That monthly total is $200 higher than what he paid last year, due in part to the expiration in December of covid pandemic-era premium tax credits. But the self-employed St. Louis property manager isn’t in any hurry to investigate a new type of coverage that might be cheaper than his marketplace plan: farm bureau health plans.

“Although I’m not a fan of rising costs, I’m not going to sacrifice coverage for my kids to save a buck,” Carlton said.

Carlton finds himself among a growing number of Americans who have confronted difficult choices because of rising Affordable Care Act premiums and other affordability issues. For instance, a found that many returning marketplace enrollees reported higher costs this year.

In addition, most expressed worry about affording routine and unexpected medical care, as well as the cost of prescription drugs. Worries were greater among those with lower incomes and chronic health conditions. And about 5% of respondents said they had switched to some type of non-ACA coverage.

Health policy experts say such concerns are giving new legs to alternative forms of coverage — for instance, farm bureau plans.

As of this year, that allow health coverage through state farm bureaus, grassroots membership organizations that advocate for the agricultural industry and rural interests. An annual membership in the bureau typically costs $30 to $50, and in many of the states anyone can join. With membership comes the option of buying into the health plan.

Plan details vary by state, but they typically share many features of marketplace plans, including coverage of a wide range of services, a broad practitioner network, and a way to file complaints.

But because states have passed laws exempting from health insurance requirements, they don’t offer many of the coverage protections provided by insurance. That means their benefits and coverage rules may be less generous or predictable than Obamacare plans.

Crucially, farm bureau plans don’t have to accept everyone who applies for coverage. People must pass underwriting first, a process in which plans evaluate applicants’ medical history and health conditions and decide whether to offer them coverage. This practice was routine before the ACA passed, and people were often rejected due to preexisting medical conditions.

Because farm bureau plans can turn down people with expensive chronic conditions or a history of cancer or other medical issues, farm bureau plans may be than unsubsidized marketplace plans, plan managers say.

As people struggle to keep family farms afloat, they may face Obamacare premiums totaling thousands of dollars a month, leading some to forgo coverage, said Missouri Farm Bureau president Garrett Hawkins.

“We’re trying to present another option,” he said.

Sowing Choices

In 2026, with the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, average ACA premium payments were estimated to for subsidized enrollees who retained their marketplace plan, according to KFF.

Last year, was one of four states that passed laws permitting farm bureau health plans. The others were , , and .

Although the number of states offering them has ticked up in recent years, farm bureau health plans aren’t new. Tennessee has been offering the coverage . Tennessee’s Farm Bureau Health Plans administers the plans in 10 of the 14 states that permit them.

In Missouri, the farm bureau offers with varying deductibles, copayments, and annual limits on out-of-pocket spending. Many of the benefits and cost-sharing amounts look like the coverage someone might get on the state health insurance exchanges or through an employer. They include emergency care and hospitalization, physician office visits, prescription drugs, free preventive care, and dental and vision services. Members have access to providers through the UnitedHealthcare Choice Plus national network.

Hawkins said he’s pleased with the interest the plans are generating. People could apply for coverage through the website starting Jan. 1, and by mid-March, 520 people had submitted applications, he said.

It’s uncertain how many of those people will clear the underwriting hurdle and buy a farm bureau plan, however. Farm bureau health plans can deny coverage for any reason. Even if coverage is offered, plans in Missouri don’t cover any for at least six or 12 months. In addition, plans may exclude coverage of any benefits related to a “known risk” for two to seven years, depending on the issue. So people with a range of conditions, such as diabetes, high cholesterol, heart problems, or successfully treated cancer, may be turned down or have to pay out-of-pocket for any related care for at least a year and possibly as long as seven years.

“People don’t like that we underwrite, but if we did everything like the ACA, we’d be just like an ACA plan,” said , general counsel and chief compliance and privacy officer at Tennessee’s Farm Bureau Health Plans. “We’re trying to be an option for folks that would otherwise not have coverage.”

Staying Rooted in Coverage

Under the Missouri law, once someone is covered by a farm bureau plan, they can’t be kicked off or charged a higher rate if they get sick. That’s also true for the nine other states where Tennessee administers the plans, Beard said.

“We do not contractually have the right to raise premiums or cancel plans based on [an individual’s] health experience,” he said.

And yet, “it can be really confusing to people” because the plans look like insurance products, but they don’t have the same protections, said , principal for policy development, access to, and quality of care at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

Someone with a history of cancer would be unlikely to get approved for a farm bureau plan in the first place, Howard said. If they were accepted, the services they might need would likely be excluded from coverage, she said.

“We’re just concerned that there’s going to be more people enrolled in these plans now because there’s so many more states that are allowing them,” Howard said.

Carlton, the self-employed property manager, knows firsthand how underwriting can limit coverage options. Before the Affordable Care Act required that anyone be accepted regardless of health status, Carlton, who has diabetes, had to buy coverage through his state’s high-risk pool, which was often the only option for people with preexisting conditions.

Meanwhile, policy experts share Howard’s concerns.

Insurance companies in the ACA marketplaces “have to offer maternity coverage, and they have to give you benefits on day one for a preexisting condition, and they can’t charge you more because you have that condition,” said , vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This creates an uneven playing field for insurers and drives up premiums for the people who can’t get into farm bureau plans.

Farm bureau plans “get to use, you know, the standard market as a high-risk pool, essentially, if they want to,” Lueck said.

Still, with the huge jump in premiums that many people are facing for ACA coverage, it’s easy to understand the appeal of farm bureau plans.

“I’m not saying it’s a good thing that states have abdicated their regulatory responsibility here,” said , co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “I’m just saying that there are a lot of people out there who are struggling, who need health care, and simply can’t afford the premiums in these ACA marketplaces anymore.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to 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).

It’s one of the many parts of the 25-bed rural hospital that need updating, former CEO Ron Wiens said.

He said the hospital, an essential service in its namesake town of nearly 800 residents in the state’s sprawling north-central high plains, needs at least $1 million for deferred maintenance, including a failing HVAC system. But the facility has struggled to make payroll each month and can’t afford to make all the fixes, Wiens said.

Built by farmers and ranchers in 1965, Big Sandy Medical Center began with nine beds. Today, a similar community effort — donations and grants to plug financial holes each year — keeps it afloat.

Wiens, who recently left his position at the hospital, said he wishes Big Sandy could get funding from Montana’s share of the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to renovate the hospital and direct payments to help secure its future. The state received more than $233 million in its first-year award.

But the hospital may not get the kind of help he sought.

That’s because the five-year program focuses on new, creative ways to improve access to rural health care, not on directly funding services and renovations. And Montana is one of at least 10 states whose leaders say projects launched under the federal program could lead rural hospitals to cut services so they can continue to afford to offer emergency and other essential care.

Congressional Republicans created the fund as a last-minute sweetener to their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last summer. The funding was intended to offset disproportionate fallout anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to slash Medicaid spending .

includes programs to make it easier for rural residents to get medical care and live a healthy lifestyle. For example, it says funding can be used to start community gardens, train paramedics to make home visits, open school-based clinics, or bring mobile clinics to rural areas.

rural Montana hospitals can receive payments for implementing recommendations, “including right-sizing select inpatient services” to match demand. In some cases, it says, right-sizing might mean “downsizing.” The state says hospitals will have input and recommendations will be specific to each facility.

“That’s what has all the hospitals on pins and needles, words like restructuring, reducing inpatient beds. Everybody is going, ‘What is this going to look like?’” Wiens said.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services declined to answer questions about how it will carry out its right-sizing efforts.

A Lifeline of Care

Big Sandy cattle rancher Shane Chauvet doesn’t want any services cut.

He credits Big Sandy Medical Center with saving his life after a flying piece of metal nearly cut off his arm during a windstorm a few years back.

“I looked over, saw it coming, and whack!” Chauvet recalled.

His wife drove him to the hospital, where they frantically pounded on the ER door while Chauvet’s blood pooled on the ground.

Because of the storm, staffers worked on Chauvet with no power and no ability to summon a helicopter. He was then taken by ambulance 80 miles through intense rain and hail to a larger hospital.

Chauvet understands the state’s plan doesn’t call for eliminating emergency care, but he worries that reducing other services would set off a downward spiral for the hospital and his town.

In Oklahoma, realigning clinical services could mean “shutting down service lines,” to the federal program. And in Wyoming, any facility that receives funding must agree to “reduce unprofitable, duplicative or nonessential service lines,” .

Monique McBride, business operations administrator at the Wyoming Department of Health, said the department interprets right-sizing as helping rural hospitals provide essential services — such as emergency departments, ambulance services, and labor and delivery units — while maintaining long-term, financial stability.

“This might involve limiting some elective procedures that could be done at lower cost in higher-volume facilities. The main distinction here is time-sensitive emergencies vs. ‘shoppable’ services,” she said.

A New Lease on Life?

Seven of the 10 states — Nebraska, North Dakota, Tennessee, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington — where rural hospital service cuts are on the table say they’ll help pay for hospitals to convert to Rural Emergency Hospitals. The recently created federal designation requires hospitals to halt inpatient services and offers enhanced payments to help them maintain emergency and outpatient care.

At least 15 additional states wrote that they’ll use the federal funding to right-size, evaluate, or adjust services — which could mean adding or taking away services, or transitioning them to a telehealth or outpatient setting.

Brock Slabach, chief operations officer of the National Rural Health Association, said, “There’s a proper concern from rural hospital administrators that this funding is not going to where it was intended.”

He said cutting services that lose money could backfire in the long run. For example, he said, halting labor and delivery care might drive more people out of small towns, further reducing hospitals’ patient numbers and revenue.

The type of hospital services that states will assess matters, said Tony Shih, a senior adviser at the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit focused on making health care more equitable.

“If the end result is that high-margin services are taken away from local hospitals with nothing given back in return, it can be financially harmful,” he said.

Shih noted that states’ plans to add more outpatient care could prove beneficial for patients. It’ll take time to know which states help stabilize rural hospitals, he said.

Rural hospital leaders say they know which changes would keep their facilities open and that states shouldn’t suggest or mandate service cuts and other changes on their behalf.

Josh Hannes, who oversees rural health policy at the Colorado Hospital Association, said “top-down” directives won’t work.

He said the association’s members believe they can find efficiencies and are eager to collaborate. But “a state agency shouldn’t be making those determinations,” he said.

Hannes said members are worried Colorado’s plan to classify rural health facilities as a “hub, spoke, or telehealth node” will compel service reductions. The classification will help determine “which services are sustainable locally and which are best provided regionally or through telehealth,” .

Spokespeople for the Colorado and Oklahoma health departments said no facility will be forced to end services. But Oklahoma spokesperson Rachel Klein said some facilities might choose to do so as part of a broader effort to make sure they’re meeting community needs while remaining financially stable.

“A hospital might shift certain services to a nearby regional provider with higher patient volume and specialized staff while expanding other local services,” such as primary, outpatient, or community-based care, she said.

Wiens and Darrell Messersmith, CEO of Dahl Memorial Hospital in the southeastern Montana town of Ekalaka, said they worry the only way hospitals will get their share of funding is to cut services or become Rural Emergency Hospitals that don’t offer inpatient services.

“I would hate to see things shift toward a pack-and-ship facility,” Messersmith said. “Right now, we function quite well as an inpatient facility.”

Not all Montana health leaders are worried.

Ed Buttrey, president and CEO of the Montana Hospital Association, said he thinks his state’s plan could help rural hospitals become financially sustainable and survive Medicaid cuts. Buttrey is also a Republican state lawmaker.

Chauvet, the Big Sandy rancher, said his perspective on whether remote towns like his should have a hospital is forever changed because of his accident.

“I always would say, ‘Oh, they’re nice to have,’ but now I look at the hospital and say, ‘That’s essential to our community,’” he said.

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 semana pasada me hicieron un tratamiento de conducto (endodoncia) que costó unos $500”, dijo. “Antes me colocaron una corona que me costó varios cientos de dólares. Y ahora mismo tengo un diente roto, así que tengo que ir al dentista pronto”.

En total, Anthony calcula que pagará alrededor de $2.000 por esta atención este año, aunque tiene seguro dental.

“Tratar de evaluar el costo de cuándo ir a recibir atención dental y pagar por ello, frente a otras necesidades que tengo, es algo muy importante”, agregó Anthony.

La Asociación Dental Estadounidense (American Dental Association, ADA) informó que el tenía seguro dental en 2021. Pero esa cobertura no protege necesariamente contra facturas elevadas.

De hecho, 1 de cada 4 adultos con seguro dental reportó que el costo es una barrera para recibir atención, de KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro de información de salud que incluye Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Aquí hay tres cosas que debes saber para entender mejor tu plan dental y mantener los costos lo más bajos posible:

1. Incluso con seguro dental, tendrás que pagar por procedimientos

Los planes dentales suelen cubrir completamente la atención de rutina, pero solo pagan una parte del trabajo adicional. Los beneficios varían, pero muchos planes siguen la regla “100/80/50”: cubren el 100% de la atención preventiva, como limpiezas y exámenes, el 80% en el caso de procedimientos básicos, como empastes y endodoncias, y el 50% de otros procedimientos mayores.

Además, los planes dentales suelen tener un límite máximo anual de pago, por lo general, de entre $1.000 y $2.000. Los pacientes deben pagar cualquier costo que supere ese límite. Por ejemplo, si tu plan tiene un máximo de $1.500 y necesitas $4.000 en tratamientos dentales, tendrás que pagar la diferencia de $2.500.

1. ¿Enfrentas una factura dental alta? Tienes opciones

Puede resultar incómodo hablar de dinero directamente con un dentista, pero es útil ser claro sobre lo que puedes pagar.

Muchas clínicas odontológicas ofrecen opciones de financiamiento para ayudar a los pacientes a manejar el costo de la atención, incluyendo estimaciones previas al tratamiento y planes de pago. Si recibes un presupuesto que parece muy alto, revisa los detalles y considera buscar una segunda opinión. También puedes preguntar si ofrecen algún descuento.

Si necesitas una opción de menor costo, puedes considerar las escuelas de odontología, que a menudo ofrecen atención con descuento, o los , que ajustan los precios según los ingresos del paciente.

1. Visitar al dentista con regularidad puede ayudar a mantener bajos los costos

Sarah Olim, dentista generalista en Katy, Texas, recomienda a sus pacientes hacer cita cada seis meses.

“Lo mejor que puede hacer para reducir el costo de ir al dentista es asegurarse de ir con regularidad y tratar los problemas a tiempo”, dijo.

Olim atiende a pacientes sin importar cuánto tiempo haya pasado desde su última visita. Pero advirtió que quienes esperan varios años entre consultas pueden encontrar que sus citas son más costosas y más incómodas.

¿La razón? Los problemas dentales generalmente no se resuelven por sí solos. Por ejemplo, una caries pequeña que requiere un empaste rápido puede costar $200. Si no se trata, puede convertirse en un problema mayor que requiera un tratamiento de conducto o endodoncia y una corona, con un costo de miles de dólares.

Tu dentista también te recomendará seguir medidas preventivas básicas: cepillarte los dientes durante dos minutos, dos veces al día. Olim aconseja a sus pacientes tomarse el tiempo o escuchar una canción que les guste para asegurarse de cepillarse el tiempo suficiente.

Personas y políticas

Los legisladores federales han intentado aumentar el acceso de los niños al seguro dental. Bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA), la atención dental se considera un , por lo que los planes de salud en el mercado individual deben ofrecer cobertura dental para menores de 18 años.

Los programas estatales de Medicaid también .

Emily Siner, de Nashville Public Radio, contribuyó con este informe.

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).

Russell Anthony made eight trips to the dentist last year. The 65-year-old retiree in Nashville, Tennessee, hopes to go less often in 2026, but he’s already made a few visits.

“I had a root canal just last week that was like $500,” he said. “The week before that, I had a crown that cost me several hundred dollars. And as we speak, I have a broken tooth, and I have to go and see the dentist soon.”

In all, Anthony — uncle of HealthQ host Cara Anthony — expects to pay about $2,000 for dental care this year, even though he has dental insurance.

“Trying to weigh the cost of when to go to get dental care and paying for it, versus the other needs that I have, is something that’s very important,” Russell Anthony said.

The American Dental Association reported that had dental insurance in 2021. But that coverage does not necessarily protect against large bills. In fact, 1 in 4 adults with dental insurance reported costs as a barrier to care, according to a by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Here are three things to know to better understand your insurance plan and keep your dental costs as low as possible:

1. Even With Dental Insurance, You’ll Have To Pay for Procedures

Dental plans typically cover routine care in full but pay only a portion of additional work. Benefits vary, but many plans follow the “100/80/50” rule, covering 100% of preventive care like cleanings and exams, 80% of basic procedures like fillings and root canals, and 50% of other major procedures.

Plus, dental plans often have a maximum annual payout, usually between $1,000 and $2,000. Patients are responsible for any costs above that. For example, if your plan maxes out at $1,500 and you need $4,000 of dental treatments, you will be on the hook for the difference of $2,500.

2. Facing a Big Dental Bill? You Have Options

It might feel uncomfortable to talk about finances directly with a dentist, but it’s helpful to be up-front about what you can afford.

Many dentist offices offer financial options to help patients manage the cost of care, including pretreatment estimates and payment plans. If you get an estimate that seems especially high, talk through the items and consider getting a second opinion. It never hurts to ask the office for a discount.

If you need a lower-cost alternative, consider looking into dental schools, which often offer discounted care, or , which use sliding scales based on a patient’s income.

3. Seeing Your Dentist Regularly Can Help Keep Costs Low

Sarah Olim, a general dentist in Katy, Texas, encourages her patients to come in for visits every six months.

“The best thing that you can do to mitigate the cost of going to the dentist is make sure that you are going regularly and trying to take care of things early,” she said.

Olim welcomes patients no matter how long it’s been since their last visit. But she cautioned that patients who wait a few years between visits may find their appointments are more expensive and more uncomfortable.

The reason? Dental problems often don’t resolve on their own. For example, a small cavity that needs a quick filling might cost $200. If left untreated, it could turn into a larger issue requiring a root canal and crown — and cost thousands.

Your dentist will also encourage you to follow the best preventive maintenance: brushing your teeth for two minutes twice a day. Olim tells her patients to use a timer or listen to a favorite song to make sure they brush long enough.

People and Policy

Federal lawmakers have tried to increase children’s access to dental insurance. Under the Affordable Care Act, dental care is considered , so health insurance plans on the individual marketplace must offer dental coverage for those 18 or younger. State Medicaid programs are also for children.

Emily Siner at Nashville Public Radio contributed to this report.

HealthQ is a health series from reporters Cara Anthony and Blake Farmer, approachable guides to an unapproachable health care system. It’s a collaboration between Nashville Public Radio and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

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).

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. 

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? Click here to 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).

The legislation would prohibit state and local governments from requiring crisis pregnancy centers to perform abortions, provide referrals for abortion services, or inform patients about such services or contraception options. It also would allow crisis pregnancy centers to sue the violating government entity.

Wyoming lawmakers of the Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act, or , on March 4. Other versions have advanced in and this year. One was in 2025. The CARE Act is “model legislation” created by the , an anti-abortion, conservative Christian legal advocacy group.

A similar proposal, the , was introduced in Congress last year but hasn’t moved out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

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).

When Mike McKee thinks about saving money for the future, he has a few priorities. Maxing out his retirement is one. Building up his kid’s college fund is another.

Opening up a health savings account? Not so much, even though he qualifies because of his high-deductible health plan.

“I’m so frustrated with the system that has anything to do with medical savings,” said McKee, 42, a self-employed musician in Nashville, Tennessee. “I’m just so turned off emotionally that I have to be really careful to be logical about it.”

More Americans are eligible to open an HSA — a kind of tax-free savings account that lets them sock away money for medical expenses — after changes that were part of new legislation last year. But an HSA can be a headache to set up and navigate.

Here’s what to know about how they work and when they’re worth it.

Like a Tax-Free Investment Account for Medical Expenses

With an HSA, you set aside money from your paycheck before taxes, and you can use that money to pay for medical expenses later. , including medications, glasses, orthodontia, and many kinds of therapy.

You have options for the money in the account, including investing it. Some people call HSAs a “triple tax advantage”: There are no taxes on the money that goes in, no taxes on any interest earned, and no taxes on the money that comes out for medical expenses.

Pro tip: An HSA is not the same as an FSA, or flexible spending account, even though it sounds similar. An FSA also lets you put pretax income into an account for medical expenses, but you typically lose unspent money at the end of the calendar year. By contrast, HSA money stays in your account until you spend it. Think F for “forfeit” and H for “hold on to.”

The Admin Work of an HSA Can Be a Real Barrier

First, you have to find out whether your health plan allows for an HSA. Most high-deductible health plans do, but with these plans you might have to spend thousands of dollars before most benefits kick in. Starting this year, plans on the individual Affordable Care Act marketplace that are categorized as “bronze” or “catastrophic” are also eligible. (The easiest way to find out whether you qualify is to call the number on the back of your insurance card and ask.)

Then, you have to open the HSA on your own through a financial institution — although if you get health insurance through a job, your employer might have preferred institutions. And finally, you have to keep track of your qualified medical expenses. You pay for them using a special debit card or by submitting claims for reimbursement, usually through an online portal. Either way, it’s smart to hold on to receipts.

People and Policy

If you’re living paycheck to paycheck, you may find it difficult to take advantage of the tax savings that come with an HSA. “HSAs, in this way, tend to benefit more the higher-income enrollees, because those are the ones who have the disposable income to set aside at the end of the month,” said Michelle Long, a policy researcher at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. Plus, people with higher incomes and higher tax brackets have more to gain from getting discounts on their taxes, which is basically what an HSA provides.

Katherine Ruppelt at Nashville Public Radio contributed to this report.

HealthQ is a health series from reporters Cara Anthony and Blake Farmer, approachable guides to an unapproachable health care system. It’s a collaboration between Nashville Public Radio and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

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).

But when Quinn chipped a tooth and it became infected, she could not find a dentist near her home who would accept her government health coverage and was taking new patients.

She went to an emergency room, receiving painkillers and antibiotics, but she remained in agonizing pain weeks later and paid a dentist $200 to extract the tooth.

Years later, it still hurts to chew on that side, she said, but Quinn — a 34-year-old who has four children and, with her husband, earns about $30,000 a year — still can’t find a dentist nearby.

“You should be able to get dental care,” she said, “because at the end of the day dental care is health care.”

The federal government has long required states to offer dental coverage for children enrolled in Medicaid, the joint state-federal health program for people who are low-income or disabled. Paying for adults’ dental care, though, is optional for states.

In recent years, several states have opted to expand the coverage offered by their Medicaid programs, seeking to boost access in recognition of its importance to overall health. So far, increasing adult dental care is a work in progress: In a sampling of six of those states by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, fewer than 1 in 4 adults on Medicaid see a dentist at least once a year.

But under congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last year, the federal government is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over the next decade. The range from about $184 million for Wyoming to about $150 billion for California.

State Medicaid programs typically expand or reduce benefits depending on their finances, and such massive federal cuts could force some to shrink or eliminate what they offer, including dental benefits.

“We will lose all the gains we have made,” said Shillpa Naavaal, a dental policy researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

Tennessee’s Medicaid program, for instance, spent nearly $64 million on its dental coverage in 2024 and saw a 20% decrease in dental-related ER visits, said Amy Lawrence, the program’s spokesperson.

But under the new law, Tennessee is projected to lose about $7 billion in federal funding over the next decade.

As of last year, 38 states and the District of Columbia offered enhanced dental benefits for adult Medicaid beneficiaries, according to the American Dental Association. Most of the others offer limited or emergency-only care. Alabama is the only state that offers no dental coverage for adult beneficiaries.

Since 2021, 18 states have enhanced their coverage to include checkups, X-rays, fillings, crowns, and dentures, while loosening annual dollar caps for benefits.

Use of dental benefits in states with the enhanced benefits is greater than in states with only limited or emergency coverage, though still low overall, according to with the latest data as of December. No more than a third of adult Medicaid recipients saw a dentist in 2022 in any state.

To review more recent progress, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News asked one-third of the states that have expanded their benefits in the past five years for their most recent data on the percentage of adults on Medicaid who visit a dentist at least once a year:

• Maryland — 22% (in 2024)
• Oklahoma — 16% (in 2025)
• Maine — 13% (in 2025)
• New Hampshire — 19% (in 2025)
• Tennessee — 16% (in 2024)
• Virginia — 21% (in 2025)

In comparison, about 50% to 60% of adults with private dental coverage see a dentist at least once a year, according to the ADA.

Nationwide, 41% of dentists reported participating in Medicaid in 2024, a share that has remained stable over the past decade despite the dental benefit expansions in many states, the ADA says. Many participating dentists, though, limit the number of Medicaid enrollees they treat, and some will not accept new patients on Medicaid.

Reimbursement rates have not kept up with costs, deterring dentists from accepting Medicaid, said Marko Vujicic, chief economist and vice president at the ADA Health Policy Institute.

Because of a lack of dentists who take Medicaid in southwestern Virginia, the Appalachian Highlands Community Dental Center in Abingdon sees patients who travel more than two hours for care — and must turn many away, said Elaine Smith, its executive director.

The center’s seven residents treated about 5,000 patients last year, most of them on Medicaid. About 3,000 people are on its waitlist, waiting up to a year to be seen.

“It’s sad because they have the means now to see a dentist, but they still don’t have a dental home,” Smith said.

Low-income adults face other barriers to dental care, including a lack of transportation, child care, or time off work, she said.

The inability to see a dentist has consequences broader than tooth pain. Poor dental health can contribute to a host of other significant health problems, such as heart disease . It can also make it harder to do things like apply for jobs and generally lead a healthy life.

Robin Mullins, 49, who has been off and on Medicaid since 2013, said a lack of regular dental visits contributed to her losing her bottom teeth. Unable to find a dentist near her home in rural Clintwood, Virginia, she drives almost 90 minutes to Smith’s clinic — that is, when she can afford to get time away from driving for DoorDash or find help watching her daughter, who has special needs.

She gets by with partial dentures but misses her natural teeth, she said. “It’s absolutely horrible, as you can’t chew your food properly.”

In New Hampshire, though, the challenges have more to do with low demand than a low supply of dentists, said Tom Raffio, chief executive of Northeast Delta Dental, which manages the state’s Medicaid dental program. The company has added new dentists to its list of participating providers, along with two mobile dental units that traverse the state, he said.

Raffio said Northeast Delta Dental also has publicized the state benefits using radio advertising and social media, among other efforts.

Until 2023, New Hampshire Medicaid covered only dental emergencies.

“Culturally, it’s going to take a while,” he said, “as people just are used to not going to the dentist, or going to the ER when have dental pain.”

Brooks Woodward, dental director at Baltimore-based Chase Brexton Health Care, called Maryland’s rate of roughly 1 in 5 adults on Medicaid seeing a dentist in 2024 “pretty good” considering the benefits had been enhanced only since 2023.

Woodward said many adults on Medicaid believe that you go to a dentist only when you’re in pain. “They’ve always just not gone to the dentist, and that’s just the way they had it in their life,” he said.

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 legislation introduced in , , , , , , , and builds on efforts made in other states in past years. This latest push for patient protections comes as the Trump administration has backed away from federal debt protections, health care has become , and more people are expected to go without medical coverage or but riskier high-deductible insurance plans that could lead them into debt.

“In the wealthiest country on Earth, people are going bankrupt, suffering wage garnishment, just because they get sick,” said Colorado state Rep. , a Democrat who introduced legislation on Feb. 19 that would, among other measures, ban wage garnishment for medical debt.

That legislation is under consideration after a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News investigation found that courts approved wage garnishment requests in an estimated 14,000 medical debt cases a year in Colorado. The investigation also showed that it isn’t just urban hospitals or big health care chains allowing their patients’ wages to be garnished. It’s also small rural hospitals, physician groups, and public ambulance services, among other medical care providers. And the reporting showed that wage garnishment can erroneously target patients. For example, one family lost wages — and subsequently power to their home, because they couldn’t pay their electric bill — after an ambulance company incorrectly billed the family instead of Medicaid.

Wage garnishment is one tool creditors can use in most states to recoup money from people with unpaid bills. In many states, they can garnish someone’s bank account or put a lien on their home, too. To garnish a person’s wages, a creditor must typically get permission from a court to make the person’s employer hand over a piece of the debtor’s earnings.

“The creditor is taking the money directly out of somebody’s paycheck, and so it doesn’t leave people with any choice to say, ‘I need to prioritize food for my children,’” said , legal and policy director for the National Center for Access to Justice. The center, based at Fordham Law School, and the District of Columbia on how fair their laws are to consumers who get sued over debt.

It is legal to garnish patients’ wages for medical debt in all but a , according to the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit foundation based in New York focused on health care.

Now, lawmakers in additional states seek to ban the practice entirely. Others want to limit it by exempting debtors whose household income falls under a certain threshold or by upping the amount of earnings immune from garnishment.

Such policies on wage garnishment fit into a larger push around the country to address the effect of medical debt on people’s lives and finances. Those efforts include barring medical debt from credit reports, prohibiting liens on people’s homes, capping interest rates, and limiting the ability to file lawsuits against people with low incomes over unpaid medical bills.

Debt collectors have fought against such measures, arguing they don’t solve the problem of health care affordability and hurt the ability of medical providers to continue to provide care.

“The wage garnishment process is already highly regulated at the federal and state level and includes many consumer protection measures,” said Scott Purcell, chief executive of warning its clients that the legislation “poses an existential threat,” especially to rural health providers. And Bridget Frazier, a spokesperson for the , said Feb. 20 that the bill “could drive up costs and financial risk for health care providers, making it harder to keep hospitals sustainable and ensuring Coloradans have access to care when they need it most.”

The pending Colorado measure would ban wage garnishment for all patients. It also would limit bank garnishments, in which a patient’s financial institution must hand over a chunk of the money in the person’s account. Additionally, among other things, it would prevent payment plans from exceeding 4% of weekly net income, require creditors to check whether uninsured patients are eligible for public health insurance before collecting, bar creditors from collecting on bills that are more than three years old, and leave medical care providers liable to the patient for at least $3,000 if collectors don’t comply.

“No one is saying, ‘Don’t get paid for your services.’ We’re saying getting health care should not lead to financial ruin for people,” said Dana Kennedy, co-executive director at the Denver-based , a health advocacy group that has been working with lawmakers on the Colorado measure.

Kennedy said that Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ investigation drove home how many kinds of Colorado health care facilities are willing to let this collection practice happen to their patients, and that the people whose wages are being garnished are often working at Family Dollar, Walmart, Amazon, or gas stations and restaurants.

“Medical debt is typically different from other forms of indebtedness,” said Colorado state Sen. , a Democrat co-sponsoring the legislation. “You could choose to keep driving your old car or buy a new one and take on debt for that. You could upgrade your home. You could buy consumer appliances. There’s not usually that voluntary element in a health care context.”

, a senior attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, said broad laws that don’t require patients to jump through hoops to access protections are the most likely to be effective. Because of that, she and other consumer advocates prefer state policies that get rid of wage garnishment for all debtors and all types of debt.

“It can be hard to identify medical debt as medical debt,” Carter said. “For example, if you have a medical debt and you put it on your credit card, it’s not going to be easy for a court system to identify that debt as medical debt.”

She said another reason is that complexity is the enemy of effectiveness. Carter pointed to a showing that even though people in the state can keep $10,000 in their bank accounts safe from garnishment, few consumers take advantage of the protection. They must know the protection exists, know where to find the relevant form, get the form notarized, file it, and mail copies to creditors. The same report found that garnishments can also be burdensome for employers, who must process garnishments and can find themselves in court if they make an error.

Jones, at the National Center for Access to Justice, said outlawing wage garnishment fully, rather than limiting it, has other benefits. “It’s also to protect people’s jobs, because in most states, if somebody has two or more orders of garnishment, they can lose their job for it,” she said.

Still, some lawmakers are pushing for the intermediate route. In Washington state, Democratic state Sen. is spearheading legislation to rope off a larger portion of low-wage earnings from garnishment. So, for example, a person making $1,000 a week would be able to keep their whole paycheck, as opposed to the $800 that the law would currently protect.

Mindy Chumbley, owner of a Washington-based collections company and an ACA International board member, testified against the bill on Feb. 2. “Washington has made sweeping changes to medical debt policy year after year without pausing to study the cumulative impact,” she told lawmakers. “Our clients are reporting clinic closures, urgent care centers shutting down, staffing shortages, and rural facilities struggling to stay open.”

The Washington State Hospital Association said it is neutral on the legislation. The American Hospital Association said it does not take positions on state policies.

Liias told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that lawmakers need to ensure health care providers can recoup their costs while also protecting patients. “We don’t want families either to be driven into bankruptcy or to be driven into under-the-table work to avoid these garnishment thresholds,” he said.

Liias said his measure follows the lead of Arizona, which passed similar consumer protections in 2022. “Obviously, the health care system is still functioning in Arizona, and folks are able to make it work.”

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 mujer de 59 años, que vive en Harrisburg, Carolina del Norte, cerró el año pasado su escuela de artes circenses sin fines de lucro porque ya no veía lo suficientemente bien como para estar al día con todo el papeleo administrativo. Luego trabajó un tiempo haciendo masas en una pizzería. Ahora clasifica materiales reciclables, como latas y botellas, en un lugar de conciertos local. Es su principal fuente de ingresos, pero el trabajo no es durante todo el año.

“Este lugar me conoce, y este lugar me quiere”, dijo Kelley sobre su empleador. “Aquí no tengo que explicar por qué no puedo leer”.

Kelley vive en una casa rodante y sobrevive con menos de $10.000 al año. Dice que eso es posible, en parte, gracias a su cobertura de salud de Medicaid, que le cubre medicamentos para la artritis y la ansiedad, y le permite ir al doctor para controlar su hipertensión.

Pero le preocupa perder esa cobertura el año que viene, cuando entren en vigencia nuevas reglas que exigirán a millones de personas como ella trabajar, hacer voluntariado, ir a la escuela o realizar otras actividades que califiquen durante al menos 80 horas al mes.

“Ahora mismo tengo miedo”, dijo.

Antes de que se promulgaran los cambios para acceder a esta cobertura, legisladores republicanos sugirieron que hombres jóvenes y desempleados estaban abusando del programa gubernamental de salud que ofrece cobertura médica a millones de personas con bajos ingresos o con alguna discapacidad.

Medicaid no está pensado para “hombres de 29 años sentados en el sofá jugando videojuegos”, dijo Mike Johnson, presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, .

Pero en realidad, los adultos de entre 50 y 64 años, especialmente las mujeres, son quienes probablemente por las nuevas reglas, según explicó Jennifer Tolbert, subdirectora del Programa sobre Medicaid y Personas sin Seguro de KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro de información sobre salud de la cual Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News forma parte.

Para Kelley y otras personas, los requisitos laborales crearán obstáculos para mantener su cobertura, explicó Tolbert. Muchos podrían perder Medicaid, poniendo en riesgo su salud física y financiera.

A partir de enero de 2027, unos 20 millones de estadounidenses de bajos ingresos en 42 estados y el Distrito de Columbia tendrán que cumplir con los requisitos de actividad para obtener o conservar esta cobertura.

Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Carolina del Sur, Tennessee, Texas y Wyoming no ampliaron sus programas de Medicaid para cubrir a más adultos de bajos ingresos bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA), por lo que no tendrán que implementar las reglas de trabajo.

La no partidista Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso, prevé que las reglas de trabajo resulten en al menos 5 millones de personas menos bajo Medicaid en la próxima década.

, estas reglas son el principal factor de pérdida de cobertura dentro de la ley presupuestaria republicana, la cual recorta cerca de $1.000 millones para compensar reducciones de impuestos que benefician principalmente a personas con mayores ingresos y para aumentar la seguridad fronteriza.

“Estamos hablando de ahorrar dinero a costa de vidas humanas”, dijo Jane Tavares, investigadora en gerontología de la Universidad de Massachusetts en Boston. “El requisito de trabajo es solo una herramienta para lograr eso”.

Andrew Nixon, vocero del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos, dijo que exigir a los “adultos sin discapacidades” que trabajen garantiza la “sostenibilidad a largo plazo” de Medicaid, mientras protege a las personas más vulnerables.

Las personas con discapacidades, quienes cuidan a familiares, personas embarazadas o en posparto, veteranos con discapacidades totales y otras personas que enfrentan dificultades médicas o personales están exentas de la regla de trabajo, indicó Nixon a Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

La expansión de Medicaid ha sido un salvavidas para adultos de mediana edad que, de otro modo, no tendrían seguro médico, . Medicaid cubre a 1 de cada 5 estadounidenses de entre 50 y 64 años, dándoles acceso a atención médica hasta que califican para Medicare a los 65 años.

Entre las mujeres beneficiarias de Medicaid, las que tienen entre 50 y 64 años enfrentan más desafíos para conservar su cobertura que las más jóvenes, y suelen tener una mayor necesidad de servicios de salud, explicó Tolbert.

Estas mujeres de mediana edad tienen menos probabilidades de trabajar el número requerido de horas porque muchas son cuidadoras familiares o tienen problemas de salud que limitan su capacidad para trabajar, agregó.

Tavares y otros investigadores hallaron que de la población total de Medicaid que se considera “apta para trabajar” no trabaja. Este grupo está compuesto en su mayoría por mujeres muy pobres que han salido de la fuerza laboral para convertirse en cuidadoras. Entre ellas, 1 de cada 4 tiene 50 años o más.

“No son adultos jóvenes saludables simplemente perdiendo el tiempo”, escribieron los investigadores.

Además, dificultar el acceso a la cobertura de Medicaid “podría en realidad dificultar que estas personas trabajen”, ya que sus problemas de salud no recibirían tratamiento, advirtió Tolbert. De todas formas, si este grupo pierde la cobertura, sus condiciones crónicas igual necesitarán atención, señaló.

Muchos adultos empiezan a tener problemas de salud antes de ser elegibles para Medicare.

Si las personas mayores no tienen recursos para tratar sus problemas de salud antes de los 65 años, llegarán más enfermas a Medicare, lo que podría generar mayores costos para ese programa, apuntaron expertos en políticas de salud.

Muchas personas de entre 50 y principios de los 60 años ya no trabajan porque son cuidadoras de tiempo completo de hijos o familiares mayores, explicaron defensores, quienes se refieren a este grupo como “la generación sándwich”.

La ley presupuestaria republicana permite que algunos cuidadores queden exentos de las reglas de trabajo de Medicaid, pero las excepciones son “muy limitadas”, dijo Nicole Jorwic, directora de programas del grupo Caring Across Generations.

Le preocupa que personas que deberían calificar para una exención queden fuera por errores o complicaciones.

“Vamos a ver a más cuidadores familiares enfermándose, dejando de atender su propia salud y a más familias enfrentando crisis”, dijo Jorwic.

Paula Wallace, de 63 años, residente de Chidester, Arkansas, dijo que trabajó la mayor parte de su vida adulta y ahora dedica sus días a cuidar a su esposo, quien tiene cirrosis avanzada.

Después de años sin seguro, recientemente obtuvo cobertura gracias a la expansión de Medicaid en su estado, lo que significa que tendrá que cumplir con los nuevos requisitos laborales para conservarla. Pero le cuesta imaginar cómo podrá hacerlo.

“Como soy su única cuidadora, no puedo salir a trabajar fuera de casa”, dijo.

Su esposo recibe beneficios del Seguro por Incapacidad del Seguro Social, explicó, y la ley dice que ella debería quedar exenta de los requisitos de trabajo como cuidadora de tiempo completo de una persona con discapacidad.

Pero las autoridades federales aún no han emitido instrucciones específicas sobre cómo definir esa exención. Y la experiencia de Arkansas y Georgia —los únicos estados que han implementado programas de trabajo en Medicaid— muestra que muchas personas beneficiarias tienen dificultades para navegar sistemas de beneficios complejos.

“Estoy muy preocupada”, dijo Wallace.

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).