It’s an achievement the former congressman and former U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services as he campaigns for California governor against Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator.

But should Becerra cruise to victory in November, as , he will face what may be the steepest decline in health insurance coverage in a generation, one that will land especially hard in his home state.

By 2030, the number of uninsured Californians under 65 is expected to from 2.4 million to 4.6 million, as recently enacted state and federal cuts to Medicaid and ACA marketplaces begin to historic gains in health coverage, according to a May analysis by the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center. The anticipated rise in the uninsured population could have broad implications for hospital systems, insurers, and the economy.

In February, Miranda Dietz, the labor center’s healthcare program director, told legislators the changes could end up costing California , mostly in the healthcare industry.

Hospital executives have begun reporting , and experts warn health plans will raise premiums further as they’re left with enrollees who are, on average, sicker and more expensive to cover.

“It’s triage,” said , executive director of Covered California, the nation’s largest state-run health insurance marketplace. “That’s what the next governor is walking into.”

California achieved one of the most in the nation, largely credited to the state’s robust adoption of the ACA. If tapped to lead the wealthy, progressive state, Becerra would wrestle with how uninsured Californians get care and who pays as the Trump administration shrinks a federal safety net he once oversaw.

Becerra has some experience pushing back against Washington, D.C. As California attorney general, he many provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including access to birth control.

Becerra said he would issue an to keep those affected by federal cuts insured. But he has not detailed how the state would backfill in federal funding California stands to lose annually.

At a policy forum hosted by Politico last month, would not lose health coverage despite federal cutbacks, saying he would push the industry to eliminate waste from “attorneys, accountants, pencil pushers” that cost consumers billions.

“I’m going to ask them to help me extract some of that waste and put it into healthcare, which helps us cover the cost of keeping Californians insured,” he said.

His opponent, Hilton, is trying to appeal to , despite receiving the president’s endorsement, and has stumped on cutting off coverage for Californians without legal status, which is paid for with state funds. Hilton has vowed to use those savings to , calling it an immediate antidote to high costs.

“We all understand that the healthcare system is a mess and needs major reform,” Hilton said in an interview. “The quickest thing we can do on healthcare costs is actually to tax people less.”

Left Behind?

In 2010, Becerra was part of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership team and helped whip up votes to pass the law. He also had a hand in crafting it, though his attempt to include a government-backed coverage option failed.

A decade later, when lawmakers considered him for the nation’s top healthcare job, Becerra said his primary mission would be to carry out President Joe Biden’s vision to expand access and cut costs under the Affordable Care Act.

Before the ACA, some — roughly 1 in 6 — were uninsured. Within a few years of the law’s , its expansion of Medicaid eligibility and financial aid to lower-income marketplace enrollees helped slash the U.S. uninsured rate by nearly half.

Millions more gained coverage during the covid-19 pandemic after Becerra implemented a and administered generous but temporary tax credits that put the cost of Obamacare plans .

As Biden’s health secretary, Becerra launched aggressive public awareness campaigns, , and distributed hundreds of millions in grants to pay consumer assistants, also , to help enrollees wade through paperwork.

“One of the common things we would hear from him as a leader was, ‘Who’s being left behind?’” said Benjamin Sommers, a Harvard health policy professor who was a under Becerra.

Under Biden and Becerra, the percentage of people with health insurance reached a historical high of 92%, or 310 million Americans having health coverage in 2024.

Republican Response

But conservatives said those policies by attracting fraudulent and wasteful coverage. In response, the second Trump administration has and toughened income reporting.

“It’s simple and easy to say, well, the numbers are up so the program must be working,” said , a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. “My argument would be that’s the wrong metric.”

Last summer, the GOP-led Congress passed Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which for those who need it most while . Altogether, the law is expected to cut Medicaid spending by over a decade.

Congress also allowed enhanced for Obamacare plans to expire last year, spiking premium payments for middle-income Americans and driving down enrollment by this year.

“We are now witnessing almost a wholesale reversal of pretty much all those policies” that helped cover millions more Americans, said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

For Eric Maciel, the $800 monthly cost of a Covered California plan is too much. To avoid injury, the 28-year-old stays home more and rarely plays pickup soccer at the park — the other players, he added, can get pretty rough.

“That’s another car note,” Maciel said. “I’d be left with nothing.”

Health economists say Maciel is the type of customer insurers need to stabilize their risk pools: young, healthy, and less costly.

Hilton criticized state leaders for passing a revised provider tax he asserts will send premiums soaring and said he wants to inject more competition into California’s health insurance market — but he offered no specific ideas.

Playing Defense

Higher-than-expected state costs coupled with federal cuts have prompted California to retreat on healthcare coverage. Federal funds of the state’s budget and , the state’s Medicaid program.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has frozen enrollment for immigrants without legal status, enacted monthly premiums for some, and federal assistance for legal immigrants such as asylees and refugees.

Newsom and Democratic lawmakers agreed to until July 2027, leaving the next governor to weigh further rollbacks against increased taxes. Becerra, a California native born to Mexican immigrants, , on November’s ballot. Last month, he said he supported legislative efforts to penalize large corporations whose workers rely on Medi-Cal, arguing that taxpayers are subsidizing employers’ low wages and paltry benefits.

County governments, which are legally required to provide healthcare to uninsured residents too poor to afford care, are lobbying lawmakers for funding to treat what they describe as a fresh deluge of patients who need free care.

“It’s a pretty big cliff if all this stuff goes into effect,” said Dietz, the labor center’s healthcare program director. “And there’s a choice whether to make it less bad and maintain coverage for folks.”

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

The officials, all Democrats, are running at a time when the Trump administration is reducing government funding for scientific research, restricting access to some vaccines, and making it more difficult for some Americans to obtain health insurance.

Shaughnessy Naughton, president of 3.14 Action, a political action committee that recruits Democratic candidates with science and health backgrounds, said it is unusual to see so many public health leaders running for office.

“But it’s not surprising given the moment we are living in, with an arsonist running HHS working to undermine the vaccine schedule and public health at large,” she said.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a longtime anti-vaccine activist who disparaged public health measures implemented during the pandemic, going as far as calling the covid vaccine the “.”

Neither HHS nor the White House responded to requests for comment.

Several of the candidates benefit from name recognition built during the covid pandemic, political science scholars say, when daily news briefings from local health officials became must-see-TV for many citizens sheltering in place from the novel virus. But that cuts two ways.

While many Americans regarded public health officials as offering prudent advice and a steady voice, others criticized them for pushing school closures, mask mandates, and new, quickly created vaccines. The attacks have escalated under President Donald Trump, with Republicans targeting pandemic-era public health leaders such as Anthony Fauci and a former Fauci adviser even facing .

National polls show healthcare is for many voters this year, with Democrats most worried about costs and Republicans about fraud. But that’s no guarantee of victory. Nirav Shah, an epidemiologist who led Maine’s top public health agency through the pandemic, lost a narrow Democratic primary in the state governor’s race in June.

Here are some of the public health officials on the ballot this year:

Xavier Becerra, Running for Governor in California

Becerra, who served as HHS secretary under President Joe Biden, is the highest-ranking former health official running this cycle. He won a crowded and expensive open primary and now faces Republican Steve Hilton, a British-born former Fox News host, in the general election.

Mark Peterson, a public policy professor at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, said with the pandemic in the rearview mirror, any judgment voters may have about the federal government’s response is more likely to reflect on Biden rather than Becerra, who has no medical background and maintained a low profile as HHS secretary.

Leading the nation’s health department as the pandemic lingered, Becerra focused more on expanding access to the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, overseeing record numbers of people enrolled in the publicly financed programs during his tenure. He did face criticism over the processing and placement of a massive influx of migrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as his agency’s response to a baby formula shortage brought on, in part, by major product recalls.

Becerra has said he now wants to be California’s “healthcare governor,” a mantle outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom tried to claim upon taking office in 2019.

Becerra’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Before becoming HHS secretary, Becerra served as California’s attorney general and sued the first Trump administration more than 100 times, leading a coalition of states against GOP efforts to gut the ACA. He also started a unit in his office focused solely on healthcare. During Becerra’s tenure, his office reached a $575 million antitrust settlement with the California hospital system Sutter Health, pursued pharmaceutical companies that delayed generic drugs, and helped block a Trump administration rule that let employers choose whether to cover .

Voters often regard decades of experience in government as a negative, Peterson said. But for the job of running the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy, he added, “I think there are a lot of people out there who would like to have somebody who actually has run a big enterprise.”

In , Becerra has said California should maintain state-funded Medicaid coverage for immigrants without legal status. He is also a longtime supporter of implementing single-payer healthcare, though in recent interviews he has said it needs to be addressed at the federal level.

Amy Acton, Running for Governor in Ohio

Acton ran Ohio’s health department from February 2019 to June 2020.

During the first months of the pandemic, Acton appeared at daily news conferences with the state’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, that were jokingly dubbed “.” She earned fans with her calm and positive demeanor while explaining her approach to keeping covid at bay.

But she also attracted critics with her recommendations to stay at home, mask up, and shut down some businesses to curb the virus’ spread. Protesters even showed up at her home.

Acton’s Republican opponent in the governor’s race, Vivek Ramaswamy, has labeled her “Dr. Lockdown” on social media. His criticism of her role in shutting down businesses could prove effective with the economy at the top of many people’s minds, said Christopher Devine, a University of Dayton political science professor.

“It’s a double-edged sword, because she also really upset some people,” Devine said of Acton’s time as the health director during the pandemic.

He said that is a tricky attack for Ramaswamy to pursue, though, because DeWine — still the sitting governor and a popular conservative figure — endorsed the covid measures Acton recommended, granting her emergency powers to sign the orders, and has since said he takes all responsibility for those actions.

For her part, Acton has done little on the campaign trail to highlight her time as the state’s public health director. Instead, she has focused more on healthcare affordability, highlighting the Trump-led cuts to Medicaid and the scaled-back subsidies for ACA plans that have resulted in dropping coverage in the state.

“I hear from families across Ohio that healthcare costs are rising and they just can’t keep up,” Acton said in an emailed statement. “That’s why I will fight to protect and expand access, reduce the price of prescription drugs, forgive medical debt holding Ohioans back, and lower premiums.”

Abdul El-Sayed, Running for U.S. Senate in Michigan

El-Sayed — who ran the health departments in the city of Detroit and Wayne County, Michigan — is one of two leading Democratic candidates for Senate. The primary is Aug. 4.

El-Sayed, a progressive, is facing off against Haley Stevens, a four-term congresswoman. They are vying to run against Republican nominee Mike Rogers, a former congressman, for the Senate seat held by retiring Democrat Gary Peters.

From 2015 to 2017, El-Sayed ran the Detroit Health Department, which and privatized as part of the city’s 2013 bankruptcy. In his role, he led efforts to test Detroit schools for lead in the wake of the Flint water crisis and provide free eyeglasses to children in public schools.

From 2022 until 2025, he ran the health department in Wayne County, the state’s most populous county, which includes Detroit. In that job, he initiated a program to retire medical debt for thousands of residents and make naloxone available in public areas to reverse the effects of opioid overdoses.

In an interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, El-Sayed said his public health experience helped him become an effective communicator and challenge corporations and the role they play in healthcare.

“Politics have become overrun by big money and corporations, and my training and background in public health has taught me to think about that and push back against it,” he said.

El-Sayed, who did not practice medicine after completing his residency and is not licensed to do so, has faced criticism from some in his party for calling himself a doctor.  

El-Sayed, who has endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), supports “Medicare for All,” a policy favored by many progressives that would make more people eligible for the federal health program for people who are 65 and older or disabled.

David Dulio, a professor of political science at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, said that the broader economy, Trump’s tariffs, and trade are eclipsing healthcare this year as top concerns for voters in the state. But he added that “progressive stances such as Medicare for All are attractive in the Democratic primary electorate.”

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

Now, Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton present a stark choice to voters in the race to be the next governor at a moment when public support for the state’s generous safety net is starting to fray.

Both frame the choice as an economic one.

Becerra, former secretary of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, has to exclude the poorest immigrants from routine care and push them into expensive emergency rooms . Hilton, a conservative commentator backed by President Donald Trump, has promised to eliminate their coverage and has echoed national Republicans who have to bolster their claims of fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program.

With voters nationwide worried about inflation and the rising cost of living, some Californians might feel less inclined to provide full healthcare coverage to those lacking legal status. What the state does next could have profound implications for its healthcare system and sprawling economy.

Over the past decade, California lawmakers used state dollars to expand Medi-Cal, offering all low-income residents comprehensive coverage regardless of immigration status. But enrollment surpassed initial projections, as did the cost. Medi-Cal coverage of immigrants without legal status costs the state roughly , according to California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, more than double the initial estimates.

California lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who , have approved major rollbacks of benefits for those residents. They said the state can’t afford ballooning healthcare costs amid massive federal cuts from the GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; the California Health and Human Services Agency projected up to 3.4 million Medi-Cal enrollees and the state could lose more than $30 billion a year in federal funding under the law, causing major disruptions in the safety net health program.

Medi-Cal’s budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year is $217 billion, and the program serves more than 14 million Californians.

Meanwhile, many legal U.S. residents and citizens have seen their health premium payments skyrocket this year after Congress let enhanced federal Affordable Care Act subsidies expire at the end of December.

As the state grappled with a deficit last year, a majority of likely voters in California said — for the first time in nearly a decade — that they opposed providing health insurance to immigrants without legal status, by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“The state faces major challenges, and healthcare is one of the major expenditures,” said Mark Baldassare, PPIC survey director. “People have become more selective about how they want to see those limited healthcare dollars spent.”

Hilton, running on a platform of affordability and lowering taxes, has seized on the sentiment, casting health coverage for immigrants without legal status as and a to the state’s ability to help citizens.

“Stop taking money from California taxpayers who can barely afford their healthcare to give free healthcare to citizens of other countries who shouldn’t even be here,” Hilton said in a the morning of the June 2 primary.

In campaign stump speeches, to use the savings to for other Californians without detailing how. Hilton did not respond to requests from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News for comment.

“Their messaging is very, very simple: It’s an us vs. them,” said Roger Salazar, a Democratic political consultant who represents a coalition of healthcare advocates who argue providing coverage to people who can’t afford it strengthens the workforce and, as a result, the economy. “It’s just a question of convincing the average voter that it’s much better economically.”

A son of immigrants, Becerra for decades pushed to in Congress and has made a similar pitch in his campaign for governor. He did not respond to requests for comment.

“Immigrants, whether documented or not, work hard. They pay taxes, and sometimes they get injured on the job or their children get sick,” during a debate in May. “It would be foolish to tell a family that they don’t have access to the pediatrician or the family doc.”

Becerra, who could become California’s first elected Latino governor, when Newsom and legislative leaders decided to for adults without legal status, cut benefits, and impose monthly premiums.

“Stop treating coverage as a budget variable that expands in good years and contracts when revenue dips,” Becerra wrote in May in response to an Orange County Register . He has new, steady revenue to fund basic services, such as by upping taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Californians.

In 2023, California was home to about 2.3 million people without legal status, representing of the state’s labor force, according to the . And live in a family that includes at least one member without legal status, according to the California Department of Education. Healthcare economists say giving people access to preventive healthcare saves taxpayers money in the long run by and relieving pressure on an overburdened system.

That, Baldassare said, wasn’t a hard argument to make during the covid pandemic, when immigrants were and the link between individual well-being and public health .

But Medi-Cal costs to cover roughly 1.4 million immigrants , according to the latest estimates from the Department of Health Care Services. Because only some lawfully present immigrants are eligible for federal Medicaid benefits, states like California must do so exclusively with state funding.

California’s budget experts that maintaining full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without seeking additional revenue would destabilize the state’s long-term fiscal outlook.

In a legislative hearing last year, Republican Assembly member Carl DeMaio questioned whether California taxpayers would prioritize the expansions, saying he doubted “illegal immigrant healthcare in the general fund would be at the top of their list.”

After lawmakers approved the spending reductions, support for immigrant health coverage dropped, Baldassare said. Democratic lawmakers and Newsom  several Medi-Cal cuts until July 2027, leaving decisions for the next governor.

David Hayes-Bautista, who has spent his career studying the economic contributions of Latinos and immigrants, said Californians without legal status and tend to work in industries and occupations that . As a result, many resort to Medi-Cal, saddling the state with the healthcare costs instead of employers.

“California, as a state, has the world’s fourth-largest GDP, which is true thanks to Latinos,” said Hayes-Bautista, director of the Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture at UCLA. Without contributions from Latinos, many without legal status, it drops to eighth place, about the size , he added.

Immigrant advocates hope to have a more vocal champion in Becerra, the favorite to become governor in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2-to-1.

“He will fight, he will push back, he will do all that he can,” said state Sen. María Elena Durazo, a former labor leader who has championed the immigrant healthcare expansions. “That’s the most we could expect.”

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

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

QUINCY, Calif. — When Taletha Washburn and the staff at Plumas Charter School first heard that California wanted to help schools treat more kids struggling with mental health, it felt like a well-timed remedy for a rural community where families struggle to find care.

Getting the program funding up and running, however, has proved difficult.

Employees spent two years “spinning our wheels,” attending state-led webinars, filling out countless forms, and researching electronic health record systems to prepare, said Washburn, the school’s executive director. When they reached out for assistance, she said, they waited months for a state response.

The school received its first reimbursement check in April. Washburn said the school has been reimbursed $8,000 and has at least $12,000 in outstanding claims. For a program Washburn had thought could be a game changer in her small rural town, it’s been a disappointing bust.

Plumas Charter is among roughly 1,000 public schools, community colleges, and universities that participate in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s first-in-the-nation initiative requiring that health insurance companies reimburse them for on-campus behavioral healthcare. California schools have been adding counselors, therapists, and psychiatrists to provide services where young people spend most of their time, making mental health treatment more accessible to kids whose families might have spent months waiting to see private therapists.

Five years after the program’s launch, Washburn and other California school officials say they have encountered a rollout fraught with inadequate guidance from the state, an incomplete billing infrastructure, a lack of standardized forms, and persistent delays signing up and getting paid. More than half of California’s school systems and colleges don’t participate in the billing program. Of those that do, fewer than one-fifth as of June 1, according to the latest state data.

The program hasn’t come close to bringing in the half-billion dollars in promised revenue to cover the salaries of thousands of counselors, therapists, and wellness coaches, many of whom school districts hired with a deluge of federal covid pandemic funding. As a result, schools across California have issued amid local budget cuts.

“One of the things that makes people hate government is when we make a promise and then we struggle to keep that promise because we can’t get the administrative part of it up and running,” said state lawmaker Dawn Addis, a former special education teacher and Democrat who has criticized the program’s slow implementation.

Newsom’s office declined to make the governor available for an interview for this article. At a May press conference to release his final state budget proposal, the Democratic governor pointed to the “unprecedented” initiative, saying “no other state in the nation has done more.”

“We have a lot more work to do to deal with the crisis of our time,” Newsom said. “Making investments in wellness, not just physical health, but mental health for our kids, is a good investment.”

He did not answer when asked whether he considered the program a success.

Tom Insel, the former head of the National Institute of Mental Health, who has advised Newsom, said the rocky rollout, in many ways, reflects the groundbreaking nature of what California is trying to do. Still, given the level of investment so far, he too had expected clearer evidence of dramatic improvement.

“What we struggle with in California is: We spend the money, but we don’t always see the outcomes. It’s sobering to realize, especially as an advocate, that you could actually get the programs, get the money, get everything that you want from the policy side, but the execution just isn’t there.”

A First-in-the-Nation Plan?

In 2021, 1 in 10 high school students nationwide said they’d attempted suicide, by then the second-leading cause of death for young people ages 10 to 24.

In response, Newsom announced a “Master Plan for Kids’ Mental Health,” promising an overhaul of California’s behavioral health system that he said would be transformative. National mental health experts said Newsom’s initiative was the most ambitious attempt of any state to tackle a youth mental health crisis that had metastasized during the pandemic.

The state funneled $730 million in one-time funding into workforce efforts, such as campaigns to recruit mental health workers and programs to repay student loans. An additional $220 million has gone to facilitate partnerships between local governments and school officials, and $381 million was distributed in grants to schools and community groups for facilities or services, according to an analysis of program funding by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

The state has spent roughly $532 million to date on digital apps designed to connect families with counseling and provide a consultation service for primary care physicians handling behavioral health issues outside their expertise, while an additional $232 million has gone toward state operations and program evaluations.

And the state has added 1,855 school counselors since 2021, according to statistics from the American School Counselor Association, which in recent years has integrated mental health into professional standards. That’s well below the 10,000 Newsom had pledged by the end of this year as part of his initiative.

The of Newsom’s Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative focused on schools and was designed to increase behavioral health services on campus — at no cost to families. Schools would be able to bill health insurers, who would be required to reimburse them.

Some $1.3 billion — nearly a third of the total investment — has gone toward setting up campus wellness centers, new billing infrastructure, and beefing up school-based mental health support in other ways.

Filing claims became an administrative nightmare for schools unfamiliar with the complex world of medical billing.

In February 2025, when the Fresno County Office of Education launched its medical billing, it felt “like building the plane while flying it,” Trina Frazier, assistant superintendent of student services, told lawmakers in a public hearing a couple of months later. The delays were so acute that lawmakers last year authorized $20 million in grants to Fresno and 170 other school systems so they wouldn’t have to lay off newly hired mental health staffers while waiting for reimbursements.

Anaheim Elementary School District in Orange County, which state officials called a “champion” of the program, has recouped more than $1.1 million since its 23 campuses began billing student insurance in February 2025, said program specialist Shirley Diaz.

Still, that accounts for less than 30% of the behavioral health services the district has provided to students over that time. It’s not just the complexity of medical billing that has hampered the claims process. Parents have also been reluctant to provide health insurance information in the largely Latino district, where residents have been fearful of immigration raids carried out by the Trump administration.

To help administer claims across California, the state signed a $65 million contract with Carelon Behavioral Health, a service , one of the nation’s largest health insurers. But schools have struggled to get claims cleared, and many have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to troubleshoot and bill claims.

As of June 1, the Boston-based administrator has approved about 232,100 claims totaling more than $11.3 million to 186 school districts and educational agencies, according to the Department of Health Care Services.

That’s a small fraction of the thousands of entities the state had hoped would participate and far from the $500 million a year state officials told schools the program could eventually provide for school-based mental health services.

“We probably were given the impression that this was going to happen more quickly and now there’s this reality of a kind of slow growth,” said Amy Blackshaw, behavioral health project director for the California School-Based Health Alliance.

Carelon contract manager Christina Kim declined to comment to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and referred questions to the state. Autumn Boylan, deputy director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships at DHCS, said staff members incorporated early feedback from school districts and extended claim deadlines, loosened onboarding requirements, and hosted webinars and office hours. But changes of this magnitude, she said, take time.

“We’re trying to help the school districts increase their scale,” Boylan told lawmakers at a May 4 hearing. “It’s not a problem of claims being submitted and not paid. It’s a problem of claims not yet being submitted for payment.”

Boylan noted the volume of reimbursements has increased exponentially since the first claims were filed in November 2024.

Meanwhile, children and youths continue to struggle and have trouble accessing care. In 2024, nearly ages 12-17, for example, reported delaying or skipping mental healthcare because they couldn’t get an appointment, while 1 in 4 teens said they did so because of cost, up from roughly 6.5% the previous year, according to data from the California Health Interview Survey.

The share of young adults 18-24 who reported ever seriously considering suicide has stabilized but remains higher than pre-pandemic, according to the annual survey, conducted by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

And while the suicide rate among Californians ages 12-25 has dropped from its high in 2021, this mirrors national trends, and state rates for female and Black youths increased from 2023 to 2024. “We have to have high expectations that when we invest in the magnitude of billions as this program did, we would have results to show,” said Assembly member David Alvarez, a Democrat in San Diego.

Other states have taken note of California’s implementation difficulties, some adopting a few strategies rather than the dozens California chose to roll out at once, said Sharon Hoover, formerly the co-director of the National Center for School Mental Health at the University of Maryland. Illinois, for instance, has focused on universal mental health screenings for schoolchildren while Colorado has expanded coverage of some behavioral health services for youths who lack a formal diagnosis.

“It’s always hard to be first, and someone has to be brave enough and hopeful enough to take that leap,” Hoover said.

Launching its reimbursement program before billing infrastructure was in place, Hoover said, created momentum but also posed challenges to school districts and providers. Still, she added, Newsom’s focus on prevention and early intervention became one of the biggest national policy shifts in years.

“We’re going to look back on this thinking it was one of the most progressive actions in the history of public systems,” said Alex Briscoe, a principal at the nonprofit Public Works Alliance who has pushed for system reform in kids’ mental health. “We spent a significant amount of money preparing for it. I just don’t think we did that very well or strategically.”

Rural Schools Struggle Most

Students at Plumas Charter School had endured a relentless wave of trauma by fall 2021. Wildfires, covid shutdowns, and, weeks into the school year, a car accident that killed a classmate and left two others severely injured. Teachers saw signs of depression, anxiety, and frequent outbursts among their K-12 students. Nine kids that year reported considering suicide, an all-time high.

So, the school hired a full-time therapist and wellness coach with temporary federal funds.

Senior Will Coelho wasn’t there for any of it, but by the time he arrived in the remote California logging town of Quincy a year later, he’d been through plenty of his own loss.

Days before the pandemic lockdowns, a friend had died in a . Isolated at home, Coelho struggled to process his grief, he said. That year, his stepfather became increasingly violent and, after a bitter, years-long custody fight, Coelho left the Central Valley to move in with his dad in the remote town in Northern California, just weeks before starting high school.

One day, he found himself chatting with a faculty adviser, the new kid half-joking about therapy. At her suggestion, Coelho started seeing the school therapist weekly, on campus and free of charge.

“It has had a large impact on the way I process emotions and my outlook on life,” he said.

Behind the scenes, school officials struggled with how they would continue to cover the therapist’s salary.

Twice, the state rejected the school’s application to the state’s landmark billing program, telling school officials they hadn’t met all the requirements, such as having sufficient systems to bill private insurers and collect student insurance information.

When school staffers flagged difficulties filing claims online, Washburn added, state officials suggested they submit paper claims instead.

The experience has soured Washburn and her staff on the program, which she said doesn’t work for small rural districts like hers where the human resources director is also the office business manager, and the faculty member who manages discipline also teaches PE.

DHCS spokesperson Tony Cava said that many charter schools are small and wouldn’t be expected to participate. While charter schools make up about half of eligible entities, Cava said, they serve only 12% of California’s students.

Lawmakers who represent small, rural districts have argued the program should be able to serve all kids. Early this year, Addis proposed legislation that would give intensive technical help to school officials who need it.

Even if it passes, it may be too late to help Plumas Charter. Washburn is unsure her school will reap enough revenue to pay for their therapist. “In theory, this should be a good program,” Washburn said. “We’re too small, and our funds are too limited to just keep waiting.”

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

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

---

When Congress allowed covid-era subsidies for health insurance to expire, California used its own funds to offset the hike in Obamacare premium costs for residents with low incomes.

But the reach has been limited.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom negotiates his last budget with the legislature, the Democrat wants to offer financial help to more than 1 in 4 enrollees in Covered California, the nation’s largest state-run health insurance marketplace. Democratic lawmakers, who hold a supermajority, are still debating the plan.

“My budget proposal would KEEP $0 monthly plans for low-income Californians to help clean up the financial disaster Trump created,” Newsom , where he often chides the president and GOP Congress.

have put up their own funds to keep Affordable Care Act plans affordable and residents insured as the rising cost of healthcare has emerged as a among voters. Newsom’s $300 million proposal would make California’s program among the most generous, but even the nation’s richest state can’t patch a left by the expiration of enhanced subsides at the end of last year.

“The gap between what people can pay in their monthly budget and what health insurance costs is so big that it’s a lot for states to take on,” said , a senior research fellow at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “They’re going to have to figure out how they can finance that.”

New Mexico lawmakers have of the lost federal subsidies with state money. It seems to have worked; New Mexico saw in marketplace enrollment this year, but state analysts that the subsidy program isn’t sustainable.

and , which, like California, tax residents , are also spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to keep premium payments low. Their hope, healthcare experts say, is to avoid the exodus seen in states such as Georgia that didn’t offer enrollees help.

Since the enhanced subsidies expired, have seen their premium payments increase by $65 a month on average.

Conservatives including have long argued that the subsidy expansion was too generous to high-income enrollees and .

“There are never enough subsidies to make health insurance affordable because subsidies are the problem,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “They are causing people to turn a blind eye to fraud and waste and excessive prices because it’s someone else’s money that they’re spending, not their own.”

Helping the Poorest?

People who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid got relief starting in January after Newsom and legislators softened the blow for about 300,000 of the lowest-income enrollees. They offset lost federal premium tax credits for individuals who last year and partially filled the gap for those who earned up to $25,823.

The governor now wants to expand subsidies to those who earn up to $31,920 this year for an individual and $66,000 for a family of four — an estimated 218,000 additional people.

Veronica and William Walter, who live in the San Francisco Bay Area, earn less than $40,000 a year in one of the nation’s most expensive regions. They’re counting on a more generous state healthcare tax credit if they have to pay for health insurance next year.

A car accident two years ago left William temporarily disabled, qualifying the couple for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.

Now he’s back at work as a security guard, and Veronica said she’s worried they’ll be kicked off Medi-Cal. She’s even more worried about how they’ll get by with federal premium tax credits not nearly as generous as before.

“Without it, we’re going to be facing worse problems than we have now,” she said. Under Newsom’s proposal, Veronica and others in the highest eligible income bracket could receive an average monthly subsidy of $36 a person.

“For them, $36 a month is the sort of thing that can make a difference between keeping coverage and losing coverage,” said Peter Lee, former executive director of Covered California. “We can’t fix everything with that gap, but we can focus the dollars on those who need it most.”

The Walter family, though, may still face a nearly $200 monthly premium payment to cover both of them, $130 more than they previously paid for healthcare and prescriptions through Covered California.

“I can’t afford that, not really,” said Veronica, a pet sitter who works part-time at a school. “A giant state like this with this many people, and this many resources? You can’t just leave the people with nothing for healthcare or healthcare they can’t afford.”

California policy researchers and health advocates acknowledge the limits of a partial subsidy but say that concentrating funds on those who earn less is the most efficient way to maximize impact. People who drop coverage are , healthier, and less likely to have high healthcare costs — all factors that help stabilize the insurance risk pool. Without coverage, Lee said, they’re also more likely to experience debt from medical emergencies or leave unpaid hospital bills that strain the .

Cary Sanders, senior policy director at the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, a health advocacy group, said the state’s move last year kept low-income enrollment in Covered California steady and reduced racial disparities in coverage.

“It’s working; it’s just that it’s not enough,” Sanders said. “We need the federal subsidies back.”

Still No Help for Many

When Congress passed enhanced subsidies in 2021, it capped monthly premium payments for even the highest earners at 8.5% of income. Those temporary enhancements allowed about 8 million Americans to choose robust plans with no monthly premium payment last year and helped double Obamacare enrollment to of 24 million.

At the end of last year, 22 million of them lost that help when the GOP-led Congress blocked the extension.

The pressures on Obamacare enrollees don’t stop at premiums. Federal legislation Republicans passed last summer known as the also shortens enrollment windows, tightens income verification requirements for subsidies, and requires enrollees who earn more than they projected to pay back the full amount.

Even if Newsom’s proposal passes, most Covered California customers won’t get state help. Nearly 1 million enrollees — 52% — earn above the $31,300-a-year individual earning cutoff.

Victoria Garzouzi was one of many middle-income retirees hit with one of the most extreme premium increases: The monthly payment for her low-level bronze plan jumped eightfold to $1,600.

To make ends meet, she came out of retirement and dipped into her savings. “I’m working to pay for my insurance,” she said. “I am an army of one.”

Despite a $6,000 deductible, her health insurance premium payment is more than the mortgage on her two-bedroom house. She’s putting off a needed cataract surgery until October, when she turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare.

While GOP leaders have not publicly weighed in on the state subsidies, some Democratic lawmakers have questioned why more help hasn’t been proposed.

Assembly member Dawn Addis, who chairs the chamber’s budget subcommittee on health, suggested Newsom could tap an additional $230 million from a fund for healthcare cost relief — money raised from a state penalty levied on those who can afford to enroll in health insurance but choose not to.

Lawmakers have previously criticized state officials for socking away much of the penalty revenue, which was supposed to go toward healthcare affordability. After California discontinued its premium subsidies thanks to increased federal assistance, the Newsom administration said the state was saving to help consumers once those temporary subsidies expired. Instead, California borrowed from the subsidy fund to cover state budget shortfalls, to the tune of $771 million. Starting this year, the subsidy fund should see an influx of cash as the state pays back the loan.

At a May legislative hearing, Joseph Donaldson, then a Department of Finance analyst, said maintaining the reserve was a prudent and financially sustainable approach.

Dylan Roby, a public health professor at the University of California-Irvine who consults for Covered California, said the focus on lower-income enrollees is deliberate. They qualify for federal subsidies that higher earners don’t, maximizing federal investment and strengthening the broader system.

“You end up with more advanced premium tax credits flowing into the state that you would have been leaving on the table,” he said.

State lawmakers have until June 15 to pass a state budget. Then, Covered California’s board would decide eligibility and benefit amounts, a decision that could come this summer, with new subsidies starting Jan. 1.

Even with the extra help, Walter and her husband worry they won’t be able to afford a potential $200 monthly premium payment. Walter said she’d likely have to rely on free clinics or ration medications.

“I take so many pills, I rattle,” she said. “That, on top of the $200? For us, it really adds up.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage?ÌýClick here to contact Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and share your story.

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

Today, leading Democrats in the wide-open race to succeed Newsom have embraced single-payer as a political necessity, an answer to voters fed up with rising premiums and other spiraling healthcare costs.

But with no clear front-runner, they are sparring among themselves in debates and political ads over who is most committed to a government-run model. No candidate has outlined how California would fund comprehensive health coverage for its 40 million residents, leaving voters unable to discern which candidate has a concrete plan for the nation’s most populous state.

Healthcare and political experts said the concept of single-payer has shifted from progressive pipe dream a decade ago to today’s mainstream talking points in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1. Democrats have pledged the model as the best way to lower costs in an attempt to woo voters worried about affordability as ballots arrive for the June 2 primary. The top two Republicans, meanwhile, have dismissed government-run healthcare as a “disaster” and “socialism.”

“In many ways, single-payer healthcare has become a progressive litmus test,” said Larry Levitt, a former White House policy adviser and a healthcare expert at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Few voters fully understand the term single-payer, let alone expect the next governor to achieve it, Levitt said. Rather, he added, the term has become more of a signal to voters about a candidate’s approach to healthcare reform.

Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, who for decades backed single-payer healthcare in Congress, has come under criticism from opponents for a nuanced but clear shift away from single-payer. It came after Becerra secured an endorsement from the California Medical Association, a powerful group representing doctors and a longtime opponent of single-payer healthcare bills in California.

At a May 5 debate put on by CNN, Becerra for “Medicare for All,” a proposal for a that’s been stalled for years, but he declined to say whether he’d pursue a California-led effort. He said his immediate focus would be on mitigating the drastic federal cuts expected to hit low-income and disabled enrollees in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, which covers more than a third of residents.

Becerra is counting on voters not to distinguish between the often-confused terms single-payer, Medicare for All, and universal coverage, noting during the debate that “Californians don’t care what you call it, so long as they have affordable healthcare.”

“A lot of people aren’t clear what single-payer is, and they need a metaphor to understand it,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and one of the lead pollsters for former President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign.

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who’s touted his self-funding as a , has emerged as the race’s most vocal advocate of single-payer after during a short-lived 2020 presidential bid.

As governor, Steyer has said, he would pass legislation backed by the California Nurses Association that has failed to come to fruition under Newsom’s tenure. Pressed on how he would cover the estimated , Steyer told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that “God is going to be in the details.”

At a , former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter said she didn’t believe achieving such a system was realistic in the near term, but the Orange County Democrat later told party delegates that she would “.” Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Democrats who are trailing their competitors in the polls, don’t support single-payer. The top two vote-getters — regardless of party — advance to the November general election.

Some of the most seasoned politicians have failed to deliver single-payer. Newsom, who campaigned on the promise of being a “healthcare governor,” dialed back his ambitions upon taking office, choosing instead to pursue “” to health coverage under a series of Medi-Cal expansions and efforts to contain healthcare spending.

Vermont, which remains the a single-payer healthcare law, when leaders there couldn’t identify a funding source.

To enact single-payer, California would from the federal government to redirect billions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare, and other funding that currently flows to the system — approval not likely to come from the Trump administration.

More than half of adults nationally say healthcare costs will have a on whom they vote for in November, according to an April KFF poll.

Danielle Cendejas, a Los Angeles-based Democratic consultant who works with state legislative candidates, said single-payer healthcare increasingly appears on candidate questionnaires from as well as , in and .

What most California voters want to hear, Cendejas said, is how candidates plan to give them more immediate relief from higher premiums, expensive drug costs, and long waits to access care.

The high price tag doesn’t faze Jennifer Easton, a 63-year-old Democrat from Oakland, who said other countries with similar models have proved they can lower costs. She said she supports a single-payer health system because it’s clear to her that Americans have reached the limits of working within the existing system. But she isn’t expecting any of the current candidates to succeed in implementing one, and she hasn’t decided whom to support.

“No one can in four years,” she said. Seeing a candidate enthusiastically support the concept gives her a good idea of their philosophy. “It is, if we’re lucky, a 20-year, 25-year plan.”

Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant who advised former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said while Americans of single-payer , focus groups suggest that approval drops quickly when voters realize it could mean losing their current doctor or insurance plan.

At the CNN debate, Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate President Donald Trump has endorsed, said Californians would end up with subpar patient care and “taxes sky high to pay for it,” like in his native United Kingdom.

Instead, Hilton suggested the state stop providing “free healthcare for illegal immigrants who shouldn’t even be in the country in the first place.”

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

She and her husband, Charles, a former high school teacher who goes by Chaz, planned to retire comfortably in the three-bedroom house where they raised their kids about 60 miles northwest of Sacramento.

But early last year, the 63-year-old became unsteady on her feet. One morning in May, she woke up with slurred speech and landed in the hospital, then rapidly lost the ability to move the right side of her body.

In August, as doctors continued to puzzle over a possible diagnosis, the couple received a notice saying that on Jan. 1 their combined health care premium payments through the state insurance exchange would shoot up from $540 a month to $3,899 a month. The reason: Federal enhanced premium subsidies expiring at the end of last year would no longer offset their payment.

They immediately canceled a monthlong cruise they’d been planning with friends and looked through their retirement accounts.

“Now, instead of thinking about where we can go in our retirement, we’re asking the question, ‘Are we still going to be able to stay where we are because of the health care costs?’” said Chaz, who retired in 2021 at age 59.

Then they received more bad news. In October, at the age of 63, Jean was diagnosed with ALS, a debilitating disease that will eventually leave her unable to speak, swallow, or breathe on her own. But Jean’s condition allowed her to enroll in Medicare, the federal health insurance program that covers adults 65 and older and people with disabilities. The diagnosis saved them roughly $1,600 a month in premiums — little comfort as Jean lost her ability to walk, bathe, and dress herself.

“It’s kind of morbid that, because of my diagnosis, I got put on Medicare right away, so at least we don’t have to pay that out-of-pocket,” Jean said, sitting in a wheelchair in her living room, a quilt draped over her legs to guard against the intense chills she now often gets. “We’re not going to get buried under this.”

Yet the premiums for Chaz’s plan and her Medicare remain a significant strain on their finances. The $2,300 a month they now owe, which includes roughly $342 in premium payments for Jean’s Medicare supplemental insurance, is higher than their monthly mortgage and eats up more than a quarter of their budget.

The Franklins are among the across the nation facing greater financial pressure after Congress chose not to extend 2021 enhanced federal subsidies. That assistance helped more than double enrollment in Obamacare plans to over 24 million.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2024 that, without an extension of the tax credits, the number of uninsured Americans would climb by 2.2 million this year alone. , nationwide enrollment in ACA plans was down about 1.2 million year over year, though experts say it could be months before the full effects of rising premiums are known, as people miss payments and lose coverage.

The groups hit hardest will be , , and people living in high-cost states, said , a senior research fellow at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. The Franklins are all three.

“They fell off what we call a subsidy cliff,” Pogue said. “It’s very, very shocking, the amount that a person would have to absorb.”

That’s because the expanded tax credits made the biggest difference for people nearing retirement age who sat just above thresholds, Pogue said. People such as the Franklins, who likely wouldn’t have qualified for financial help before expanded credits were implemented, are now losing that support at a time when insurers have responded to the uncertainty by dramatically raising rates.

Roughly half of people who were expected to lose eligibility for premium tax credits were ages 50 to 64, according to an , a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

A Retired Couple Faced a Huge Health Premium Increase. Her Terminal Diagnosis Saved Them Money.

Jean Franklin, 63, and Chaz Franklin, 64
Colusa, CaliforniaÌý

Chaz and JeanÌýFranklin thoughtÌýthey’dÌýsaved enough to retire comfortably. But when they found out the premium payment for their “silver” Affordable Care Act plan would soon rise from $540 a month to $3,899, they had to reevaluate. A couple of months later, Jean was diagnosed with ALS, a debilitating neurodegenerative illness that qualified her for Medicare. Her premium payment dropped to $342 a month. The couple still pays a combined $2,300 a month in premiums, more than a quarter of their budget. “It’s the terrible irony that because my wife got a disorder, I’m saving money, and a lot of it,” Chaz said.

Republicans who opposed the extension have said the premium assistance went directly to insurance companies rather than consumers, incentivizing fraud and wasteful coverage. They also say the enhanced subsidies, which had no upper income limit for eligibility, were far too generous in capping premium payments at 8.5% of income, no matter how much an enrollee made.

“Most Americans would agree that taxpayers should not be subsidizing the health insurance of someone making $250,000,” U.S. Rep. , a California Republican who an extension in January, wrote in an . “I cannot accept the simple extension of a program that will line the pockets of insurers and is riddled with fraud at the expense of the American taxpayer.”

Patient advocates say the premium increases and expiration of subsidies have forced people into difficult choices. “The young people who are healthy are the first to say, I’m going to roll the dice” and forgo coverage, said , executive vice president of policy and programs at the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Those who are remaining in the system — because they have no choice — are holding off care, they’re holding off their meds, they’re going without necessary food.”

While the Franklins are getting by, they have relied on their sons to pay for a motorized recliner to assist with lifting Jean and a handicap van to transport her. Chaz, who broke a tooth a year ago, delayed fixing it because a crown would cost him $1,000.

This year, the couple will draw $36,000 more than they had anticipated from their retirement savings, most of it to cover Chaz’s insurance premiums.

“I have a nest egg,” Chaz said. “But there’s a lot of people around here who don’t.”

For a while, he was outraged.

“I wish Congress would get off their butts and solve this issue,” said Chaz, who is a registered Republican but blames both sides of the aisle. “You’re so busy bickering over stupid crap and it’s both parties pointing fingers and blaming. Where was this discussion two years ago?”

Now, Chaz said, he’s focused on making Jean, his wife of 27 years, as comfortable as possible.

Before she got sick, they did practically everything together — hiking, traveling, tai chi, amateur photography, and bug-hunting. One of her favorite specimens was the rain beetle, a fuzzy scarab-like insect that can’t feed as an adult, relying solely on fat stores from its larval stages.

In the mornings, Chaz and their sons, Charlie and Louis, take turns lifting Jean, dressing her, and helping her use the bathroom. It’ll be fodder for the counselor, she jokes to her sons, when they inevitably need therapy later in life.

Most days, Jean’s outdoor adventures rarely extend beyond being wheeled to her back patio, where she loves to watch their backyard chickens bobble around. Chaz’s stubbornness makes him a great patient advocate. Charlie always seems to know exactly when she needs a big hug, and Louis tells jokes that can still make her snort with laughter.

“I don’t know what I would do without my boys making me laugh,” she said.

In December, Chaz will turn 65, old enough to qualify for Medicare himself. “After this year — knock on wood — we should be OK,” Jean said, before pausing and shooting her husband a wry smile.

“Well, you’re gonna be OK.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage?ÌýClick here to contact Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and share your story.

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

For a second year, the Democrat has asked state lawmakers to roll back coverage for some immigrants in the face of federal Medicaid spending cuts and a roughly that if the artificial intelligence bubble bursts. Newsom has proposed that the state not step in when, starting in October, the federal government stops providing health coverage to an estimated 200,000 legal residents — comprising .

Progressive legislators and activists said the cost-saving measures are a departure from Newsom’s , while Republicans continue to skewer Newsom for using public funds to cover any noncitizens.

Newsom’s latest move would save an estimated $786 million this fiscal year and $1.1 billion annually in future years in a proposed budget of $349 billion, according to the Department of Finance.

State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, one of two Senate Democrats who voted against Newsom’s immigrant health cuts last year, said she worried the governor’s political ambition could be getting in the way of doing what’s best for Californians.

“You’re clouded by what Arkansas is going to think, or Tennessee is going to think, when what California thinks is something completely different,” said Menjivar, who said previous criticism got her from a key budget subcommittee. “That’s my perspective on what’s happening here.”

Meanwhile, Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland criticized Newsom for glossing over the state’s , which state officials say could balloon to $27 billion the following year. And he slammed Newsom for continuing to cover California residents in the U.S. without authorization. “He just wants to reinvent himself,” Strickland said.

It’s a political tightrope that will continue to grow thinner as federal support shrinks amid ever-rising health care expenses, said Guian McKee, a co-chair of the Health Care Policy Project at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs.

“It’s not just threading one needle but threading three or four of them right in a row,” McKee said. Should Newsom run, McKee added, the priorities of Democratic primary voters — who largely mirror blue states like California — look very different from those in a far more divided general electorate.

Americans are deeply divided on whether the government should provide health coverage to immigrants without legal status. In a last year, a slim majority — 54% — were against a provision that would have penalized states that use their own funds to pay for immigrant health care, with wide variation by party. The provision was left out of the final version of the bill passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump.

Even in California, support for the idea has waned amid ongoing budget problems. In a by the Public Policy Institute of California, 41% of adults in the state said they supported providing health coverage to immigrants who lack legal status, a sharp drop from the 55% .

, Vice President JD Vance, , and congressional Republicans have repeatedly accused California and other Democratic states of using taxpayer funds on immigrant health care, a red-meat issue for their GOP base. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz has of “” to receive more federal funds, freeing up state coffers for its Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, which has enrolled roughly 1.6 million immigrants without legal status.

“If you are a taxpayer in Texas or Florida, your tax dollars could’ve been used to fund the care of illegal immigrants in California,” he said in October.

California state officials have denied the charges, noting that only state funds are used to pay for general health services for those without legal status because the law prohibits using federal funds. Instead, Newsom has made it a “” that California has opened up coverage to immigrants, which his administration has noted and helps them avoid costly emergency room care often covered at taxpayer expense.

“No administration has done more to expand full coverage under Medicaid than this administration for our diverse communities, documented and undocumented,” Newsom told reporters in January. “People have built careers out of criticizing my advocacy.”

Newsom warns the federal government’s “carnival of chaos” passed Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which he said puts 1.8 million Californians at risk of losing their health coverage with the implementation of work requirements, other eligibility rules, and limits to federal funding to states.

Nationally, 10 million people could lose coverage by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. higher numbers of uninsured patients — particularly those who are relatively healthy — could concentrate coverage among sicker patients, potentially increasing premium costs and hospital prices overall.

Immigrant advocates say it’s especially callous to leave residents who may have fled violence or survived trafficking or abuse without access to health care. Federal rules currently require state Medicaid programs to cover “qualified noncitizens” including asylees and refugees, according to Tanya Broder of the National Immigration Law Center. But the Republican tax-and-spending law ends the coverage, affecting legal immigrants nationwide.

With many state governors yet to release budget proposals, it’s unclear how they might handle the funding gaps, Broder said.

For instance, Colorado state officials estimate roughly 7,000 legal immigrants could lose coverage due to the law’s changes. And Washington state officials refugees, asylees, and other lawfully present immigrants will lose Medicaid.

Both states, like California, expanded full coverage to all income-eligible residents regardless of immigration status. Their elected officials are now in the awkward position of explaining why some legal immigrants may lose their health care coverage while those without legal status could keep theirs.

Last year, spiraling health care costs and state budget constraints prompted the Democratic governors of , potential presidential contenders JB Pritzker and Tim Walz, to pause or end coverage of immigrants without legal status.

California lawmakers last year voted to eliminate dental coverage and freeze new enrollment for immigrants without legal status and, starting next year, will charge monthly premiums to those who remain. Even so, the state is slated to spend $13.8 billion from its general fund on immigrants not covered by the federal government, according to Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer.

At a press conference in San Francisco in January, Newsom defended those moves, saying they were necessary for “fiscal prudence.” He sidestepped questions about coverage for asylees and refugees and downplayed the significance of his proposal, saying he could revise it when he gets a chance to update his budget in May.

Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, pointed out that California passed a law in the 1990s requiring the state to cover when federal Medicaid dollars won’t. This includes green-card holders who haven’t yet met the five-year waiting period for enrolling in Medicaid.

Calling the governor’s proposal “arbitrary and cruel,” Savage-Sangwan criticized his choice to prioritize rainy day fund deposits over maintaining coverage and said blaming the federal government was misleading.

It’s also a major departure from what she had hoped California could achieve on Newsom’s first day in office seven years ago, when he declared his support for single-payer health care and proposed extending health insurance subsidies to middle-class Californians.

“I absolutely did have hope, and we celebrated advances that the governor led,” Savage-Sangwan said. “Which makes me all the more disappointed.”

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

For several years, that number has been zero in the predominantly white, largely rural county stretching from Sacramento’s eastern suburbs to the shores of Lake Tahoe.

The trend could be short-lived.

County health officials there and across the country are bracing for an newly uninsured patients over the next decade in the wake of Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The act, which President Donald Trump signed into law this past summer, is also expected to reduce Medicaid spending by over that period.

“This is the moment where a lot of hard decisions have to be made about who gets care and who doesn’t,” said Nadereh Pourat, director of the Health Economics and Evaluation Research Program at UCLA. “The number of people who are going to lose coverage is large, and a lot of the systems that were in place to provide care to those individuals have either gone away or diminished.”

It’s an especially thorny challenge for states and New Mexico where counties are legally required to help their poorest residents through what are known as indigent care programs. Under Obamacare, both states were to include more low-income residents, alleviating counties of patient loads and redirecting much of their funding for the patchwork of local programs that provided bare-bones services.

Placer County, which estimates that 16,000 residents could lose health care coverage by 2028, quit operating its own clinics nearly a decade ago.

“Most of the infrastructure that we had to meet those needs is gone,” said Rob Oldham, Placer County’s director of health and human services. “This is a much bigger problem than it was a decade ago and much more costly.”

In December, county officials that provides care to mostly small, rural counties, citing an expected rise in the number of uninsured residents.

New Mexico’s second-most-populous county, Doña Ana, added dental care for seniors and behavioral health benefits after many of its poorest residents qualified for Medicaid. Now, federal cuts could force the county to reconsider, said Jamie Michael, Doña Ana’s health and human services director.

“At some point we’re going to have to look at either allocating more money or reducing the benefits,” Michael said.

Straining State Budgets

Some states, such as Idaho and Colorado, abandoned laws that required counties to be providers of last resort for their residents. In other states, uninsured patients often delay care or receive it at hospital emergency rooms or community clinics. Those clinics are often supported by a mix of federal, state, and local funds, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Even in states like Texas, which opted not to expand its Medicaid program and continued to rely on counties to care for many of its uninsured, rising health care costs are straining local budgets.

“As we have more growth, more people coming in, it’s harder and harder to fund things that are required by the state legislature, and this isn’t one we can decrease,” said Windy Johnson, program manager with the Texas Indigent Health Care Association. “It is a fiscal issue.”

California lawmakers face a nearly in the 2026-27 fiscal year, according to the latest estimates by the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has acknowledged he is , has rebuffed to significantly raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy. Despite blasting the bill passed by Republicans in Congress as a that guts health care programs, in 2025 the Democrat rolled back state Medi-Cal benefits for seniors and for immigrants without legal status after rising costs forced the program to borrow $4.4 billion from the state’s general fund.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the state’s Department of Finance, said that the Newsom administration is still refining its fiscal projections and that it would be “premature” to discuss potential budget solutions.

Newsom will unveil his initial budget proposal in January. State officials have said California a year in federal funding for Medi-Cal under the new law, as much as 15% of the state program’s entire budget.

“Local governments don’t really have much capacity to raise revenue,” said Scott Graves, a director at the independent California Budget & Policy Center with a focus on state budgets. “State leaders, if they choose to prioritize it, need to decide where they’re going to find the funding that would be needed to help those who are going to lose health care as a result of these federal funding and policy cuts.”

Reviving county-based programs in the near term would require “considerable fiscal restructuring” through the state budget, the Legislative Analyst’s Office said in .

No Easy Fixes

It’s not clear how many people are currently enrolled in California’s county indigent programs, because the state doesn’t track enrollment and utilization. But enrollment in county health safety net programs dropped dramatically in the first full year of ACA implementation, going from about 858,000 people statewide in 2013 to roughly 176,000 by the end of 2014, at the time by Health Access California.

“We’re going to need state investment,” said Michelle Gibbons, executive director of the County Health Executives Association of California. “After the Affordable Care Act and as folks got coverage, we didn’t imagine a moment like this where potentially that progress would be unwound and folks would be falling back into indigent care.”

In November, voters in affluent Santa Clara County approved a sales tax increase, in part to backfill the loss of federal funds. But even in the home of Silicon Valley, where the median household income is about 1.7 times the , that is expected to of the $1 billion a year the county stands to lose.

Health advocates fear that, absent major state investments, Californians could see a return to the previous , with local governments choosing whom and what they cover and for how long.

In many cases, indigent programs didn’t include specialty care, behavioral health, or regular access to primary care. Counties can also exclude people or income. Before the ACA, many uninsured people who needed care didn’t get it, which could lead to them winding up in ERs with untreated health conditions or even dying, said Kiran Savage-Sangwan, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network.

Rachel Linn Gish, interim deputy director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group, said that “it created a very unequal, maldistributed program throughout the state.”

“Many of us,” she said. “including counties, are reeling trying to figure out: What are those downstream impacts?”

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

But there was one glaring omission that LGBTQ+ advocates and political strategists say is part of an increasingly complex dance the Democrat faces as he curates a more centrist profile for a potential presidential bid.

Newsom that would have required insurers to cover, and pharmacists to dispense, 12 months of hormone therapy at one time to transgender patients and others. The proposal was a for trans rights leaders, who said it was crucial to preserve care as gender-affirming services under White House pressure.

Political experts say highlights how charged trans care has become and, in particular, for Newsom, who as San Francisco mayor engaged in civil disobedience by allowing gay couples to marry . The veto, along with his lukewarm response to anti-trans rhetoric, they argue, is part of an alarming pattern that could damage his credibility with key voters in his base.

“Even if there were no political motivations whatsoever under Newsom’s decision, there are certainly political ramifications of which he is very aware,” said Dan Schnur, a former GOP political strategist who is now a politics lecturer at the University of California-Berkeley. “He is smart enough to know that this is an issue that’s going to anger his base, but in return, may make him more acceptable to large numbers of swing voters.”

Earlier this year on Newsom’s podcast, the governor told the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk that trans athletes competing in women’s sports was “,” triggering a backlash among his party’s base and LGBTQ+ leaders. And he has as a “major problem for the Democratic Party,” saying Donald Trump’s were “devastating” for his party in 2024.

Still, in a conversation with YouTube streamer ConnorEatsPants this month, Newsom “as a guy who’s literally put my political life on the line for the community for decades, has been a champion and a leader.”

“He doesn’t want to face the criticism as someone who, I’m sure, is trying to line himself up for the presidency, when the current anti-trans rhetoric is so loud,” said Ariela Cuellar, a spokesperson for the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network.

Caroline Menjivar, the state senator who introduced the measure, described her bill as “the most tangible and effective” measure this year to help trans people at a time when they are being singled out for what she described as “targeted discrimination.” In a legislature in which Democrats hold supermajorities in both houses, lawmakers sent the bill to Newsom on a party-line vote. Earlier this year, Washington to enact a state law extending hormone therapy coverage to a 12-month supply.

In a on the California bill, Newsom cited its potential to drive up health care costs, impacts that an found would be negligible.

“At a time when individuals are facing double-digit rate increases in their health care premiums across the nation, we must take great care to not enact policies that further drive up the cost of health care, no matter how well-intended,” Newsom wrote.

, federal agencies have been to gender-affirming care for children, which Trump has referred to as “chemical and surgical mutilation,” and from or of institutions that provide it.

In recent months, , , and have reduced or eliminated gender-affirming care for patients under 19, a sign of the chilling effect Trump’s executive orders have had on health care, even in one of the nation’s most progressive states.

California wide coverage of gender-affirming health care, including hormone therapy, but pharmacists can currently dispense only a 90-day supply. Menjivar’s bill would have allowed 12-month supplies, modeled after that allowed women to receive an annual supply of birth control.

Luke Healy, who at an April hearing that he was “a 24-year-old detransitioner” and no longer believed he was a woman, criticized the attempt to increase coverage of services he thought were “irreversibly harmful” to him.

“I believe that bills like this are forcing doctors to turn healthy bodies into perpetual medical problems in the name of an ideology,” Healy testified.

The California Association of Health Plans opposed the bill over provisions that would limit the use of certain practices such as prior authorization and step therapy, which require insurer approval before care is provided and force patients and doctors to try other therapies first.

“These safeguards are essential for applying evidence-based prescribing standards and responsibly managing costs — ensuring patients receive appropriate care while keeping premiums in check,” said spokesperson Mary Ellen Grant.

An analysis by the California Health Benefits Review Program, which independently reviews bills relating to health insurance, concluded that annual premium increases resulting from the bill’s implementation would be negligible and that “no long-term impacts on utilization or cost” were expected.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said Newsom’s economic argument was “not plausible.” Although he said he considers Newsom a strong ally of the transgender community, Minter noted he was “deeply disappointed” to see the governor’s veto. “I understand he’s trying to respond to this political moment, and I wish he would respond to it by modeling language and policies that can genuinely bring people along.”

Newsom’s press office declined to comment further.

Following the podcast interview with Kirk, Cuellar said, advocacy groups backing SB 418 grew concerned about a potential veto and made a point to highlight voices of other patients who would benefit, including menopausal women and cancer patients. It was a starkly different strategy than what they might have done before Trump took office.

“Had we run this bill in 2022-2023, the messaging would have been totally different,” said another proponent who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. “We could have been very loud and proud. In 2023, we might have gotten a signing ceremony.”

Advocates for trans rights were so wary of the current political climate that some also felt the need to steer clear of promoting a separate bill that would have expanded coverage of hormone therapy and other treatments for menopause and perimenopause. , authored by Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, who has spoken movingly about her struggles with health care for perimenopause, .

In the meantime, said Jovan Wolf, a trans man and military veteran, patients like him will be left to suffer.

Wolf, who had taken testosterone for more than 15 years, tried to restart hormone therapy in March, following a two-year hiatus in which he contemplated having children.

Doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs told him it was too late. Days earlier, the Trump administration it would phase out hormone therapy and other treatments for gender dysphoria.

“Having estrogen pumping through my body, it’s just not a good feeling for me, physically, mentally. And when I’m on testosterone, I feel balanced,” said Wolf, who eventually received care elsewhere. “It should be my decision and my decision only.”

This article was produced by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, which publishes , an editorially independent service of the .Ìý

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