Still, 69% of those enrolled last year signed up again this year, often for less generous coverage. About 9% said they had to forgo insurance, according to the survey by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

The KFF poll revisited the people who responded to of Affordable Care Act enrollees during open enrollment for ACA plans.

Steve Davis, a 64-year-old retired car salesman in Rogersville, Tennessee, who participated in both polls, said he was looking at an annual premium of about $14,000 to renew his ACA coverage this year. He didn’t qualify for enough of a tax credit to defray the cost, he said, after Congress gridlocked on an extension of more-generous subsidies put in place under President Joe Biden.

But things worked out for Davis. He landed a job at a convenience store that came with insurance, with his share costing about $100 more a month than the $300 he paid for an ACA plan last year, before the enhanced tax credits expired.

“As it happened, the Lord provided and my insurance kicked in through my employer,” he told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

In the November survey, many respondents were not sure what they would do for their health insurance in the coming year.

Some were waiting to see whether Congress would extend the enhanced premium subsidies, which had helped many people get lower-cost — or even zero-cost — health premiums.

Congress’ inaction left some consumers in a bind.

Now, the new poll found, affordability issues are hitting home as the midterm election approaches. And that might play a role in competitive districts, creating headwinds for Republicans.

Midterm Signals

Across all respondents who were registered to vote, the poll found more than half place “a lot” of blame for rising costs on Republicans in Congress (54%), with a similar share putting the same level of blame on President Donald Trump (53%). A smaller group placed a lot of the blame on congressional Democrats (34%). Among independents, a group expected to be a key factor in many districts, the percentages putting a lot of the blame on the GOP (56%) and Trump (58%) were higher.

Among Republicans, 60% placed a lot of the blame on Democrats in Congress.

“Those who have marketplace coverage, who remained on it, they’re really struggling with health care costs,” said Lunna Lopes, senior survey manager for KFF.

While more than half (55%) of returning ACA enrollees said they will have to pare back on other household expenses to cover health care costs, about 17% said they might not be able to continue paying insurance premiums throughout the year.

Overall, 80% of those who reenrolled for 2026 said their premiums, deductibles, or other costs are higher this year than last, with 51% saying they are “a lot higher.”

About three-quarters of ACA enrollees in the survey who were registered voters said the cost of health care will have an impact on their decision to vote — and on which party’s candidate they support.

Democrats were more than twice as likely as Republicans to say those costs will have a major impact on their decision.

“Democrats seem particularly more energized by health care costs than their Republican counterparts,” Lopes said.

Enrollment Tally Down

Data released Jan. 28 by federal officials showed that about 23 million people enrolled in Obamacare plans across the federal healthcare.gov marketplace and those run by states, about 1.2 million fewer than in 2025.

But it isn’t yet known how many are paying their monthly premiums on time, and many analysts expect overall enrollment numbers to fall as that data becomes available in the coming months.

For most people, having to pay more for premiums this year was mainly due to the expiration of the enhanced tax cuts, pollsters noted. Because the subsidies that remain are less generous, households have to pay more of their income toward coverage. Congressional inaction also meant the restoration of an income cap for subsidies at four times the poverty level, or $62,600 for an individual, sticking people like Davis with higher bills.

Not everyone saw increases.

Matthew Rutledge, a 32-year-old substitute teacher in Apple Valley, California, who participated in both KFF polls, said he qualified as low-income and his subsidies fully offset his monthly premium payment, just as they did last year. He does have copayments when he sees a doctor or accesses other medical care, but he told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that “as long as the premium doesn’t go up, I’m fine with it.”

Rising premiums are fueled by a variety of factors, including hospital costs, doctors’ services, and the prices of drugs.

To lower premiums, insurers offer plans with higher deductibles or copayments. In the ACA, plans with lower premiums but higher deductibles are called “catastrophic” or “bronze” plans. “Silver” plans generally balance premiums and out-of-pocket spending, while the highest-premium plans with lower deductibles are “gold” or “platinum.”

About 28% of those who stayed in the ACA marketplaces switched plans, the pollsters noted.

One 56-year-old Texas man told pollsters that his family’s income exceeded the cap for subsidies, so they switched down from a gold plan to a bronze. “Even doing that, our premiums are three times what they were in 2025, with lower plan features and a higher deductible,” he said, according to a KFF poll news release.

For some, reenrolling was not a viable option.

In addition to the 9% who said they are now uninsured, about 5% said they switched to some type of non-ACA coverage.

Some people, like Davis, landed job-based coverage, while others found they qualified for Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for low-income residents.

Such churn in and out of ACA coverage is not unusual, Lopes noted. “People get a job. They get married. They age into Medicare,” the program for older or disabled people, she said.

The poll highlighted that many people dropping coverage were younger, between 18 and 29. About 14% of people in that range now say they are uninsured.Ìý

That’s not surprising, given that younger people tend to use health coverage less. ACA insurers said one reason they raised premiums this year was because they expected more young or healthy people to drop out, leaving them with a higher share of older, more costly enrollees. Among those 50 or older, the poll found that only 7% are now uninsured.

GOP critics of the now-expired enhanced subsidies say they were always meant to be temporary. Extending them would have cost about $350 billion from 2026 to 2035, .

But not extending them means more people will become uninsured. The CBO said the extension would have meant 3.8 million more people having insurance coverage in 2035.

KFF pollsters, in February and early March, surveyed 1,117 U.S. adults, more than 80% of the ACA enrollees originally polled in November, online and by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus four percentage points for the full sample.

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

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed this month, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident.

At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in.

Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients’ bills, as well. New federal guidelines for covid-19 vaccines, for example, will to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket.

The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees.

And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. This month, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports.

That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates.

“For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “The Trump administration is just throwing them off.”

White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration’s health care policies will affect Americans’ medical bills.

The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. “You won’t even notice it,” at the White House after the bill signing July 4. “Just waste, fraud, and abuse.”

But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans’ financial security.

“These changes will hit our communities hard,” said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty.

Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. “When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,” she said. “Medical debt wrecks people’s lives.”

For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network. “People will not seek out the treatment they need,” she said.

Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, and “expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.”

Polls suggest voters were looking for relief.

About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to , outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt.

Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block.

Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Caswell and other , for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers’ credit scores in states that implemented the expansion.

“We’ve seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people’s financial well-being,” Caswell said.

Trump’s tax law — which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts — is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated.

The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don’t renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces.

This aid — enacted under former President Joe Biden — lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills.

Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn’t pay their medical bills.

The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people.

But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Much of the hubbub in health care this year has been focused on Medicaid, which faces dramatically reduced federal funding as the result of the huge budget bill signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month. But now the attention is turning to the Affordable Care Act, which is facing some big changes that could cost many consumers their health coverage as soon as 2026.

Meanwhile, changes to immigration policy under Trump could have an outsize impact on the nation’s health care system, both by exacerbating shortages of health workers and by eliminating insurance coverage that helps keep some hospitals and clinics afloat.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Julie Appleby of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Many Americans can expect their health insurance premiums to rise next year, but those rate hikes could be even bigger for the millions who rely on ACA health plans. To afford such plans, most consumers rely on enhanced federal government subsidies, which are set to expire — and GOP lawmakers seem loath to extend them, even though many of their constituents could lose their insurance as a result.
• Congress included a $50 billion fund for rural health care in Trump’s new law, aiming to cushion the blow of Medicaid cuts. But the fund is expected to fall short, especially as many people lose their health insurance and clinics, hospitals, and health systems are left to cover their bills.
• Abortion opponents continue to claim the abortion pill mifepristone is unsafe, more recently by citing a problematic analysis — and some lawmakers are using it to pressure federal officials to take another look at the drug’s approval. Meanwhile, many Planned Parenthood clinics are bracing for an end to federal funding, stripping money not only from busy clinics where abortion is legal but also from clinics that provide only contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and other non-abortion care in states where the procedure is banned.
• And as more states implement laws enabling doctors to opt out of treatments that violate their morals, a pregnant woman in Tennessee says her doctor refused to provide prenatal care, because she is unmarried.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Jonathan Oberlander, a Medicare historian and University of North Carolina health policy professor, to mark Medicare’s 60th anniversary later this month.

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

Julie Rovner: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife with Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules,” by Katheryn Houghton.ÌýÌý

Julie Appleby: NPR’s “,” by Rachel Treisman.ÌýÌý

Jessie Hellmann: Roll Call’s “,” by Ariel Cohen.ÌýÌý

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Associated Press’ “,” by Amanda Seitz and Jonel Aleccia.ÌýÌý

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Insurers and Customers Brace for Double Whammy to Obamacare Premiums,” by Julie Appleby.
• The Congressional Budget Office’s “.”
• The CBO’s “.”
• KFF’s “,” by Grace Sparks, Shannon Schumacher, Julian Montalvo III, Ashley Kirzinger, and Liz Hamel.
• The Washington Post’s “,” by Glenn Kessler.

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]Ìý

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 24, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.Ìý

Today we are joined via videoconference by Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.Ìý

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there.Ìý

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.Ìý

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.Ìý

Rovner: And my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Julie Appleby.Ìý

Julie Appleby: Hi.Ìý

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have the first of a two-part series marking the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, which is July 30. Medicare historian and University of North Carolina professor Jonathan Oberlander takes us on a brief tour of the history of Medicare. Next week we’ll do the same with Medicaid. But first, this week’s news.Ìý

So, we have talked a lot about the changes to Medicaid as a result of the Trump tax and spending law, but there are big changes coming to the Affordable Care Act, too, which is why I have asked my colleague Julie Appleby to join us this week. Julie, what can people who buy insurance from the ACA marketplaces expect for 2026?Ìý

Appleby: Well, there’s a lot of changes. Let’s talk about premiums first, OK? So there’s a couple of things going on with premiums. It’s kind of a double whammy. So, on the one hand, insurers are asking for higher premiums next year to cover different things. So in the summer they put out their rates for the following year. So there’s been a lot of uncertainty this year, so that’s playing into it as well. But what they’re asking for is some money for rising medical and labor costs, the usual culprits, drug costs going up, that kind of thing. But they’re tacking on some extra percentages to deal with some of the policy changes advanced by the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. And one key factor is the uncertainty over whether Congress is going to extend those more generous covid-era tax subsidies. So we’re looking at premiums going up, and the ask right now, what they’re asking for, the median ask, is 15%, which is a lot higher. Last year when KFF did the same survey, it was 7%. So we’re getting premium increase requests of a fairly substantial amount. In fact, they say it’s about the highest in five years.ÌýÌý

And then on top of that, it’s still not clear what’s going to happen with those more generous subsidies. And if the more generous subsidies go away, if Congress does not reinstate them, there’ll be costs from that, and people could be paying maybe 75% more than they’re paying this year. And we could talk some more about that. But that’s kind of the double whammy we’re looking at, rising premiums and the potential that these more generous subsidies won’t be extended by Congress.Ìý

Rovner: So there were some things that were specifically in that tax and spending bill that drive up premiums for the ACA, right? Besides not extending the additional subsidies.Ìý

Appleby: Well, that’s the biggest piece of it, but yes. They’re tacking on about 4% of that 15% medium increase is related to the uncertainty. Well, they’re assuming that the tax credits will expire. It was not in the bill. Congress could still act. They have until the end of the year. They could extend those subsidies. So that’s about 4%. But one of the things that people haven’t really been talking about are tariffs, and some of the insurers are asking for 3% because they expect drug costs to go up. So there’s those things that are going on. And then there’s just sort of the uncertainty going forward for insurers about what’s going to happen with enrollment as a result of both these premium increases, and then looking a little bit further down the line, there are some changes in the tax and spending bill and some rules that are going to substantially reduce enrollment.Ìý

So insurers are worried that the people who are going to sign up for coverage are the ones who are most motivated, and those are probably going to be the people who have some health problems. And the folks who aren’t as motivated are going to look at the prices and maybe the additional red tape and will drop out and leave them with a sicker and more expensive pool to cover. So all of that is factoring in with these premium rate increases that they’re trying to put together. Now remember, a lot of these insurers put in these premium increase requests before they knew the outcome of the tax and spending legislation. They could still modify them.Ìý

Rovner: And Jessie, as Julie said, there’s still a chance that Republicans will change their minds on the increased subsidies and tack them onto something. And there’s a big bipartisan health bill on drug prices and other expiring programs that still could get done before the end of the year? Yes?Ìý

Hellmann: There have been discussions about a bipartisan health bill, though the main author of it, Sen. Bill Cassidy, himself even seems kind of skeptical. I talked to him this week, and he’s like, It might happen, it might not. But there are a bunch of other health extenders that Congress will need to get to, like telehealth, some Medicare and Medicaid payment things. So there’s definitely something to attach it to. Republicans are not friendly to the ACA. As you mentioned, they made a bunch of changes to it in this tax and spending bill. So I think the people I talk to think it’s a long shot that they’re going to pass billions of dollars in a subsidy extension in this bill. Though there are Republicans who do care about this issue, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She’s kind of been sounding the alarm on this. She thinks that Congress needs to do something to mitigate which could be very big premium increases for people. So there is some pressure there, but it doesn’t seem like the people who should be thinking about this right now have started thinking about it much yet.Ìý

Rovner: One presumes they’ll start thinking about it when they start seeing these actual premium increases. I sound like a broken record, but we keep saying, the people who these premium increases are going to hit the hardest are voters in red states.Ìý

Appleby: Last year, in 2024, 56% of ACA enrollees lived in Republican congressional districts and 76% were in states won by President [Donald] Trump. So I’ve got to think they’re thinking about it. When I did the reporting on this story, I spoke with a couple of folks, and they said that some people in Congress are looking at maybe they can mess around or maybe they can do something with the subsidies that’s not keeping them as they are but might deal with a piece of it. For example, there is something called a subsidy cliff. So if you make more than 400% of the federal poverty level, you used to not get any subsidies. That would come back if they don’t extend this. And so 400% of the federal poverty level, you make a dollar more, you don’t get a subsidy. So this year — and this year will be the numbers that next year’s rates are based on — $62,600 for one person is 400% of the federal poverty level and $84,600 for a couple. So people are going to start getting, if they don’t extend the tax credits, they’re going to start getting notification about how much they owe for premiums next year.Ìý

And this is going to be one of the first effects that people are going to see from all these changes in Washington, the tax and spending bill and the other things, when they get these premiums for January. And if they make even a dollar over that, they’re not going to get any subsidy at all. So what I’m told by some of my sources is that maybe they’re thinking about raising that cliff, maybe keeping the cliff but maybe moving it up a little bit to 500% or 600%. But it’s totally unclear. Like you all are saying, nothing may happen. We may go through Dec. 31 and nothing happens, but I’m hearing that they are maybe talking a little bit about that.Ìý

Rovner: Alice.Ìý

Ollstein: Yeah. And there’s a couple interesting dynamics that I think could influence the politics of this and what Congress feels motivated to do or not do. So, like Julie was saying, this would hit in January. And a lot of the stuff in the bill they just passed is designed to not hit until the midterms, but this would hit before the midterms. And so that’s got to be on their minds. And then, like you were saying, not only would this hit Republican voters the hardest, but a reason that’s more true today than it was the last time they took a round at the Affordable Care Act in 2017 is because all of these red states have expanded since then. You have a lot more enrollment, even in states that didn’t expand, and so, like we mentioned, are going to have a lot of Republican voters who get hit and have this sticker shock. And the party in power in Congress and the White House could be to blame.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. One of the things in 2017, there were, what, 12 million people who were buying coverage on the marketplaces. And now there’s 24 million people who are buying coverage on the marketplaces. So it’s a lot more people, just plain, in addition to a lot more people who are likely in some of these red states. So we will follow this closely.Ìý

Meanwhile, the fallout continues as people find out more about the new tax and spending law. The Congressional Budget Office is out with on the bill as enacted. It’s now estimating that 10 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result of the new law. That’s down from the 11.8 million estimate of the original Senate bill. That’s because the parliamentarian bounced the provisions that would’ve punished states using their own money to cover undocumented people. That was not allowed to be considered under the reconciliation procedure.Ìý

We also have a brand-new poll from my colleagues here at KFF that find that more people know about the law than did before it passed, and it’s still unpopular. We’ll to those numbers so you can see just how unpopular it is. As we’ve discussed, lots of Republican senators and House members expressed concern about the impact the Medicaid cuts could have on rural hospitals in particular. So much so that a $50 billion fund was eventually added to the bill to offset roughly $155 billion in rural Medicaid cuts. Even more confusing, that $50 billion is likely to be distributed before some of the cuts begin — as you were just saying, Alice — and not necessarily to just rural areas. So is this $50 billion fund really just a big lobbying bonanza?Ìý

Ollstein: Well, it’s certainly designed to function as softening the blow. But these are different things. The hospital could be propped up and stay open, but if no one has Medicaid to go there, that’s still a problem. And the money is sort of acknowledging that a bunch of people are going to lose their coverage, because it’s meant to give the hospital something to use for uncompensated care for people who have no coverage and come to the ER. But that still means that people who lost their insurance because of other provisions in the bill, they might not be going to their preventive care appointments that would avoid them having to go to the emergency room in the first place, which costs all of us more in the long run. So there’s a lot of skepticism about the efficacy of this.Ìý

Rovner: Jessie, are you seeing the lobbying already begin for who’s going to get this $50 billion?Ìý

Hellmann: Yeah, because the legislation leaves a lot of how the money will be handed out to the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary, and so that’s something that they’re going to start thinking about. It reminds me a lot of the provider relief fund that was set up during covid. And that didn’t go very well. There were lots of complaints that providers were getting the funding that didn’t need the funding, and the small safety net hospitals weren’t getting enough of the funding. So I’m wondering if they’re going to revisit how that went and try to learn any lessons from it. And then at the same time, like Alice said, this just isn’t a lot of money. It’s not going to offset some of the pain to rural providers that the bill has caused.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. Well, another piece that we will be watching. Meanwhile, the cuts to SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] food benefits conflict with another stated goal of this administration, improving health by getting people to eat healthier food. Except, as we know, healthier food is often more expensive. Other than not letting people buy soda and candy with their SNAP cards, has the administration tried to address this contradiction at all? I’m seeing a lot of blank stares. I’m assuming that the answer to that is no. We’re hearing so much about food and unhealthy food, and we’re getting rid of seed oils and we’re getting rid of dyes, but at the same time, it’s the biggest cut ever to nutrition assistance, and yet nobody’s really talking about it, right?Ìý

Appleby: Sounds like, I think, the states are really worried, obviously, because they’re going to have to make up the difference if they can. And so what other programs are they going to cut? So I’m sure they are talking with folks in Congress, but I don’t know how much leverage they’re going to have. Do you guys have any idea whether the states, is there anything else that they can do to try to get some of this funding?Ìý

Rovner: There’s no — I’ve seen no indication. As we said, there’s already some buyer’s remorse on the health side. Last week we talked about [Sen.] Josh Hawley introducing legislation to restore some of the Medicaid cuts that he just voted for, but I haven’t seen anybody talking about restoring any of these nutrition assistance cuts or any of the other cuts, right?Ìý

Appleby: Right. And from what I’ve read, the SNAP cuts won’t fully take effect until after the midterm elections. So maybe we’re just not hearing about it as much because it hasn’t really hit home yet. People are still trying to figure out: What does all this mean?Ìý

Rovner: Well, one thing that has hit home yet, I’ve wanted for a while to highlight what some of the changes to immigration policy are going to mean for health care. It’s not just ending legal status for people who came and have lived in the U.S. legally for years, or reinterpreting, again, the 1996 welfare law to declare ineligible for Medicaid and other programs many legal immigrants who are not yet permanent residents but who have been getting benefits because they had been made legally eligible for them by Congress and the president. One of the big changes to policy came to light last week when it was revealed that immigration officials are now being given access to Medicaid enrollment information, including people’s physical addresses. Why is this such a big deal? Alice, you’ve been following this whole immigration and health care issue, right?Ìý

Ollstein: Yes. Experts are warning that this is very dangerous from a public health perspective. If you deter people from physically wanting to visit a clinic or a doctor out of fear of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement there, which we’ve already seen — we’ve already seen ICE try to barge into hospitals and seize people. And so fear of that is keeping people away from their appointments. That makes it harder to manage chronic illnesses. That makes it harder to manage infectious diseases, which obviously impacts the whole community and the whole society. We all bear those costs. We live in an interconnected world. What impacts part of the population impacts the rest of the population.Ìý

And so what you mentioned about the Medicaid data, as well, deters people who are perfectly eligible, who are not undocumented, who have legal status, who are eligible for Medicaid. It deters them from enrolling, which again deters people from using that health care and keeping their conditions in check. And so there’s a lot of concern about how this could play out and how long the effect could last, because there are studies showing that policies from the first Trump administration were still deterring immigrants from enrolling even after they were lifted by the Biden administration.Ìý

Rovner: And we should point out that this whole address thing is a big issue because, as you say, there, maybe, there are a lot of families where there are people who live there who are perfectly, as you say, perfectly eligible. You’re not eligible for Medicaid if you’re not here legally. But they may live in a family, in a household with people who are not here with documentation, and they’re afraid now that if they have their addresses, that ICE is going to come knocking at their door to get, if not them, then their relatives or people who are staying with them.Ìý

Appleby: Yeah. And I think it’s also affecting employment. So nursing homes are already saying that they’re losing some people who are losing their protected status or this or that. So they’re losing employees. Some of them are reporting, from what I’ve read, that they are getting fewer applicants for jobs. This is going to make it even tougher. Many of them already have staffing issues, and the nursing home industry has said, Hey, how come we’re not getting any special consideration? Like maybe some of the farmers or other places are supposedly getting, but I don’t know if that’s actually happening. But why aren’t they being considered and why are they losing some of their workers who are here under protected status, which they’re going to lose? And some of them may also be undocumented — I don’t know. But that’s just the nursing homes. Think of all the people around the country who need help in their homes, and maybe they’re taking care of elderly parents and they hire people, and some of those people may not be documented. And that’s a vast number of folks that we’re never going to hear about, but if they start losing their caregivers as well, I think that’s going to be a big impact as we go forward.Ìý

Rovner: And it’s also skilled health workers who are here on visas who are immigrants.Ìý

Appleby: Right.Ìý

Rovner: In rural areas in particular, doctors and nurses are usually people who have been recruited from other countries because there are not enough people or not health professionals living in those rural areas. The knock-on effect of this, I think, is bigger than anybody has really sort of looked at yet.Ìý

Ollstein: Absolutely. States have even been debating and in some cases passing legislation to make it easier for foreign medical workers to come practice here, making it so that they don’t have to redo their residency if they already did their residency somewhere abroad, things like that, because there’s such shortages right now, especially in primary care and maternal care and a lot of different areas.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. This is another area that I think we’re only just beginning to see the impact of. Well, there is also news this week in Trump administration cuts that are not from the budget bill. from the Congressional Budget Office that’s separate from the latest budget reconciliation estimate, analysts said that the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration could reduce the number of new drugs coming to market. That would not only mean fewer new treatments and cures but also a hit to the economy. And apparently it doesn’t even take into account the uncertainty that’s making many researchers consider offers to decamp to Canada or Europe or other countries. There’s a real multiplier effect here on what’s a big part of U.S. innovation.Ìý

Hellmann: I’ve been talking to people on the Hill about this who traditionally have been big supporters of the NIH and authorizing and appropriating increases for the NIH every year. And they are still kind of playing a little coy. The White House is suggesting a budget cut at the NIH of 40%, which would be massive. It’s so massive that the CBO report was like: We cannot estimate the impact of this. We’re going to estimate a smaller hypothetical. Because they just can’t.Ìý

And so I think it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the appropriations process. You do have senators who are more publicly concerned about it, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who obviously is on the Appropriations Committee. So we might see a situation where Congress ignores the budget request. That usually happens, but these are weird times. And so I think there are questions about, even if they do, if Congress does proceed as normal and appropriate the money that they typically do for NIH, what is the administration going to do with it? They’ve already signaled that they’re fine not spending money that has been appropriated by Congress. And so I think that there’s a big question about that.Ìý

Rovner: At some point, this has to come to a head. We’ve been — as I say, I feel like a broken record on this. We talk about it a lot, that this is money that’s been appropriated by Congress and signed by the president and that we keep hearing that people, particularly at NIH, are not being allowed, for one reason or another, to send out. This is technically illegal impoundment. And at some point it comes to a head. We know that Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management Budget, thinks that the anti-impoundment law is illegal and that he can just ignore it. And that’s a lot of what’s happening right now. I’m still surprised that it’s the end of July and Congress is going out for the August recess — and Jessie, I know you’re talking to people and they’re playing coy — that they haven’t jumped up and down yet. The NIH in particular has been such a bipartisanly supported entity. If you’ve ever been around the campus in Bethesda, all of the buildings are named after various appropriators of both parties. This is something that is really dear to Congress, and yet they are just basically sitting there holding their tongues. At some point, won’t it stop?Ìý

Hellmann: I think maybe they’re hoping to say something through whatever legislation that they come out with, whatever spending legislation. But, yeah, they’re not being very forceful about it. And I think people are obviously just very afraid of making the Trump administration angry. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has said this, like she kind of fears the repercussions of making the president mad. And he’s on this spending-cut spree. So I definitely expected more anger, especially the bipartisan history of the NIH has lasted so long. It’s kind of a weird thing to see happen.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. Of all the things that I didn’t expect to see happen this year, that has to be the thing that I most didn’t expect to see happen this year, which was basically an administration just stopping funding research and Congress basically sitting back and letting it happen. It is still sort of boggling to my mind. Well, we also learned this week about hospitals stopping gender-affirming care of all kinds for minors, under increasing pressure from the administration. And we’re not just talking about red states anymore. Children’s hospitals in California and here in Washington, D.C., have now announced they won’t be offering the care anymore. Wasn’t it just a few months ago when people were moving from red states to blue states to get their kids care? Now what are they going to be able to do?Ìý

Ollstein: I think a lot of what we’re seeing play out in the gender-affirming care fight, it reminds me of the abortion rights fight. There are a lot of themes about the formal health care system being very, very risk-averse. And so rather than test the limits of the law, rather than continuing to provide services while things are still pingponging back and forth in courts, which is the case, they’re saying, just out of caution, We’re just going to stop altogether. And that is cutting off a lot of families from care that they were relying on. And there’s a lot of concern about the physical and mental health impacts on — again, this is very small compared to the general population of trans kids — but it’s going to hit a lot of people. And yeah, like you said, this is happening in blue states as well. There’s sort of nowhere for them to go.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. We’re going to see how this one also plays out. Well, turning to abortion, we talked last week about how a federal appeals court upheld a West Virginia law aimed at banning the abortion pill mifepristone. And I wondered why we weren’t hearing more from the drug industry about the dangers of state-by-state undermining of the FDA. And lo and behold, here come the drugmakers. In comments letters to the FDA, more than 50 biotech leaders and investors are urging the agency to disregard a controversial study from the anti-abortion think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center that officials are citing as a reason to reopen consideration of the drug’s approval. Alice, remind us what this study is and why people are so upset about it.Ìý

Ollstein: So it’s not a study, first of all. Even its supporters in the anti-abortion movement admitted, in private in a Zoom meeting that I obtained access to, that it is not a study. This is an analysis that they created. They are not disclosing the dataset that it is based on. It did not go through peer review. And so they are citing their own sort of white-paper analysis put out by an explicitly anti-abortion think tank to argue that abortion pills are more dangerous than previously known or that the FDA has previously acknowledged. There’s been a lot of fact checks and debunks of some of their main points that we’ve been through on this podcast also before. The Washington Post did if people want to look that up. But suffice it to say that that has not deterred members of Congress from citing this and to pressure the FDA.Ìý

And now you have the FDA sort of promising to do a review. If you look at the exact wording of what [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary said, I’m not sure. He said something like, Like we monitor the safety of all drugs, we’re going to blah, blah, blah. And so it’s unclear if there’s anything specific going on. But the threat that there could be, like you said, is really shaking up the drugmaking industry. And you’re hearing a lot of the same alarms that we heard from the pharmaceutical industry when this was before the Supreme Court, when they were afraid the Supreme Court would second-guess the FDA’s judgment and reimpose restrictions on mifepristone. And they’re saying, Look, if we can’t count on this being a process that just takes place based on the science and not politics and not courts coming in 25 years later and saying actually no, then why would we invest so much money in developing drugs if we can’t even count on the rules being fair and staying the same?Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. We will see how this goes. I was surprised, though. We know that that Texas case that the Supreme Court managed to not reach the point of, because the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, is still alive elsewhere. But I didn’t realize that this other case was still sort of chugging along. So we’ll see when the Supreme Court gets another bite at it. Meanwhile, the fight over funding for Planned Parenthood — whose Medicaid eligibility, at least for one year, was canceled by the new budget law — continues in court. This week a judge in Massachusetts gave the group a partial win by blocking the defunding for some smaller clinics and those that don’t perform abortions, but that ruling replaced a more blanket delay on the defunding. So many clinics are now having their funding stopped while the court fight continues. Alice, what’s the impact here of these Planned Parenthood clinics closing down? It’s not just abortion that we’re talking about. In fact, it’s not even primarily abortion that we’re talking about.Ìý

Ollstein: Absolutely. So this is one, it’s set to hit a lot of clinics in states where abortion is legal. And so these are the clinics that are serving a lot of people traveling from red states. And so there’s already an issue with wait times, and this is set to make it worse. But that’s just for abortion. Like you said, this is also set to hit a bunch of clinics in states where abortion is illegal and where these clinics are only providing other services, like birth control, like STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing. And at the same time we’re having a lot of other funding frozen, and so this could really be tough for some of these areas where there aren’t a lot of providers, and especially there are not a lot of providers who accept Medicaid.Ìý

Rovner: Meanwhile, a number of states are passing conscience laws that let health professionals opt out of things like doing abortions or providing gender-affirming care if they violate their beliefs. Well, in Tennessee now we have a story of a pregnant woman who says her doctor refused to provide her with prenatal care, because she’s not married to her partner of 15 years. She said at a congressional town hall that her doctor said her marital status violated his Christian beliefs, and he’s apparently protected by the new Tennessee state law called the Medical Ethics Defense Act. I’ve heard of doctors refusing to prescribe birth control for unmarried women, but this is a new one to me, and I’ve been doing this for a very long time. Are these just unintended consequences of these things that maybe state lawmakers didn’t think a lot about? Or are they OK with doctors saying, We’re not going to provide you with prenatal care if you’re pregnant and not married?Ìý

Ollstein: So one, as we just said, we’re in a situation where there is such a shortage of providers and such a shortage of providers who accept certain coverage that being turned away by one place, you might not be able to get an appointment somewhere else, depending where you live. And so this isn’t just an issue of, Oh, well, just don’t go to that doctor who believes that. People have very limited choices in a lot of circumstances. But I—Ìý

Rovner: Apparently this woman in Tennessee said she’s having to go to Virginia to get her prenatal care.Ìý

Ollstein: Well, exactly. Yeah. Exactly. This isn’t like people have tons of options. And also this is an example of a slippery slope, of if you allow people to be able to refuse service for this reason, for that reason, what else could happen? And some states have more legal protections for things like marital status, and some do not. And so it’s worth thinking through what could be sort of the next wave.Ìý

Rovner: Well, we’re certainly going to see what the outcome of this could be. Well, before we end our news segment this week, I want to give a shoutout to tennis legend Venus Williams, who at age 45 won a singles match at a professional tournament here in Washington this week and said in her post-match interview that she came back to playing because she needed the pro tour’s health insurance to take care of several chronic conditions that she has. So see, even rich athletes need their health insurance. All right. That is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Medicare historian Jonathan Oberlander, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.Ìý

I am so pleased to welcome Jonathan Oberlander to the podcast. He’s a professor of social medicine, professor of health policy and management, and adjunct professor of political science at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill and one of the nation’s leading experts on Medicare. Jon, welcome to “What the Health?”Ìý

Jonathan Oberlander: Great to see you, Julie.Ìý

Rovner: So Medicare, to me at least, remains the greatest paradox in the paradox that is the U.S. health care system. It is at once both so popular and so untouchable that it’s considered the third rail of politics, yet at its core it’s a painfully out-of-date and meager benefit that nevertheless threatens to go bankrupt on a regular basis. How did we get here?Ìý

Oberlander: Wow. So let’s talk about the benefits for a minute. And I think one of the things we can say about Medicare in 2025 as we mark this 60th anniversary is it still bears the imprint of Medicare in 1965. And when Medicare was designed as a program — and the idea really dates back to the early 1950s — it was not seen as a comprehensive benefit. It was intended to pay for the most consequential costs of medical care, for acute care costs. And so when it was enacted in 1965, the benefits were incomplete. And the problem is, as you know very well, they haven’t been added to all that much. And here we have a population, and all of us know as we get older, we generally don’t get healthier. I wish it was true, but it’s not. Older persons deal with all kinds of complex medical issues and have a lot of medical needs, and yet Medicare’s benefits are very limited, so limited that actually a very small percentage of Medicare beneficiaries have only Medicare. Most Medicare beneficiaries have Medicare plus something else. And that may be an individual private plan that they purchase called a Medigap plan, or maybe a declining number of people have retiree health insurance that supplements Medicare.Ìý

Some low-income Medicare beneficiaries have Medicaid as well as Medicare and they are dual-eligible. Some Medicare beneficiaries have extra benefits through the Medicare Advantage program, which I’m sure—Ìý

Rovner: We’ll get to.Ìý

Oberlander: —we’ll have a lot to say. So the bottom line, though, is Medicare has grown. It has, what, about 70 million Americans rely on Medicare. But the benefit package — with some intermittent exceptions that are significant, such as the addition of outpatient prescription drugs in 2006 — really has not kept pace.Ìý

Rovner: So let’s go back to the beginning. What was the problem that Medicare set out to solve?Ìý

Oberlander: Well, it was both a substantive problem and a political problem. The origins of Medicare are in the ashes, the failure, of the Truman administration proposals for national health insurance during the mid- and late 1940s. And after they had lost repeatedly, health reformers decided they needed a new strategy. So instead of national health insurance, what today we would call a single-payer, federal-government-run program for everybody, they trimmed their ambitions down to, initially, just hospital insurance, 60 days of hospital insurance for elderly Social Security beneficiaries. And that was it. And they thought if they just focused on older Americans, maybe they would tamp down the controversy and the opposition and the American Medical Association and charges of socialized medicine, all things that are really throwing a wrench into plans for national health insurance. It didn’t quite work out as they thought. It took about 14 years from the time Medicare was proposed to enact it. And there was a big, divisive, controversial debate about Medicare’s enactment. But it was fundamentally a solution to that political problem of, how do you enact government health insurance in the United States? You pick a more sympathetic population.Ìý

Now, there was a substantive problem, which was in the 1940s and especially 1950s, private health insurance was growing in the United States for Americans who are working-age, and that growth of employer-sponsored health insurance really left out retirees. They were expensive. Commercial insurers didn’t want to cover them. And the uninsured rate, if you can believe it, for people over age 65, before Medicare, was around 50%. Not 15 but five zero, 50%. And so here you had a population that had more medical needs, was more expensive, and they had less access to health insurance than younger people. And Medicare was created in part to end that disparity and give them access to reliable coverage.Ìý

Rovner: So as you mentioned, Medicare was initially just aimed at elderly Social Security recipients. What were some of the biggest benefit and population changes as the years went by?Ìý

Oberlander: So in terms of populations in 1972, Medicare added coverage for persons who have end-stage renal disease, so people who need dialysis no matter what the age. It’s a lifesaving technology. They can qualify for Medicare. It didn’t really make sense to add it to Medicare — it’s just it was there. So they added it to Medicare. And also a population we don’t talk nearly enough about, younger Americans with permanent disabilities who are recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance. For a couple of years they qualify for Medicare as well and are a very important part in the Medicare population. Beyond that, Medicare’s covered population has not really changed all that much since the beginning, which actually would be a great disappointment to the architects of Medicare, who thought the program would expand to eventually cover everybody.Ìý

In terms of benefits, the benefit package has been remarkably stable, for better and actually probably for worse, with the exception of, for example, the addition of outpatient prescription drug coverage, which came online in 2006, the addition of coverage for various preventive services such as mammography and cancer screenings. But Medicare still does not cover long-term stays in nursing homes. Many Americans think it does. They will be disappointed to find out it does not. Medicare does not cover, generally, hearing or vision or dental services. Traditional Medicare run by the government does not have a cap on the amount of money that beneficiaries can spend in a year on deductibles and copayments and so forth. So really its benefits remain quite limited.Ìý

Rovner: So Medicare is also the biggest payer in the nation’s health care system and for decades set the standard in how private insurance covered and paid for health care. So let’s talk about privatization. Medicare Advantage, the private health plan alternative to traditional Medicare, is now more than half the program, both in terms of people and in terms of budget. Is this the future of Medicare? Or will we look back in many years and see it as kind of a temporary diversion?Ìý

Oberlander: I think it’s the present and probably the future. The future is always so hard to predict, Julie, because it’s unwritten. But this is really a shocking outcome historically, because what Medicare’s architects expected was that the program was going to expand government health insurance to all Americans, first with the older population, then adding children, then adding everybody. Did not turn out that way. The original aspiration was Medicare for all, through any incremental means. Instead, 60 years later, we don’t have Medicare for all, but Medicare is mostly privatized. It’s a hybrid program with a public and private component that increasingly is dominated by private insurance. And the fact that over half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in these private plans is a stunning development historically, by the way with lots of implications politically, because that’s an important new political force in Medicare that you have these large private plans and it’s changed Medicare politics.Ìý

I don’t think Medicare Advantage is going anywhere. I think the question is, how big is it going to get? And I’m not sure any of us know. It’s been on a growth trajectory for a long time. And the question is — given that all the studies show that Medicare Advantage plans are overpaid, and overpaid by a lot, by the federal government, and it’s losing a lot of money on Medicare Advantage, and it’s never saved money — is there going to come a point where they actually clamp down? There’ve been some incremental efforts to try and restrain payments. Really haven’t had much effect. Are we actually going to get to a place where the federal government says: We need savings, yeah. This 22% extra that you’re getting, no, we can’t do that anymore. So I think it’s an open question about, how big is it going to get? Is it going to be two-thirds of the Medicare program, three-quarters of the Medicare program? And if so, then what is the future, turning the question on its head, of traditional Medicare if it’s that small? And that’s one of the great questions about Medicare in the next decade or two.Ìý

Rovner: Thank you so much.Ìý

Oberlander: Oh, thanks for having me. It was great to see you.Ìý

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile devices. Julie, why don’t you go first this week?Ìý

Appleby: Yeah. I found this story on NPR quite interesting. It’s maybe something that a lot of us have thought about, but it just added a lot of numbers to the question of how many chemicals are in our beauty products — basically, the makeup we use, the lotions, our hairspray, the stuff that happens at the salon, that kind of thing. And it’s called “.” And it was written by Rachel Treisman. Basically it says that the average American adult uses about 12 personal care products a day, resulting in exposure to about 168 chemicals, which can include things like formaldehyde, mercury, asbestos, etc., etc. OK, so that’s interesting. But it also talks about how the European Union has banned more than 2,000 chemicals, basically, but the FDA puts limits on only about a dozen.Ìý

So this has caused four Democratic lawmakers to introduce a package of legislation, actually they’re calling the Safer Beauty Bill Package, and it’s four bills. And basically one of them would ban two entire classes of chemicals, phthalates and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals. And it also calls for some other things as well, which they say hasn’t been done and needs to be looked at. So I just thought it was an interesting thing that pulled together a lot of data from various sources and talked about this package of bills and whether or not it might make a difference in terms of looking at some of these chemicals in the products we use all the time and requiring a little bit more transparency about that. It’s a step. I don’t know if it’s going to resolve everybody’s concerns about this, but I just thought it was an interesting little piece looking at that topic.Ìý

Rovner: It’s worth remembering that the FDA’s governing statute is actually called the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.Ìý

Appleby: That’s right.Ìý

Rovner: The cosmetics often gets very short shrift in that whole thing. Alice, why don’t you go next?Ìý

Ollstein: Yeah. So I have a piece from The Associated Press. It’s called “.” And so this really gets at something we’ve been talking about on the podcast, where the administration is really fixated on a few kind of superficial food health things like colored dyes in food and frying something in beef tallow instead of vegetable oil. But something fried in beef tallow is still unhealthy. Froot Loops without the color dye are still unhealthy. And these meals that he is promoting as a service for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees are unhealthy. So this article is about how they do have chemical additives, they are high in sodium and sugar and saturated fats, and so it’s not in sort of keeping with the overall MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] message. But in a way it kind of is.Ìý

Rovner: From the oops file. Jessie.Ìý

Hellmann: My extra credit is from my colleague Ariel Cohen at Roll Call. It’s called “.” She did a story about something that kind of, I think, flew under the radar this week. The Trump administration is starting to make good on its promise to look at SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], and the panel was very much full of skeptics of SSRIs who sought to undermine the confidence in using them while pregnant. And Marty Makary himself, FDA commissioner, claimed it could cause birth defects and other fetal harm. That was a statement that was echoed by many of the panelists. There was only one panelist who talked about the benefits of SSRIs in pregnant people who need them, the risks of postpartum depression to both the mom and the baby. And so I think this is definitely something to keep an eye on, is it looks like they’re going to keep looking more at this and raising questions about SSRIs without having much of a nuanced conversation about it.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. I did see something from ACOG, from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, this week pushing back very hard on the anti-SSRI-during-pregnancy push. So we’ll see how that one goes, too. My extra credit this week is from my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Katheryn Houghton, and it’s called “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife With Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules.” And it’s about something that didn’t really come up during the whole Medicaid debate, the fact that if Republicans really want people to go to work, well, then maybe they shouldn’t take away their health insurance if they get a small raise or a few extra hours. The subject of this story, only identified as James, technically makes about $50 a week too much to stay on Medicaid, but he otherwise can’t afford his six prescription medications and he can’t afford the care that he needs through even a subsidized Affordable Care Act plan, or his employer’s plan, either.Ìý

The point of the ACA was to make coverage seamless so that as you earn more, you can still afford coverage even if you’re not on Medicaid anymore. But obviously that isn’t happening for everyone. Quoting from the story: “‘I don’t want to be a fraud. I don’t want to die,’ James said. ‘Those shouldn’t be the only two options.’” Yet for a lot of people they are. It’s not great, and it’s not something that’s currently being addressed by policymakers.Ìý

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me still on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging on social media these days? Jessie?Ìý

Hellmann: I’m @jessiehellmann on and .Ìý

Rovner: Alice.Ìý

Ollstein: on X and on Bluesky.Ìý

Rovner: Julie.Ìý

Appleby: on X.Ìý

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.Ìý

Credits

To hear all our podcasts,Ìýclick here.

And subscribe to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “What the Health?” onÌý,Ìý,Ìý, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Now, another proposed twist in the rules could mean that, even though Missouri pays her to do that work, she might still have to prove to the state that she’s not unemployed.

The Kansas City, Missouri, resident has cared for her disabled son, Daniel, for all 31 years of his life. A rare genetic condition called Prader-Willi syndrome, in addition to autism, left him with an intellectual disability; a constant, excessive hunger; and an inability to speak. His needs left Gallagher, an elementary school teacher by training, with little opportunity to work outside her home.

As congressional Republicans slash in federal Medicaid spending, Gallagher is among the 18.5 million Americans who could be required to prove that they work enough to keep their health insurance.

A budget bill that passed the House and Senate would require 80 hours of work or community service a month for adults who are insured through the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion program, which has allowed states to extend Medicaid coverage to more adults with low incomes. Forty states, plus Washington, D.C., have expanded their programs, additions that now cover about 20 million Americans, including Gallagher.

She enrolled in the coverage in December 2023, after she could no longer afford her private insurance. Before her husband died of cancer in 2019, the couple paid for private insurance and supported themselves on the income he earned as a master watchmaker. After his death, Gallagher was left to earn a living and find insurance on her own. At 59, she’s too young to collect her husband’s Social Security survivor benefit.

The Medicaid program that pays for in-home care for Daniel and 8,000 other Missourians with disabilities allows family members to be compensated for caregiving, but only if they’re not the legal guardian of the person they care for. So, Gallagher went to court to give up her rights to make decisions for her son and transfer authority to her parents.

“I think it’s appalling that it’s required, but it was necessary,” she said. “There was no way I could work outside of taking care of Daniel.”

Republicans have touted Medicaid work requirements both as a way to reduce federal spending on the program and as a moral imperative for Americans.

“Go out there. Do entry-level jobs. Get into the workforce. Prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,” Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said in a recent interview on Fox Business.

Democrats, meanwhile, have red tape that won’t meaningfully increase employment but will cause eligible people to lose their health insurance because of administrative hurdles.

Indeed, the of Americans enrolled in Medicaid expansion are already working, caregiving, attending school, or have a disability, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

And while the Congressional Budget Office estimates the work requirement included in the House bill would cause to lose their insurance, only of those people are unemployed because of lack of interest in working, according to the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research group. Recent history in states that have tried work requirements suggests technical and paperwork problems have caused a substantial portion of coverage losses.

Still, the provisions are generally popular among Republican lawmakers and the public. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has cutting people off from Medicaid, has signaled support for adding work requirements.

And 68% of Americans favor the requirement described in the House bill, according to a conducted by KFF. But support for work requirements dropped as low as 35% when respondents learned that most Medicaid recipients already work and could lose their coverage because of paperwork requirements.

That’s what happened in Arkansas, where 18,000 people in 2018 after the state phased in a work requirement. Thousands more were on pace to lose coverage in 2019 before a , largely over concerns about coverage losses. In discussions with focus groups, KFF found that many Arkansas Medicaid participants did not fully understand the requirements, despite the state’s outreach efforts, and some people didn’t receive mailed notices. Others were confused because the work-reporting paperwork and separate forms to renew Medicaid coverage asked for similar information.

Many family caregivers would be exempt from the work requirements proposed in Congress, but Gallagher probably would not, since she had to relinquish guardianship of her son to be paid for the work. While the hours she already logs should be enough to satisfy the requirement, she’ll need to report them again — unless the state can identify her through its existing data. But Missouri has a history of procedural problems in the state agency that administers Medicaid.

In early 2022, for example, Missouri was taking more than 100 days on average to process applications for Medicaid expansion, a wait that prompted patients to put off needed care and was more than twice the processing time allowed by federal law.

And 79% of the more than 378,000 Missourians who lost Medicaid coverage when covid-era enrollment protections ended in 2023 did so because .

The next year, a federal judge ruled that Missourians were by the state, in part because insufficient staffing at call centers left eligible people without assistance.

“They’re historically understaffed,” Timothy McBride, a health economist at Washington University in St. Louis, said of the state agency that administers Medicaid and food assistance. “I think that’s really the underlying problem.”

McBride’s analysis of Missouri’s Medicaid recipients found that of the people enrolled in expansion in 2023 were unemployed for reasons other than caregiving, disability, attending school, or retirement. But many Missourians could lose their insurance if work requirements prompt disenrollment rates similar to Arkansas’ implementation, according to a study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank that analyzes government policies.

The estimate assumes many otherwise eligible people would still lose coverage as a result of falling through the cracks, McBride said.

Hawley, who backed the Senate bill, declined to comment for this article. The senator previously that “we can sort that out” when asked about eligible people inadvertently losing Medicaid because of work requirements.

Gallagher worries about her coverage, because she recently was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s disease, an autoimmune disorder that attacks the thyroid gland. She said she had to search for her Medicaid card to fill the prescription that followed, having barely used it in the year in a half she’s been covered.

She also worries about her son’s Medicaid. A nursing home is not a realistic option, considering his needs. His coverage doubles as Gallagher’s only source of income and also pays for other caregivers, when she can find them, who give her breaks to tend to her own health and to her aging parents.

But nearly all like those Daniel receives are optional programs that states are not required to include in their Medicaid programs. And the magnitude of the cuts being proposed have prompted fears that the optional programs could be chopped.

“It would destroy our lives,” Gallagher said. “The only income we would have would be Daniel’s Social Security.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

About two-thirds of Republican-leaning parents are unaware of an uptick in measles cases this year while about two-thirds of Democratic ones knew about it, according to a .

Republicans are far more skeptical of vaccines and twice as likely (1 in 5) as Democrats (1 in 10) to believe the measles shot is worse than the disease, according to the survey of 1,380 U.S. adults.

Some 35% of Republicans answering the survey, which was conducted April 8-15 online and by telephone, said the discredited theory linking the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to autism was definitely or probably true — compared with just 10% of Democrats.

The trends are roughly the same as KFF reported in a June 2023 survey. But in the new poll, 3 in 10 parents erroneously believed that vitamin A can prevent measles infections, a theory Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has brought into play since taking office during the measles outbreak.

About 900 cases have been reported in 27 U.S. states, mostly in a West Texas-centered outbreak.

“The most alarming thing about the survey is that we’re seeing an uptick in the share of people who have heard these claims,” said co-author Ashley Kirzinger, associate director of KFF’s Public Opinion and Survey Research Program. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

“It’s not that more people are believing the autism theory, but more and more people are hearing about it,” Kirzinger said. Since doubts about vaccine safety directly reduce parents’ vaccination of their children, “that shows how important it is for actual information to be part of the media landscape,” she said.

“This is what one would expect when people are confused by conflicting messages coming from people in positions of authority,” said Kelly Moore, president and CEO of Immunize.org, a vaccination advocacy group.

Numerous scientific studies have established no link between any vaccine and autism. But Kennedy has ordered HHS to undertake an investigation of possible environmental contributors to autism, promising to have “” behind an increase in the incidence of the condition by September.

The deepening Republican skepticism toward vaccines makes it hard for accurate information to break through in many parts of the nation, said Rekha Lakshmanan, chief strategy officer at The Immunization Partnership, in Houston.

Lakshmanan on April 23 was to present a paper on countering anti-vaccine activism to the World Vaccine Congress in Washington. It was based on a survey that found that in the Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma state assemblies, lawmakers with medical professions were among those least likely to support public health measures.

“There is a political layer that influences these lawmakers,” she said. When lawmakers invite vaccine opponents to testify at legislative hearings, for example, it feeds a deluge of misinformation that is difficult to counter, she said.

Eric Ball, a pediatrician in Ladera Ranch, California, which was hit by a 2014-15 measles outbreak that started in Disneyland, said fear of measles and tighter California state restrictions on vaccine exemptions had staved off new infections in his Orange County community.

“The biggest downside of measles vaccines is that they work really well. Everyone gets vaccinated, no one gets measles, everyone forgets about measles,” he said. “But when it comes back, they realize there are kids getting really sick and potentially dying in my community, and everyone says, ‘Holy crap; we better vaccinate!’”

Ball treated three very sick children with measles in 2015. Afterward his practice stopped seeing unvaccinated patients. “We had had babies exposed in our waiting room,” he said. “We had disease spreading in our office, which was not cool.”

Although two otherwise healthy young girls died of measles during the Texas outbreak, “people still aren’t scared of the disease,” said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which has seen a few cases.

But the deaths “have created more angst, based on the number of calls I’m getting from parents trying to vaccinate their 4-month-old and 6-month-old babies,” Offit said. Children generally get their first measles shot at age 1, because it tends not to produce full immunity if given at a younger age.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Jackie Fortiér contributed to this report.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La nueva encuesta encontró otros cambios entre las mujeres votantes que pueden beneficiar a Harris, incluyendo un aumento de 24 puntos porcentuales en el número de mujeres que afirmaron estar satisfechas con la elección de sus candidatos y un aumento de 19 puntos en el número de las que dijeron estar más motivadas para votar que en anteriores elecciones presidenciales.

Los cambios sugieren que las mujeres dejaron de apoyar de manera significativa al ex presidente Donald Trump en solo unos meses.

“La situación parece peor para Donald Trump que en junio”, dijo Ashley Kirzinger, directora de metodología de encuestas en KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro sobre información de salud que incluye a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. “Que Harris se convirtiera en la candidata presidencial demócrata dinamizó a las mujeres votantes de una forma que la candidatura de Biden no había conseguido”.El presidente Joe Biden abandonó su candidatura a la reelección el 21 de julio, presionado por los líderes del Partido Demócrata y tras una actuación llena de tropiezos en el debate de junio contra Trump, que reavivó las dudas sobre la aptitud del presidente de 81 años para un segundo mandato.

Aunque las mujeres se muestran más entusiastas a la hora de votar por Harris que por Biden, la elección sigue siendo reñida. Harris tiene una ventaja de 2,5 puntos en las encuestas nacionales, según un análisis de FiveThirtyEight. Otros sondeos han detectado una gran división de género en la elección, con una mayoría de mujeres que apoyan a Harris, y una mayoría de hombres que respaldan a Trump.

Harris ha sido durante mucho tiempo una de las principales defensoras del derecho al aborto del Partido Demócrata, y ha atacado a Trump por nombrar para la Corte Suprema a tres jueces conservadores que se sumaron a la sentencia de 2022 que anuló el caso Roe v. Wade, el dictamen histórico de 1973 que garantizó el acceso al aborto a nivel nacional.

Desde entonces, 13 estados han prohibido el aborto con pocas excepciones, .

Trump defiende que el fallo simplemente devolvió el controversial tema a los estados, y aunque sus posiciones han cambiado a menudo, recientemente ha prometido no convertir en ley una prohibición nacional del aborto. Harris ha repetido que ella firmaría una ley que restableciera el derecho al aborto en todo el país.

El ex presidente ha hecho, en ocasiones, extraños e incómodos llamamientos a las mujeres votantes.

“Estarán protegidas, y yo seré su protector”, dijo Trump, dirigiéndose a las mujeres votantes, en un mitín el 23 de septiembre en Indiana, Pennsylvania. “Las mujeres serán felices, sanas, tendrán seguridad y serán libres. Ya no pensarán en el aborto”.

El sondeo de KFF reveló que Harris le está ganando terreno a Trump entre las mujeres no sólo en materia de aborto —un tema al que el ex presidente trata de restar importancia, reconociendo su peligro político—, sino también en temas económicos, que Trump y sus asesores consideran uno de sus argumentos más sólidos para su regreso a la Casa Blanca.

Múltiples sondeos han mostrado que la economía sigue siendo un tema prioritario en las elecciones, especialmente para las mujeres afroamericanas e hispanas. Un 75% de las encuestadas en el sondeo de KFF dijeron que se preocupan por los gastos del hogar “mucho” o “algo”.

La inflación fue el principal problema para el 36% de las encuestadas del KFF, mientras que el 13% señaló el aborto como su prioridad.

Alrededor del 46% de las mujeres votantes en la nueva encuesta dijeron que confían en Harris sobre Trump para abordar los gastos del hogar, mientras que el 39% confía más en el ex presidente. El 16% dijo que ninguno de los dos.

En la encuesta anterior de KFF realizada con mujeres en primavera, las encuestadas se dividieron casi por igual en cuanto a qué partido confiaban más para abordar el aumento de los costos domésticos. Un 40% dijo que no confiaba en ninguno de los dos partidos.

En cuanto a los costos de salud, Harris mantiene una ventaja significativa sobre Trump en la nueva encuesta, con un 50% que confía más en ella en esta cuestión, un 34% que confía más en Trump y un 16% que no confía en ninguno de los dos.

Kirzinger señaló que las mujeres afroamericanas prefieren especialmente a Harris en cuestiones económicas; por ejemplo, confían en la vicepresidenta 7 a 1 sobre Trump en materia de inflación, dijo.

Más de la mitad de los votantes estadounidenses han sido mujeres en las dos últimas elecciones nacionales, según la Oficina del Censo.

“Un candidato demócrata necesita ganar a las mujeres en tasas muy altas y necesita entusiasmar a la base, que en gran parte está formada por mujeres”, indicó Kirzinger. “Lo que vimos a principios de junio fue que la candidatura de Biden no lo estaba consiguiendo. Ahora parece que la campaña de Harris lo está logrando en una variedad de temas; no se trata sólo del aborto. Es ella como candidata la que entusiasma a las mujeres”.

La encuesta de KFF se realizó desde el 12 de septiembre al 1 de octubre entre 649 mujeres que habían sido encuestadas en primavera, e incluyó una muestra suplementaria de 29 mujeres afroamericanas votantes registradas. El margen de error fue de más o menos 5 puntos.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Nearly 4 in 10 women under 30 surveyed in September and early October told pollsters that abortion is the most important issue to their vote. Just 20% named abortion as their top issue when KFF conducted a similar survey in late May and early June.

The new survey found other shifts among women voters that stand to benefit Harris, including an increase of 24 percentage points in the number of women who said they were satisfied with their choice of candidates and a 19-point increase in the number who said they were more motivated to vote than in previous presidential elections. The changes suggest a significant setback among women in just a few months for former President Donald Trump.

“It looks worse for Donald Trump than it did back in June,” said Ashley Kirzinger, director of survey methodology at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. “Harris becoming the Democratic presidential nominee energized women voters in a way that the Biden candidacy had not.”

President Joe Biden abandoned his reelection bid on July 21, under pressure from Democratic Party leaders, after a stumbling performance in a June debate against Trump that reignited concerns about the 81-year-old’s fitness for a second term.

While women are more enthusiastic about voting for Harris than they were for Biden, the election remains close. Harris has a 2.5-point edge in national polls, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis. Other polls have found a large gender divide in the election, with a majority of women backing Harris and a majority of men backing Trump.

Harris has long been one of the Democratic Party’s foremost advocates for abortion rights, and she has assailed Trump for appointing three conservative justices to the Supreme Court who joined in the 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 opinion that guaranteed abortion access nationally. Thirteen states have since banned abortion with few exceptions, .

Trump says the ruling merely returned the issue to states, and though his positions have often shifted, he has recently promised not to sign a national abortion ban. Harris says she would sign a law restoring nationwide abortion rights.

The former president has made sometimes awkward appeals to women voters.

“You will be protected, and I will be your protector,” Trump told women voters at a rally Sept. 23 in Indiana, Pennsylvania. “Women will be happy, healthy, confident, and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion.”

The KFF poll found that Harris is gaining on Trump among women not just on abortion — a subject the former president tries to downplay, acknowledging its political peril — but also on economic issues, which Trump and his advisers regard as among their strongest arguments for his return to the White House.

Multiple polls have shown that the economy remains a top issue in the election, especially for Black and Hispanic women. About 75% of respondents in the KFF survey said they worry about household expenses “a lot” or “some.”

Inflation was the top issue for 36% of KFF survey respondents overall, while 13% identified abortion as their priority.

About 46% of women voters in the new poll said they trust Harris over Trump to address household costs, while 39% trust the former president more. Sixteen percent said neither.

In KFF’s previous poll of women in the spring, respondents were nearly evenly split on which party they trusted more to address rising household costs. About 40% said they trusted neither party.

On health care costs, Harris holds a significant lead over Trump in the new poll, with 50% trusting her more on the issue, 34% trusting Trump more, and 16% trusting neither.

Kirzinger said Black women especially prefer Harris on economic issues; for example, they trust the vice president 7-to-1 over Trump on inflation, she said.

More than half of U.S. voters have been women in the last two national elections, according to the Census Bureau.

“A Democratic candidate needs to win women at very high rates and needs to enthuse the base — which largely consists of women,” Kirzinger said. “What we saw in early June was, the Biden candidacy was not doing that. Now it seems the Harris campaign is doing that in multiple different ways; it’s not just abortion. It’s her as a candidate making women more enthusiastic.”

The KFF poll was conducted Sept. 12 to Oct. 1 among 649 women who had been surveyed in the spring, as well as a supplemental sample of 29 Black women registered voters. The margin of error was plus or minus 5 points.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La , que se realizó con casi 6,300 pacientes que han estado recibiendo atención en los últimos tres años, encontró que alrededor del 55% de los adultos de raza negra sienten que deben tener mucho cuidado con su apariencia para ser tratados de manera justa por los médicos y otros proveedores de atención de salud.

Casi la mitad de los pacientes hispanos, los Indio americanos y los nativos de Alaska sienten lo mismo, al igual que aproximadamente 4 de cada 10 pacientes asiáticos.

En comparación, el 29% de los blancos no hispanos encuestados dijeron que se preocupaban por su apariencia antes de las citas.

“En 2023, la noción de que cualquier persona debe prepararse para sufrir discriminación es triste por un lado y enojoso por el otro”, dijo , director ejecutivo de la National Minority Health Association, en un correo electrónico . “El estrés que causa, además de cualquier problema de salud involucrado… es una locura”.

La discriminación ha sido durante mucho tiempo una preocupación tanto para los pacientes como para los proveedores de atención médica, en un país en donde las disparidades raciales en los resultados de salud son enormes y .

Un hombre hispano de 30 años de Illinois, que respondió a la encuesta de KFF, dijo a los investigadores que cuando va a sus citas médicas usa ropa con el logo de la universidad en donde trabaja. Se dio cuenta que cuando los proveedores se enteran que es profesor, lo escuchan más atentamente y lo involucran más en las decisiones médicas, dijo.

Una mujer asiática de 44 años de California dijo que sus médicos varones, blancos no hispanos, ignoraron sus preocupaciones sobre sus problemas respiratorios y le dijeron que “probablemente estaba pensando demasiado en respirar”. Más tarde le diagnosticaron asma.

Los dos encuestados no fueron identificados con nombre y apellido en el estudio.

La encuesta ofrece “una manera de cuantificar realmente cuáles son esas experiencias con el racismo y la discriminación, y las múltiples formas en las que luego impactan en la vida de las personas”, dijo , directora del programa de políticas de salud y equidad racial de KFF.

“Para las personas que han estado siguiendo estos temas durante mucho tiempo, los hallazgos no son inesperados”, agregó. Otros hallazgos del sondeo fueron:

• Un tercio de los adultos informaron al menos una de varias experiencias negativas con un proveedor de atención médica en los últimos tres años, como que un profesional asumiera algo sobre ellos sin preguntar, o sugiriera que ellos eran los responsables de su problema de salud.
• Casi una cuarta parte de los adultos negros, el 19% de los adultos nativos de Alaska y nativos americanos, el 15% de los adultos hispanos y el 11% de los adultos asiáticos dijeron que creían que habían sufrido un trato negativo debido a su raza u origen étnico.
• El 22% de las embarazadas o que dieron a luz en los últimos 10 años, de raza negra, dijeron que les negaron los analgésicos que pensaban necesitaban. Sólo el 10% de los adultos blancos no hispanos en circunstancias similares informaron la misma queja.

Cuando las personas no se sienten respetadas o bienvenidas por sus proveedores de salud, es posible que eso los desanime a buscar ayuda médica o que cambien de proveedor con más frecuencia, dijo Artiga. Los pacientes de poblaciones minoritarias “experimentan peor salud como resultado de un trato injusto en el sistema de atención médica”, agregó.

La encuesta también encontró que la discriminación fuera del sistema de atención médica tenía consecuencias para la salud. Las personas que dijeron haber experimentado discriminación en su vida cotidiana informaron dos veces más seguido que a menudo se sentían ansiosas, solas o deprimidas en comparación con aquellas que rara vez o nunca habían enfrentado discriminación.

La encuesta encontró que las personas negras que reportaron tonos de piel más oscuros tenían más probabilidades de haber sufrido discriminación que aquellos con piel más clara. También reveló “cómo persisten y prevalecen las experiencias de racismo y discriminación hoy en día, en la vida diaria y también en la atención médica, a pesar del aumento de las alertas y el abordaje sobre el racismo”, dijo , directora de investigación de encuestas y opinión pública de KFF.

La diversidad entre los proveedores de atención médica es importante, según la encuesta. La mayoría de las personas de minorías que participaron en la encuesta dijeron que menos de la mitad de sus visitas médicas en los últimos tres años fueron con un proveedor de su misma raza u origen étnico. Los que sí vieron a un médico de su misma raza o etnia tuvieron más probabilidades de informar mejores experiencias, como que su médico les explicara las cosas “de una manera que pudieran entender” o les preguntara sobre otros factores de salud como su empleo, vivienda y acceso a alimentos y transporte.

El 40% de los adultos negros que vieron a proveedores de su mi raza reportaron haber discutido temas sociales y económicos, mientras que solo el 24% dijo haber charlado sobre estos temas con proveedores de otras razas.

​Harrison, de la National Minority Health Association, escribió que “es vital un énfasis renovado en reclutar más personas de color en el campo de la atención médica”.

Agregó que la encuesta “ilustra dolorosamente que el prejuicio racial en la atención sanitaria es tan dañino como cualquier enfermedad”.

La “Encuesta sobre racismo, discriminación y salud” de KFF se realizó del 6 de junio al 14 de agosto en línea y por teléfono entre una muestra representativa a nivel nacional de adultos estadounidenses en inglés, español, chino, coreano y vietnamita.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The of nearly 6,300 patients who have had care in the past three years found that about 55% of Black adults feel they have to be very careful about their appearance to be treated fairly by doctors and other health providers. Nearly half of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Hispanic patients feel similarly, as do about 4 in 10 Asian patients.

By comparison, 29% of white people surveyed said they worried about their appearance before appointments.

“In 2023, the notion that any person must prepare for discrimination is sad on one hand and angering on the other,” , executive director of the National Minority Health Association, wrote in an email. “The stress that this causes, in addition to whatever health issue involved, is crazy.”

Discrimination has long been a concern for both patients and health providers in the U.S., where racial disparities in health outcomes are vast and particularly .

A 30-year-old Hispanic man in Illinois who responded to the KFF survey told researchers he wears clothes to health care appointments with the logo of the university where he works. He noticed, he said, that when health care providers know he is a professor, they listen to him more intently and involve him more in care decisions.

A 44-year-old Asian woman in California told the researchers that her white male doctors ignored her concerns about breathing issues, telling her she “was probably just thinking too hard about breathing.” She was later diagnosed with asthma.

The two respondents were not identified in the study.

The survey offers “a way to actually quantify what those experiences are with racism and discrimination, and the multitude of ways they then impact people’s lives,” said , director of KFF’s racial equity and health policy program.

“For folks who have been following these issues for a long time, the findings are not unexpected,” she said.

Other findings:

• A third of adults reported at least one of several negative experiences with a health care provider in the past three years, such as a professional assuming something about them without asking, or suggesting they were to blame for a health problem.
• Nearly a quarter of Black adults, 19% of Alaska Native and Native American adults, 15% of Hispanic adults, and 11% of Asian adults said they believed they endured negative treatment because of their race or ethnicity.
• Twenty-two percent of Black adults who were pregnant or gave birth in the past 10 years said they were denied pain medication they thought they needed. Just 10% of white adults in similar circumstances reported the same complaint.

When people don’t feel respected or welcomed by their health care providers, they may be discouraged to reach out for medical help or may switch providers more often, Artiga said. Members of minority populations are found to be “experiencing worse health as a result of experiencing unfair treatment in the health care system,” she said.

The survey also found that discrimination outside the health care system had health consequences. People who said they experienced discrimination in their everyday lives were more than twice as likely to report often feeling anxious, lonely, or depressed compared with those who rarely or never faced discrimination.

Black people who self-reported darker skin tones were more likely to have encountered discrimination than those with lighter skin, the survey found.

The survey reveals “how persistent and prevalent experiences with racism and discrimination remain today, in daily life and also in health care, despite, really, the increased calls and focus on addressing racism,” said , KFF’s director of public opinion and survey research.

Diversity among health care providers matters, the survey found. Most people of color who participated in the survey said that fewer than half of their medical visits in the past three years were with a provider who shared their race or ethnicity. But Black patients who had at least half their visits with a provider of their race or ethnicity, for example, were more likely to report better experiences, such as their doctor explaining things “in a way they could understand” or asking them about health factors such as their employment, housing, and access to food and transportation.

Nearly 40% of Black adults whose health providers were also Black said they discussed such economic and social subjects, while just 24% of Black adults who saw providers who weren’t Black said those issues were brought up.

Harrison, of the National Minority Health Association, wrote that “a renewed emphasis on recruiting more people of color into the health care field is vital.”

The survey, he added, “painfully illustrates that racial bias in healthcare is as damaging as any disease.”

KFF’s “Survey on Racism, Discrimination and Health” was conducted from June 6 to Aug. 14 online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The findings demonstrate another realm, beyond state laws, in which access to abortion care varies widely across America since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

More than ever, where someone works and the constraints of their health insurance can determine whether an abortion is possible. Workers without coverage are left to pay out-of-pocket for abortion care and related costs.

In 2021, the median costs for people paying out-of-pocket in the first trimester were $568 for a medication abortion and $625 for an abortion procedure, from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California-San Francisco. By the second trimester, the cost increased to $775 for abortion procedures.

KFF’s 2023 annual survey found that 10% of large employers — defined as those with at least 200 workers — don’t cover legal abortion care under their largest job-based health plan. An additional 18% said legal abortions are covered only in limited circumstances, such as when a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or endangers a person’s life or health.

The share of employers that said they don’t cover abortion under any circumstances “is bigger than I would have expected,” said Matthew Rae, an associate director at KFF who helped conduct the survey.

So far, 14 states, mostly in the South and Midwest, have enacted near-total abortion bans, and an additional seven states have instituted gestational limits between six and 18 weeks. Abortion is legal in 24 states and the District of Columbia.

Sharply divergent state abortion laws solidified in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision compound the complexity for employers with workers across multiple states, Rae said. Many large companies employ people in places with vastly different abortion policies, and their health benefits are more likely to cover dependents who may live elsewhere.

“Those dependents can be college kids — and college kids can be anywhere — or any other type of dependent who could just spread out over an area much larger than where you just have actual physical establishments,” Rae said.

The KFF survey found that about a third of large companies said they cover legal abortions in most or all circumstances; the largest companies, with at least 5,000 employees, were more likely to offer the benefit compared with smaller firms. An additional 40% said they were unsure of their coverage — perhaps because employer policies are in flux, Rae said.

Employer health plans’ treatment of abortion has changed little since the Dobbs decision, the survey found. Among companies that said they did not cover legally provided abortion services or covered them in limited circumstances, 3% reduced or eliminated abortion coverage. By contrast, of the large companies that generally covered abortion, 12% added or significantly expanded coverage.

That’s in sharp contrast to the rapidly changing laws governing abortion access in the states. It’s unclear whether workers at companies that don’t cover abortion or heavily restrict coverage are located primarily in states that have outlawed the procedure.

The KFF survey includes information from more than 2,100 large and small companies on their health benefits and the related costs for workers. Annual premiums for family coverage rose 7% on average this year, to $23,968, with employees on average contributing $6,575 toward that cost. The jump in premiums represents a notable increase compared with that of the previous year, when there was virtually no growth in those costs. Average yearly deductibles for workers were $1,735 for single coverage, a cost that was relatively unchanged.

One tactic employers use is to provide separate benefits for abortion-related expenses. In response to increasingly restrictive state abortion laws and the Supreme Court’s decision, large companies — such as Amazon, Starbucks, Disney, Meta, and JPMorgan Chase, among others — announced they would pay for employees’ abortion-related travel expenses.

However, the KFF survey found that a small share of large employers said they provide or plan to provide workers with financial help to cover abortion-related travel expenses. Companies with at least 5,000 workers are the most likely to provide that assistance. Overall, 7% of large employers said they provide or plan to provide financial assistance to employees who must travel out of state for abortion care.

According to the Brigid Alliance, a New York-based nonprofit that helps people with logistics and defrays abortion-related costs, . As restrictive laws proliferate, distances traveled have also increased since the Dobbs ruling, with each person on average traveling roughly 1,300 miles round trip in the first half of 2023.

published by job-search firm Indeed, the Institute of Labor Economics, and academics from the University of Southern California and the University of Maryland found that employers that announced abortion-related travel benefits saw an 8% increase in clicks on their job postings compared with similar jobs at comparable employers that did not announce such a policy.

However, job satisfaction among existing employees also dropped at those companies, with ratings of senior management dropping “8%, driven by workers in typically male-dominated jobs,” they wrote, “illustrating both the potential perks and pitfalls for companies that choose to wade into contentious political waters.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).