & Policy Research at Winthrop University.

The South Carolina legislature is “so gerrymandered that more than half of the seats in both chambers were uncontested in the last general election. Whoever wins the primary wins the seat,” Huffmon said. “The best way to win the primary — or, better yet, prevent a primary challenge at all — is to run to the far right and embrace the policies of the most conservative people in the district.”

That’s what some proposals, including the “abortion as homicide” bills, reflect, said Greene, the North Carolina State professor. Lawmakers could vote for such a measure and suffer “very minimal, if any,” political backlash, he said.

“Most of the politicians passing these laws are more concerned with making the base happy than with actually dramatically reducing the number of abortions that take place within their jurisdiction,” Greene said.

Yet the number of abortions performed in South Carolina has dropped dramatically — by 63% from 2023 to 2024, when the state enacted the existing ban, according to data published by the state’s Department of Public Health.

Kimya Forouzan, a policy adviser with the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion legislation throughout the country and advocates for reproductive rights, said South Carolina’s attempt to pass “the most extreme bill that we have seen” is “part of a pattern.”

“I think the push for anti-abortion legislation exists throughout the country,” she said. “There are a lot of battles that are brewing.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News correspondent Daniel Chang and Southern bureau chief Sabriya Rice contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Last winter, Amber Wingler started getting a series of increasingly urgent messages from the local hospital in Columbia, Missouri, letting her know her family’s healthcare might soon be upended.

MU Health Care, where most of her family’s doctors work, was mired in a contract dispute with Wingler’s health insurer, Anthem. The existing contract was set to expire.

Then, on March 31, Wingler received an email alerting her that the next day Anthem was dropping the hospital from its network. It left her reeling.

“I know that they go through contract negotiations all the time … but it just seemed like bureaucracy that wasn’t going to affect us. I’d never been pushed out-of-network like that before,” she said.  

The timing was awful.

The query: When a Missouri mom’s health insurance company couldn’t come to an agreement with her hospital, most of her doctors were suddenly out-of-network. She wondered how she would get her kids’ care covered or find new doctors. “For a family of five, … where do we even start?”

— Amber Wingler, 42, in Columbia, Missouri

Wingler’s 8-year-old daughter, Cora, had been having unexplained troubles with her gut. Waitlists to see various pediatric specialists to get a diagnosis, from gastroenterology to occupational therapy, were long — ranging from weeks to more than a year.

(In a statement, MU Health Care spokesperson Eric Maze said the health system works to make sure children with the most urgent needs are seen as quickly as possible.)

Suddenly, the specialist visits for Cora were out-of-network. At a few hundred bucks a piece, the out-of-pocket cost would have added up fast. The only other in-network pediatric specialists Wingler found were in St. Louis and Kansas City, both more than 120 miles away.

So Wingler delayed her daughter’s appointments for months while she tried to figure out what to do.

Nationwide, contract disputes are common, with more than 650 hospitals having public spats with an insurer since 2021. They could as hospitals brace for about $1 trillion in cuts to federal healthcare spending prescribed by President Donald Trump’s signed into law in July.

Patients caught in a contract dispute have few good options. “There’s that old African proverb: that when two elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. And unfortunately, in these situations, oftentimes patients are grass,” said Caitlin Donovan, a senior director at the Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit that helps people who are having trouble accessing healthcare.

If you’re feeling trampled by a contract dispute between a hospital and your insurer, here is what you need to know to protect yourself financially:

1. “Out-of-network” means you’ll likely pay more.

Insurance companies negotiate contracts with hospitals and other medical providers to set the rates they will pay for various services. When they reach an agreement, the hospital and most of the providers who work there become part of the insurance company’s network.

Most patients prefer to see providers who are “in-network” because their insurance picks up some, most, or even all of the bill, which could be hundreds or thousands of dollars. If you see an out-of-network provider, you could be on the hook for the whole tab.

If you decide to stick with your familiar doctors even though they’re out-of-network, consider asking about getting a cash discount and about the hospital’s financial assistance program.

2. Rifts between hospitals and insurers often get repaired.

When Brown University health policy researcher examined 3,714 nonfederal hospitals across the U.S., he said, he found that about 18% of them had a public dispute with an insurance company sometime from June 2021 to May 2025.

About half of those hospitals ultimately dropped out of the insurance company’s network, according to Buxbaum’s preliminary data. But most of those breakups ultimately get resolved within a month or two, he added. So your doctors very well could end up back in the network, even after a split.

3. You might qualify for an exception to keep costs lower.

Certain patients with might qualify for an extension of in-network coverage, called continuity of care. You can apply for that extension by contacting your insurer, but the process may prove lengthy. Some hospitals have set up resources to help patients apply for that extension.

Wingler ran that gantlet for her daughter, spending hours on the phone, filling out forms, and sending faxes. But she said she didn’t have the time or energy to do that for everyone in her family.

“My son was going through physical therapy,” she said. “But I’m sorry, dude, like, just do your exercises that you already have. I’m not fighting to get you coverage too, when I’m already fighting for your sister.”

Also worth noting, if you’re dealing with a medical emergency: For most emergency services, hospitals than their in-network rates.

4. Switching your insurance carrier may need to wait.

You might be thinking of switching to an insurer that covers your preferred doctors. But be aware: Many people who choose their insurance plans during an annual open enrollment period are locked into their plan for a year. Insurance contracts with hospitals are not necessarily on the same timeline as your “plan year.”

, such as getting married, having a baby, or losing a job, can qualify you to change insurance outside of your annual open enrollment period, but your doctors’ dropping out of an insurance network is not a qualifying life event.

5. Doctor-shopping can be time-consuming.

If the split between your insurance company and hospital looks permanent, you might consider finding a new slate of doctors and other providers who are in-network with your plan. Where to start? Your insurance plan likely has an online tool to search for in-network providers near you. 

But know that making a switch could mean waiting to establish yourself as a patient with a new doctor and, in some cases, traveling a fair distance.

6. It’s worth holding on to your receipts.

Even if your insurance and hospital don’t strike a deal before their contract expires, there’s a decent chance they will still make a new agreement.

Some patients decide to put off appointments while they wait. Others keep their appointments and pay out-of-pocket. Hold on to your receipts if you do. When insurers and hospitals make up, the deals often are backdated, so the appointments you paid for out-of-pocket could be covered after all.

End of an Ordeal

Three months after the contract between Wingler’s insurance company and the hospital lapsed, the sides announced they had reached a new agreement. Wingler joined the throng of patients scheduling appointments they’d delayed during the ordeal.

In a statement, Jim Turner, a spokesperson for Anthem’s parent company, Elevance Health, wrote, “We approach negotiations with a focus on fairness, transparency, and respect for everyone impacted.”

Maze from MU Health Care said: “We understand how important timely access to pediatric specialty care is for families, and we’re truly sorry for the frustration some parents have experienced scheduling appointments following the resolution of our Anthem contract negotiations.”

Wingler was happy her family could see their providers again, but her relief was tempered by a resolve not to be caught in the same position again.

“I think we will be a little more studious when open enrollment comes around,” Wingler said. “We’d never really bothered to look at our out-of-pocket coverage before because we didn’t need it.”

Healthcare Helpline helps you navigate the health system hurdles between you and good care. Send us your tricky question and we may tap a policy sleuth to puzzle it out. . The crowdsourced project is a joint production of NPR and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

“It is almost impossible to explain what it takes to keep a child alive who should be dead,” said Fabrello, whose son, Ysadore Maklakoff, experienced a rare brain condition called acute necrotizing encephalopathy at 9 months old.

Through North Carolina’s Medicaid program, Maklakoff qualifies for a large slate of medical care in the family’s home in Chapel Hill. Fabrello said she works with staffing agencies to arrange services. She also learned to give the care ordinarily performed by a doctor, skilled nurse, or highly trained therapist because she often can’t get help.

Now, broad cuts to North Carolina Medicaid will make finding and paying for care even more difficult.

Nationwide, states are scrambling to close budget shortfalls and are eyeing Medicaid, generally one of a state’s biggest costs — even before President Donald Trump’s hulking tax-and-spending law decreases federal spending on Medicaid by about over the next decade.

North Carolina and Idaho have already announced plans to cut Medicaid payments to health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, and caregivers.

In Michigan and Pennsylvania — where lawmakers have yet to pass budgets this year — spending on Medicaid is part of those debates. In , lawmakers approved cuts to the program that will not affect who is eligible, said Hayden Mackley, a spokesperson for the state’s Office of Financial Management.

Medicaid is government health insurance for people with low incomes or disabilities and both state and federal dollars pay for the program.

North Carolina’s Medicaid agency announced it will institute on Oct. 1 a in pay for all providers who treat Medicaid patients. Primary care doctors face an 8% cut and specialty doctors a 10% drop in payments, according to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Fabrello said her son’s dentist already called to say the office will not accept Medicaid patients come November. Fabrello fears dental work will become another service her son qualifies for but can’t get because there aren’t enough providers who accept Medicaid coverage.

Occupational and speech therapy, nursing care, and respite care are all difficult or impossible to get, she said. In a good week, her son will get 50 hours of skilled nursing care out of the 112 hours he qualifies for.

“When you say, ‘We’re just cutting provider rates,’ you’re actually cutting access for him for all his needs,” Fabrello said.

Shannon Dowler, former chief medical officer for North Carolina Medicaid, said that reduced payments to dentists and other providers will lower the number of providers in the state’s Medicaid network and result in “an immediate loss of access to care, worse outcomes, and cause higher downstream costs.”

The imminent cuts in North Carolina “don’t have anything to do” with the new federal law that cuts Medicaid funding, Dowler said.

“This is like the layers of the onion,” she said. “We are hurting ourselves in North Carolina way ahead of the game, way before we need to do this.” North Carolina alone is projected to in federal Medicaid dollars over the next decade.

More than 3 million North Carolinians are enrolled in Medicaid. Deadlocked state lawmakers agreed to a mini budget in July to continue funding state programs that gave the Medicaid agency $319 million less than it requested. Lawmakers can choose to reinstate funding for Medicaid this fiscal year, Dowler said.

“We all hope it changes,” Dowler said, adding that if it does not, “you’re going to see practices dropping coverage of Medicaid members.”

Each year since at least 2019, North Carolina’s Medicaid agency has asked for more money than it received from the state legislature. A variety of federal resources, including money provided to states during the covid-19 pandemic, helped bridge the gap.

But those funds are gone this year, leaving the agency with a choice: Eliminate some optional parts of the program or force every provider that accepts the public insurance to take a pay cut. The state opted mostly for the latter.

“It’s a difficult moment for North Carolina,” said Jay Ludlam, deputy secretary for North Carolina Medicaid. The cut in the budget is “absolutely the opposite direction of where we really want to go, need to go, have been headed as a state.”

For Anita Case, who leads a small group of health clinics in North Carolina, the cuts make it harder to take care of the “most vulnerable in our community.”

Western North Carolina Community Health Services’ three clinics serve about 15,000 patients in and around Asheville, including many non-English-speaking tourism workers. Case said she will look at staffing, services, and contracts to find places to trim.

Idaho has about 350,000 people enrolled in Medicaid. This month, state leaders there responded to an $80 million state budget shortfall by cutting Medicaid pay rates .

The broad cuts have raised backlash from nursing home operators and patient advocacy groups. Leaders of one nursing home company wrote in a in the Idaho Statesman newspaper that 75% to 100% of the funding at their facilities comes from Medicaid and the cuts will force them to “to reduce staff or accept fewer residents.”

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare spokesperson AJ McWhorter said the state faced tough choices. It forecasted in Medicaid spending this year.

The Idaho Hospital Association’s Toni Lawson said the financial strain will be greatest at about two dozen small hospitals — ones with 25 or fewer beds — that dot the state. Lawson, the organization’s chief advocacy officer, said one hospital leader reported they had less than two days’ cash on hand to make payroll. Others reported 30 days’ cash or less, she said.

“Hopefully, none of them will close,” Lawson said, adding that she expects labor and delivery and behavioral health units, which often lose money, to be the first to go because of this latest state reduction in payments. Several hospitals in mostly rural areas of the state closed their labor and delivery units last year, she said.

Nationwide, Medicaid makes up an average of 19% of a state’s general fund spending, second only to K-12 spending, said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers.

States generally had strong revenue growth in 2021 and 2022 because of economic growth, which included federal aid to stimulate the economy. Revenue growth has since slowed, and some states have cut income and property taxes.

Meanwhile, spending on Medicaid, housing, education, and disaster response has increased, Sigritz said.

In North Carolina, Fabrello has been unable to work outside of caring for her son. Her savings are almost exhausted, Fabrello said, and she was on the brink of financial ruin until North Carolina began allowing parents to be compensated for caregiving duties. She’s received that income for about a year, she said. Without it, she worried about losing her home.

Now, if the state reductions go through, she faces a salary cut.

“As parents, we are indispensable lifelines to our children, and we are struggling to fight for our own survival on top of it,” Fabrello said.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Many of her calls never got past the hold music. When they did, the hospital told her to call her insurer. The insurer told her to have the hospital fax a form to a special number. The hospital responded that they’d been instructed to send faxes to a different number.

“It was just a big loophole we were caught in, going around and around,” Frank said.

Frank and her husband, Allen, faced that ellipse of frustration because they were among 90,000 central Missouri patients caught in the middle of a contract dispute between University of Missouri, or MU, Health Care, a Columbia, Missouri-based health system, and Anthem, the couple’s health insurance provider. The companies let their contract expire in April after failing to strike a deal to keep the hospital system and its clinics in-network.

A growing number of Americans find themselves in a similar pinch. In New York City, negotiations between UnitedHealthcare and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , briefly leaving some patients in limbo until a deal was reached the next day. In North Carolina, Duke Health recently announced unless the insurance company agreed to pay more favorable rates to the health system. And the Franks were nearly caught out-of-network previously, when between Anthem and a primary care group in Jefferson City, Missouri, prompted the couple to switch some providers to MU Health Care.

Indeed, 18% of non-federal hospitals experienced at least one documented case of public brinksmanship with an insurance company from June 2021 to May 2025, according to preliminary findings by Jason Buxbaum, a health policy researcher at the Brown University School of Health. Over the same period, 8% of hospitals ultimately went out-of-network with an insurer, at least for a time.

Industry observers say long-standing trends like hospital consolidation and rising health care costs contribute to the disputes, and Trump administration policies could make them more frequent as hospitals brace for about $1 trillion in cuts to federal health care spending as part of President Donald Trump’s sweeping budget law.

“They’re going to be more hard-nosed at negotiating with the health plans because they’re going to be in a survival mode,” said , a retired insurance executive and former board member of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the national trade group representing the health insurance industry.

During the three-month stalemate between the insurer and the health system in Missouri, patients with Anthem plans lost in-network coverage with the region’s largest — and, for some specialties, only — medical provider.

Most people were unable to switch insurance midyear and faced the choice of paying higher prices upfront, delaying care, finding new providers, or running a paperwork gauntlet in hopes their medical conditions qualified for a 90-day coverage extension.

The dispute came at a particularly inconvenient time for the Franks. Allen Frank was recovering from complications from falling off the roof while cleaning the siding of the couple’s home in Rich Fountain in October. When it happened, Amy drove him 24 miles to the nearest emergency room. The facility in Jefferson City had recently been taken over by MU Health Care, and Allen was soon transferred 30 miles farther by ground ambulance to the system’s main hospital in Columbia for surgery to insert two metal plates and several screws to repair his collarbone.

Health care consolidation has been booming nationwide for 30 years, with announced since 1998, including 428 from 2018 to 2023. Mergers may lead to some efficiencies and benefits for consumers, but they also reduce market competition and strengthen the hand of hospitals in negotiations with insurers.

“Insurer markets have been consolidated for a long time,” Brown’s Buxbaum said. “What’s changed is how consolidated the hospital markets have become.”

Now if a hospital system drops out of a network, he said, “it’s not just going to be one key hospital. It’s much more likely to be all the key facilities, or many of the critical mass of providers” in an area.

It’s a scary prospect for patients, making the public threat of a rupture a potent tool in negotiations between hospitals and insurers. That typically works in a hospital’s favor, Baackes said, “because the general assumption is the insurance is being greedy and the hospital is doing God’s work.”

In a statement, Buddy Castellano, spokesperson for Anthem’s parent company, Elevance Health, wrote, “We approach negotiations with a focus on fairness, transparency, and respect for everyone impacted. Health plan rate discussions are complex and require thoughtful collaboration to ensure long-term sustainability. Our commitment remains clear: ensuring access to care while keeping coverage affordable for the families, employers, and communities we serve.”

Allen Frank needed follow-up care in the months after his initial surgery, including a second surgery in July.

A federal law dubbed the No Surprises Act, which took effect in 2022, whose provider drops out of network due to a contract dispute. People getting treatment for serious conditions can keep their in-network rates for up to 90 days with their current providers, delaying the need to find a new one or face higher rates. So Amy Frank worked the phones to get that continuity of care for her husband.

“Our deductible was already met. If we go out-of-network, we’re going to have to start completely over for the out-of-network deductible,” she said.

Eventually, Anthem agreed to let Allen Frank continue his care with MU Health Care. But when he showed up for an appointment to get an injection in his injured shoulder, he was told the health system didn’t have a record of the approval. He refused to leave without being seen, and, eventually, a nurse was able to get through to Anthem to get a confirmation number and approval for the appointment.

“It’s just very frustrating,” Amy Frank said in early July, before the sides had reached a deal. “I’ve got my own medical issues, and I don’t feel like mine are bad enough to be fighting for a continuity of care.”

In an email, MU Health Care spokesperson Eric Maze wrote: “While our goal was to reach agreement prior to our contract terminating and to avoid disruption in care, we established processes and resources well in advance to facilitate continuity of care and reduce the burden for our patients. We understand and are sorry for the stress and concern being out of network created for many, and we are deeply grateful for the patience and trust placed in us during this time.”

Rising health care costs are fueling contract disputes. Hospital expenses grew 5.1% in 2024, according to a recent , outpacing the 2.9% inflation rate. Labor costs are the biggest driver, with advertised nursing salaries rising 26.6% faster than inflation from 2020 to 2024, the brief noted.

Hospitals want to recoup those costs by pressing insurance companies to pay more for services.

Washington University in St. Louis health economist Tim McBride said that dynamic could be further enflamed by the massive tax-and-spending law. The measure makes significant cuts to federal health care spending over the next decade, including a $911 billion drop in Medicaid spending, and is expected to cause 10 million Americans to lose their insurance.

As negotiations between MU Health Care and Anthem broke down, the insurer claimed the hospital was seeking a 39% rate increase over three years, while the hospital said the insurer wouldn’t budge past 1%-2%.

On June 30, three months into the standoff, the Missouri Senate Insurance and Banking Committee called the two sides in for a hearing that broke months of deadlock and prompted new proposals from Anthem.

“Anthem doubled their rate increase offer,” Missouri Senate President Cindy O’Laughlin, a Republican whose district includes parts of central Missouri, on July 8, encouraging a deal.

“Yes I know that I’m not on the inside nor the CEO of either but from what I’ve been told this seems a reasonable offer.”

The sides one week later that was retroactive to April 1, the day the previous contract expired.

Amy Frank got several texts from friends and family about the agreement. She’d been so vocal about her frustrations, they wanted to make sure she’d seen the news. But her relief was subdued.

“So you put everybody through all of this for nothing?” she said the day after the deal was announced.

She had already sunk hours on the phone to ensure Allen’s July 31 surgery to repair the plates holding his clavicle together would be covered. She was in no rush to call her doctors to reschedule the appointments she’d skipped, figuring their phone lines would be busy. The experience had her wondering if the two sides were trying to get people upset as a bargaining tactic.

“That money that they’re fighting over — is that really worth all of the stress?” she said.

And after going through two disputes in three years, she can’t help but wonder: How long until the next one?

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Georgia is the only state with a work requirement in place for Medicaid, but several states have been pursuing such a policy for years, only to be blocked by courts or, most recently, the Biden administration. Some seek state-specific touches to the new rules. Others aim to implement work requirements before the federal law takes effect at the end of 2026.

These states’ moves and Trump’s massive tax-and-spending law share one demand: To keep their Medicaid health coverage, adults who can work must prove they’re logging a minimum number of hours at a job or school, or else qualify for one of the few exemptions.

But now, states that jumped ahead need to ensure their proposals, which require federal approval, don’t stray too far from Trump’s law.

“The statute sets both the floor and ceiling” for work requirements, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor with George Washington University.

South Dakota, for example, an application for work requirements as previously planned amid concerns that the state’s laxer rules would not be allowed under the new federal law. The state’s Department of Social Services secretary had warned that working on a state proposal while the federal rules are being hashed out could be “.”

Arkansas’ plan, on the other hand, is more stringent than the federal law. There are no exemptions to its work requirements , which is pending with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Arizona’s proposal also includes something that’s not in the federal law: a ban on “able-bodied adults” receiving Medicaid benefits for longer than five years total in their lives.

Arkansas and Arizona government officials said they were working with federal officials to square their plans with the new standards.

Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said the department is analyzing how the new federal standards interact with state waivers.

The federal health department must release rules by next June that outline how states are to implement work requirements, according to , who has been tracking such waivers as part of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

“We don’t exactly know what that will cover,” Hinton said.

It’s unclear how federal officials will respond to the states’ requests, she added, but “we are aware that some folks think there is no wiggle room here.”

States can tweak their Medicaid programs through what are known as demonstration waivers, which are subject to federal approval. The waivers are designed to test new ideas in policy gray areas.

The states that have filed or plan to file such applications with work requirements include Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah.

Congressional Republicans who passed the budget reconciliation bill left room for states to use waivers to fast-track the national standards. Tara Sklar, a professor leading the University of Arizona’s Health Law & Policy Program, said she expects states seeking certain stricter requirements to have a chance of approval, while more lenient ones may face denials.

Federal officials may look favorably on Arizona’s plan, Sklar said, as a five-year lifetime Medicaid limit is different from work requirements. Even if the federal government greenlights stricter work requirements than the federal law calls for, those programs are likely to face legal challenges, she added.

The federal law includes an 80-hour-per-month minimum for work or education, with exemptions for certain adults, including people who are medically frail and parents with young, dependent children.

Montana is the first state to draft a waiver application since Congress finalized national work requirements. State lawmakers first approved work requirements — called “community engagement” standards under the state plan — in 2019, but the state’s application stalled through the end of the first Trump term and the Biden administration.

After Trump was elected again, Montana lawmakers lifted the 2025 expiration date of its Medicaid expansion program, making permanent the program that covered more than 76,000 adults in April, with the expectation that the Trump administration would approve work requirements. In mid-July, state officials to make that a reality “as soon as is practicable.”

The Montana plan largely aligns with the federal law, but it would create additional exemptions, including for people who are homeless or fleeing domestic violence.

Republican state Sen. Gayle Lammers said work requirements that also protect such people who need Medicaid were a big part of persuading legislators to keep the expansion program. At the time, officials didn’t know where the federal government would land on work requirements. And now, Lammers said, it makes sense for Montana to stick to its plan.

“The state should have a say,” Lammers said. “We’re very independent, and everyone is different.”

In South Carolina, state officials are seeking to roll out work requirements for a limited number of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. South Carolina is one of 10 states that has not expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, and yet the state submitted a request with the federal government in June for a partial Medicaid expansion that includes a work requirement component that largely reflects the new federal standards.

In to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, called South Carolina’s proposal “a state-specific solution.”

The only state with an active work requirement program now wants to scale it back and awaits federal approval to do so. “Georgia Pathways to Coverage” expires at the end of September unless CMS greenlights an extension of the program with a key change: requiring enrollees to document once a year that they’re working, not monthly. That’s a pivot away from the program’s initial design but also differs from the new federal rules, which call for checks every six months.

Fiona Roberts, a spokesperson for Georgia’s Medicaid agency, said the state is still waiting to hear whether it needs to alter its plan.

So Georgia is among the states in limbo, awaiting guidance from the federal government.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News correspondents Sam Whitehead and Lauren Sausser contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .