The poll of more than 2,000 rural registered voters by The Associated Press in partnership with KFF found broadly negative views on the national and local economies, including from many Republicans. The costs of groceries, gas, and healthcare rank as top pain points for the rural voters, who were surveyed over two weeks starting in mid-August. And a larger share than among voters overall say they are worried about being able to afford groceries or gas.

At the same time, about half of rural voters approve of Trump’s job performance, more than among U.S. adults overall in separate AP-NORC polling.

The findings suggest that many rural voters haven’t turned on Trump but that they also largely don’t think he has delivered the economic renaissance he promised on the campaign trail.

Ed Westrick, a registered Republican and veteran, rates Trump’s job performance as “mediocre, middle-of-the-road.” Westrick, who lives in rural Texas, isn’t sure he will cast a midterm ballot, a troubling sign for Republicans in a key state in their fight to keep control of Congress.

Rural Americans skew Republican and historically have been an instrumental group of voters for Trump. The survey reveals that while rural voters seem unlikely to support Democrats on a large scale, Trump and the Republican Party could face challenges with them in November.

Deep Unhappiness About the Economy

As the election approaches, only about 4 in 10 rural voters approve of Trump’s performance on the economy. They rate him similarly on his handling of the Iran war, an entanglement that has proved expensive for the U.S. and increased oil and gas prices. And rural voters rank pocketbook concerns and fraud in government programs higher among the things they want to hear about from politicians than other perennial issues, such as gun policy and abortion.

Westrick, 59, is a technical trainer in the electronics industry and has seen an increase in business in part because he works with defense contractors, but he said he’s concerned about the cost of living.

“I hear the politicians talk about making groceries more affordable and making healthcare more affordable but yet none of them are addressing the issues,” Westrick said.

In the poll, about three-quarters of rural voters rated the cost of living in their communities as “only fair” or “poor” — up from about half in a KFF-Washington Post survey in 2017. Rural Americans, who have consistently lower wages than those who live in suburban and metro areas, have been hurting economically for decades, according to Tim Slack, a professor of sociology at Louisiana State University and co-author of the book Rural and Small-Town America.

“Many folks are connecting the cost-of-living crisis to many of the Trump administration’s policy choices: the war in Iran, tariffs, trade wars,” Slack said. “None of those things are going to bring down prices at the pump or the local Walmart.”

“Trump promised to lower prices on Day 1, and instead the cost of living’s continued to climb. And that’s especially painful in rural America,” Slack said, adding that he expects many working-class Republicans to skip voting in November.

Rural Republicans do have a brighter economic perspective than rural Democrats or independents, particularly about the U.S. as a whole, according to the survey. About 6 in 10 rural Republican voters say Trump has improved the national economy, compared with only about 2 in 10 independents and fewer than 1 in 10 Democrats.

But only 45% of rural Republican voters say Trump has made their local economies better off. About 1 in 4 said there are fewer good-paying jobs where they live than five years ago.

In Michigan, 37-year-old independent voter Brittainy Sosebee said she isn’t sure if she will vote in the state’s midterm election, which includes a tight Senate race seen as crucial to the Democratic Party’s push to win back a majority. Sosebee voted for Trump in 2016 and Democratic candidate Joe Biden in 2020; she didn’t vote in 2024.

Sosebee, who lives in St. Johns, a small town just north of Lansing, said she used to have extra money to take a vacation or buy a new pair of jeans without worrying. Now, she scrutinizes every expense, cringing at the rising cost of fresh produce when she shops for her three children.

“We hunt, so we have a lot of venison and things like that, so we don’t have to buy meat from the grocery store, but it’s still crippling,” she said.

Healthcare Policies Go Unnoticed

The KFF-AP poll found that rural voters overall don’t perceive much positive impact from the Trump administration’s healthcare policies even as they have been a top priority for Republican leaders, who have promoted efforts to lower drug costs and touted a $50 billion rural health program.

Only 17% of the voters said the Trump administration’s healthcare policies have had a “positive impact” on their healthcare costs, while 41% said they’ve had “no impact” and another 41% said they’ve had a “negative impact.”

Sitting on her front porch in Woolwich, Maine, 71-year-old Democrat Kathleen Hanning sipped a chai tea latte in the sun and recalled how she stopped voting for Republican Sen. Susan Collins in 2020.

Collins and Trump are “intertwined,” Hanning said. “She is not independently voting on what’s best for Maine.”

Hanning, a retired federal worker, said she hadn’t paid much attention to the health policies in Trump’s signature tax-break-and-spending-cut bill passed last year. The law reduces federal Medicaid spending by roughly $900 billion over a decade but also includes the billions of dollars for the Rural Health Transformation Program, which it created.

A year after the law’s passage, more than 8 in 10 rural voters said they’d heard either “a little” or “nothing at all” about the health fund. About 60% said they had heard nothing, according to the survey.

Rather than transforming, Hanning said, “hospitals up here in Maine are consolidating.” She travels an hour to see a specialist and noted that mothers will now have to drive farther for care because the hospital in nearby Damariscotta announced it would soon close its labor and delivery center.

Nine in 10 rural voters said it was “extremely” or “very” important for candidates to talk about healthcare costs, with more than half saying it’s “extremely important.” Mirroring the general population, rural voters ranked healthcare costs and gas prices as top economic worries.

Rural Republican Voters Still Trust GOP More

When asked which political party they trusted to do a better job handling issues such as the cost of healthcare or the cost of living, rural voters tended to side with their own party. The finding signals that Democratic candidates are more likely to benefit from rural Republicans’ staying home this November than from their voting across party lines in large numbers.

Republicans are more ambivalent about their party’s ability to handle key healthcare issues, compared with Democrats. About 8 in 10 Democratic voters say they trust the Democrats to address healthcare costs, while closer to 6 in 10 Republican voters say the same of the Republicans.

In Manassas, Georgia, a tiny town about an hour’s drive inland from Savannah, Republican voter Wanda Rogers feels the Trump administration is doing the best it can to clean up what she sees as an economic mess that Democrats left behind when they lost power.

“I kind of think people think like I do, that he knows what needs to be done,” she said. “It’s just taking them a while to get it there.”

Still, the 66-year-old said, “gas prices, they’re eating me alive right now.” She said she has stopped traveling to the beach because it has become too expensive.

Pamela Shaw, an independent voter who lives in a rural area near Asheville, North Carolina, said she sees the impact of rising costs in her community.

“When hamburger is over $7 a pound and steak is $15 or more a pound, a lot of people are not able to buy some of the things that they are used to buying,” the 59-year-old said in an interview.

Trump’s Rural Standing Has Slipped

Trump remains relatively popular among rural voters in the KFF-AP poll, with 48% approval — substantially higher than in a July AP-NORC poll of U.S. adults overall, in which only a third approved of his performance. But he’s also down slightly, from 56% approval, among rural voters, based on a similar question asked in the earlier KFF-Washington Post survey.

Asunta Washington, 38, is a truck driver who lives in South Texas. He said he is not against voting for Republican candidates if he wholeheartedly agrees with what they stand for, but he has not seen that. Instead, he has seen a lot of flip-flopping, he said.

“Like, a lot of people that are giving us promises and the moment they get elected, all that’s out the window,” Washington said.

This year’s competitive elections feature key Senate races in states including Ohio, Michigan, and Maine, all of which have large rural populations. In close races, Democrats may have a chance to “show up and give a message that rural people might find appealing,” said Nicholas Jacobs, a political scientist at Colby College and co-author of the book The Rural Voter.

“But it’s nothing more and it’s nothing less than that — an opportunity,” Jacobs said. “And time and time again, Democrats have shown a certain proclivity for not seizing that opportunity.”

Many rural voters don’t think the major parties or the president respect people like them. About half, 48%, of rural voters say the GOP respects people like them “a lot” or “some,” while 45% of rural voters say this about Trump and 37% say this about the Democratic Party.

On a recent Thursday, registered Republican Nate Lawrence answered his phone after paying $57 to fill up his Chevy Equinox in New Concord, Ohio, a village of fewer than 3,000 people about an hour’s drive east of Columbus.

Lawrence, a middle school English teacher, said the candidates should be talking about spending power: “I need to be able to go to the store and feed my family on what I make as a teacher,” Lawrence said. “I should be able to pay for a house on a teacher’s salary.”

Lawrence has voted for Trump in the past but didn’t in 2024. For Ohio’s Senate race, Lawrence said he is torn and not sure whether to pick Democrat Sherrod Brown or Republican Jon Husted.

Still, even if the politicians say they will lower prices, Lawrence said, he won’t believe them.

“Trump said that, and it didn’t happen,” he said.

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

She and her husband have not had health coverage for the past two years, Bates said, because their employment is unsteady and they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, the public health insurance for those with disabilities or low incomes.

When the GOP-led Congress allowed enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies — which helped lower the cost of plans sold on the marketplace — to expire at the end of last year, Bates’ mother-in-law dropped her plan, too.

Bates and her husband have a 2-year-old son. The mother-in-law also cares for a son who has autism. They all live together in a trailer home, spending about a third of their family income on prescription medications and opting for trips to the emergency room — often their main destination for medical care, since they aren’t billed up front.

It’s stressful, Bates said. Yet despite their situation, she said she remains “all in” for President Donald Trump. But she also said she’s recognizing flaws in his leadership.

“He’s trying,” Bates said. “It’s just a lot more other things have his attention.”

Georgia’s 14th District is the . It’s the district Marjorie Taylor Greene, who rose to prominence as one of Trump’s most vocal and loyal supporters, represented from 2021 to January 2026.

Greene made a notable pivot from the president last year when she publicly bashed Republicans’ handling of the enhanced ACA subsidies, which helped — along with her own adult children, she said — afford healthcare.

The following month, after Greene Trump of focusing too much on “foreign wars” and ignoring Americans’ economic struggles, the president attacked Greene and said he would no longer support her. Soon after, she announced that from Congress.

Still, many others in this semirural, exurban district, like Bates, remain loyal to Trump, even as more people go uninsured and face rising costs as a result.

Bates isn’t alone in feeling the pinch of healthcare costs this year. Nationally, 37% of Republican voters surveyed in June for said healthcare costs were “extremely important.” More than half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who support the Make America Great Again movement said that Congress did the wrong thing by letting the enhanced subsidies expire, according to released in March. And 62% of ACA marketplace enrollees put the most blame for the expiration on Republicans (30%) or Trump (32%).

But, as the November midterm elections approach, policy experts don’t anticipate the issue of healthcare costs will lead to a major shift in how people vote in deeply conservative areas like Georgia’s 14th District, even as policies that once benefited them are rolled back.

“They’re willing to stick with the party line,” said , a professor of political science at the University of Georgia. “As long as Donald Trump and other Republicans are saying Obamacare is bad, they’re going to continue to buy into that idea,” Bullock said, “even when it’s against their economic self-interest.”

Obamacare Still a ‘Dirty Word’

When the ACA was passed in 2010, voted for it. Now, 16 years later, Obamacare is still a “dirty word” for many conservatives, said , a professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

While previously the GOP’s goal was to “repeal and replace” the ACA, the current political strategy is “effectively rolling back some of the coverage gains,” he said.

According to a dashboard from NYU Langone Health’s Department of Population Health, of people younger than 65 living in Georgia’s 14th District were uninsured in 2024, which is higher than the . And in 2023, relied on Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, according to Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.

Last summer, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which restricted ACA enrollment periods, added monthly fees, and imposed new documentation requirements for enrollees. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the number of uninsured people in the U.S. would increase by about 15 million people over 10 years as a result of the new law, the expiration of the ACA subsidies, and other ACA changes. With the enhanced subsidies expiring at the end of 2025, ACA enrollment fell by this year. In Georgia, enrollment dropped by .

Greene’s not a fan of the ACA. She said her family’s health insurance premiums skyrocketed after it became law in 2010. But last year she surprised those on both sides of the aisle when she openly criticized her Republican colleagues over the subsidies.

“I’m going to go against everyone on this issue,” she wrote in an , “because when the tax credits expire this year my own adult children’s insurance premiums for 2026 are going to DOUBLE, along with all the wonderful families and hard-working people in my district.”

In a June interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News in Cumming, Georgia, Greene described the end of the subsidies as “catastrophic.”

“All over the country, people are constantly outraged over the cost of health insurance,” she said.

Like Greene, Bates has also wavered in her support for Trump. In addition to her frustration about the ACA subsidies expiring, she said the Iran war and inflation have also hit her wallet.

“I just don’t feel like he’s doing the best he could,” she said. “He did great his first term. But this term, it’s just not OK.”

While Republicans’ policies have made it more difficult for people to qualify for Medicaid and led to the end of the subsidies that made ACA marketplace plans more affordable, a clear plan to improve the U.S. healthcare system hasn’t emerged, Greene and policy experts say.

In December, House Speaker the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act. Touted as an alternative to extending ACA subsidies, was intended to lower premiums and increase healthcare access.

But the Congressional Budget Office found the bill would people by 100,000 a year from 2027 to 2035. While the House passed the measure in December, nearly nine months later the Senate hasn’t voted on it.

“It’s a Republican-controlled House, Republican-controlled Senate, Republican-controlled White House,” Greene said. “If Republicans had a plan, this was the perfect scenario to get it passed. You should have all the votes — get it done. And they’re not doing anything.”

Sticking to the Party Line

Despite such criticisms of Republicans for lacking a healthcare plan, voters in deeply conservative areas such as Georgia’s 14th District are sticking with Trump and his allies.

In April, the district elected Trump-backed Clay Fuller to replace Greene, though he won with than she had. He’s up for election again in November for a full congressional term. The University of Georgia’s Bullock said flipping the district from red to blue is unlikely.

Fuller’s office did not respond to interview requests for this report. But in a Q&A with the ahead of his April runoff with Democrat Shawn Harris, Fuller said that the expanded ACA subsidies, introduced under the Biden administration during the covid pandemic, were not a “a long-term solution.” Lowering healthcare costs would come from increasing competition and reducing federal overreach, he said.

Harris, who’s facing off with Fuller again in November, told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that the GOP strategy for the midterms is to continue to play off Republicans’ long-standing negative perceptions about Obamacare.

When people in the community are asked whether they support Obamacare, “they’re probably going to say no,” Harris said. But when asked about the Affordable Care Act, people tend to say, “‘Oh, yes, I need to have that,’” he said.

“They don’t realize it’s one in the same,” Harris said, adding that Republicans “sold everybody a bill of goods.”

As candidates campaign, they need to be in tune with their constituents, Greene said.

“That’s where I think they’re completely missing the mark,” she said. “They’re totally tone deaf to what Americans’ needs really are. And we need a serious solution.”

Bates considers healthcare among her top concerns. She said she doesn’t think anybody, including Trump, can make healthcare more affordable. But she hopes politicians will talk with people like her to better understand the burdens that consumers face.

“I honestly wish Congress would actually spend time in the life that we live,” she said. “They just sit behind their desks, and they don’t know what’s really going on in life, because they make so much money.”

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.

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

Imbalance of Power — And Healthcare

Why can members of Congress remain on full taxpayer-funded salaries during prolonged medical absences while millions of working Americans cannot afford to get sick? (Kennedy, Oz Contend Fraud Crackdown, Not Skyrocketing Prices, Led Millions To Leave Obamacare, Aug. 3.) Sen. Mitch McConnell’s current extended medical absence brings that disparity into sharp focus. He has missed dozens of Senate votes while continuing to receive his $174,000 taxpayer-funded salary.

Meanwhile, I have a friend who works two jobs and still cannot afford her mortgage and utilities without a roommate. She does not even have basic medical insurance. She earns too much to qualify for government assistance but not enough to comfortably afford insurance along with the basic cost of living. What happens if she gets seriously ill?

She doesn’t have the luxury of taking months off to recover while her income continues. She could lose her income, her home, and everything she has worked for simply because she got sick. Yet she is one of the taxpayers providing that financial security to members of Congress.

McConnell’s situation is particularly striking because of his long legislative history of opposing or limiting federal family and medical leave protections.

If continuing someone’s income while they recover from a serious illness is reasonable and humane when that person is a member of Congress, why isn’t it reasonable and humane for the Americans paying their salaries?

Americans should not face financial ruin because they get sick while their elected representatives enjoy protections unavailable to the people they serve.

— Ruth Bower; Salem, Oregon

Hospice Saga Hits Home

I could really have used the information in the article “My Husband Was Kicked Out of Hospice for Dying Too Slowly” (Aug. 14) before it happened to me. I was notified on a Monday morning by my husband’s residential hospice agency that I needed to find a new place for him ASAP, and “here’s a list of places.” I asked what it would cost for him to stay a day or two — saying I would pay it myself, just tell me how much. They didn’t. So I got on the phone, and it was a hectic and horrifying day calling around for a new place.

My husband had been home twice between hospital stays, had fallen both times, requiring me to call 911, and then he was rehospitalized. I’m 64, and there was no way I could lift my 300-pound husband if he fell again. Even a half-dozen firefighters had trouble.

I spent most of his final day calling hospice agencies, and a representative from one even showed up to visit (uninvited and unexpected). It was scary how little oversight or medical professionalism there was. His life ended about 7 p.m. that evening. We had already stopped his pacemaker a few days before.

I will never forget or forgive that I wasted my last day with him because he was not dying quickly enough for the hospice. He never saw a doctor once he enrolled in hospice. There are great nurses in hospice — I’ve met a few — but there are a lot of places for which this is just an easy revenue stream, and they seem to be in it just for the money.

— Debbie Bond; Corpus Christi, Texas

On Improving the Hospice Experience

Thank you for publishing the article on hospice. As a hospice clinician and leader who has been providing hospice education for over 20 years, I, too, continue to see the need for increased awareness around hospice in our communities. This story is similar to many I have recently collected from families who are searching online, using AI tools that fall short of accuracy, and expressing they are overwhelmed.

As the article states, they were given a list of hospices to pick from; that is common and can be a major cause of panic for families. The article provides nice tips on choosing a hospice, but there is so much more to it. Picking a hospice that aligns with your values is a good first step, but we cannot overlook the idea that people and families need help walking this journey, help with exploring their care goals and wishes.

I recently took on a mission to enhance and make hospice education more accessible. In doing so, I launched an app, , focused on helping people and families learn about hospice before they need it; what hospice is and how it works, when they are ready; and what to understand and expect, all the way to the end. Two important articles were posted this year: a recent one entitled “,” by Kurt Merkelz, and a about how the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services could save $1.5 billion annually if hospice were elected just five days sooner.

The data supports that people and families are looking for reliable sources of education. However, the hospice industry as a whole has focused on providing that information once someone is admitted, which is too late.

Educational leaders in our communities need to work together to enhance end-of-life knowledge. Our mission is to give them a tool to make a meaningful impact.

— Jason Kimbrel; Columbus, Ohio

Common Ground: The Height of Folly?

Whoever is investigating common ground between the major political parties (Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ series “Common Ground”) clearly isn’t interviewing or polling Republican members of Congress — although there are probably a few Democrats in Congress who’ve gone along with making cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, who don’t want to tax the rich more to keep the Social Security trust funds solvent, and who would never, ever vote for national healthcare systems similar to any of those in Western Europe or the Scandinavian nations.

I’ve yet to read that any members of Congress have seriously analyzed how nations with “universal” healthcare coverage manage such a system, and how much it would cost to implement in the United States. That demonstrates that neither party is truly committed to finding a better way to provide healthcare for all of us.

Too many GOP members of Congress have, for many years, tried to privatize Medicare (with some success), cater to healthcare insurers, and in every way demonstrate that they do not share what’s supposedly a general concern: improving the healthcare system in the U.S. and improving access for anyone not superwealthy to good quality healthcare. They should not only be making it more affordable, but making pre-med training and obtaining a doctor or nurse practitioner degree far, far, far more affordable than good programs for obtaining those degrees currently are.

We also need to pay registered nurses better than what they are being paid now, and support the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, et al., so that the U.S. continues to conduct medical research and fund the FDA so it can actually regulate the drug industry. We need an affordable drug system, too. Again, too many people in the U.S. can’t afford drugs that are affordable in other nations.

There’s no way the GOP in Congress will fix this. Republican presidents, from Ronald Reagan to the present, could’ve done so and did not. That the GOP has managed to propagandize so many people on vaccines, and toleration of increasingly expensive and poor-quality healthcare (and less access), just goes to show how many in the U.S. seem willing to effectively sabotage their lives — and the lives of their children.

— Susan Hogg; Newport, Oregon

Monopolies Hurt Healthcare Providers, Too

I am a recently retired health executive. I just read the article “Same Knee Surgery, Twice the Price: Hospital Monopolies Push Up Healthcare Costs” (Aug. 10). I loved the article. Very well written. Based on my experience, it is completely accurate. Well done.

However, you omitted a critical factor. During my approximately 40-year healthcare career, I saw the competitive landscape among health insurance companies shrink incredibly. One cannot discuss “merger mania” among hospitals and other medical institutions without acknowledging the negative impact that consolidation of health insurance carriers has had on the industry.

While the article made great points, it failed to articulate the effect insurance carrier consolidation has on healthcare providers’ bottom lines and their ability to negotiate reasonable fees. Your readers deserve to hear a balanced story.

— Quinten Davis; Randallstown, Maryland

Healthcare Students Clutching at Straws

Benjamin Pinckney’s story about the new federal student loan caps upending his dream of becoming a physician assistant is one that many students and prospective students unfortunately know all too well (“He Dreamed of Becoming a Physician Assistant. New Loan Rules May Thwart Him,” June 30). I’m a nurse practitioner and educator myself, and federal student loans were instrumental in my own educational journey. I might not be where I am today without them.

There are many bright, aspiring individuals seeking to become nurses to serve our nation’s growing patient needs. Yet the new federal loan caps have the healthcare workforce clutching at straws, as many students question their ability to pursue higher education. While the goal of lowering the cost of education is worthwhile, the rule risks forcing nursing students to choose between drowning in private, high-interest loans and abandoning their educational goals entirely. Either way, it will weaken our healthcare workforce at a time when the United States is expected to face worsening shortages of advanced practice providers and nursing faculty.

Just consider a few key data points: Demand for advanced practice nurses is much faster than the 3% average growth for all occupations. by 2030, far outpacing the projected number of new nurse graduates. And across the nation currently sit vacant, with about 81% of open positions requiring advanced degrees.

Fewer students can afford nursing education. Combined with fewer opportunities for clinical educators to pursue the advanced training needed to prepare future professionals, that equals a reduced ability of the nation’s healthcare system to meet Americans’ demand for high-quality care.

For now, the healthcare workforce is relieved that the rule has been paused in the courts. Looking ahead, we must actively work not only to control graduate education costs but also expand educational opportunities by championing legislation that designates advanced nursing degrees as professional degrees. Students who wish to become nurse educators and advanced practice registered nurses should be able to secure the federal financial aid they need, which is why legislation like the , the , and the are all so important.

I urge Congress to listen to stories like Pinckney’s and to the countless aspiring nurses across the nation who want to pursue careers that will strengthen our healthcare system but are being held back by loan policies that stand between qualified students and the workforce our country urgently needs.

— Lorie Hacker; Bargersville, Indiana

Rural Healthcare Needs AI That Earns Its Place

Rural patients’ skepticism of artificial intelligence raises an important point (“Patients Wary of Governments, Companies Pushing AI as a Rural Healthcare Solution,” Aug. 11). At this point, there’s not a “should” around AI adoption. It’s more about whether the technology can demonstrate enough value to earn the trust of patients and clinicians.

AI can and will help rural health systems facing staffing shortages, financial pressure, and limited technology resources. But the most meaningful opportunities may initially be behind the scenes. Reducing documentation burden, streamlining referrals, improving scheduling, and automating repetitive administrative work can give clinicians something rural communities urgently need: more time to care for patients.

That’s very different from asking patients to replace a trusted relationship with an AI avatar or chatbot.

Healthcare leaders should resist measuring success by how many AI tools they deploy or how many people use them. Rural AI investments should be judged by outcomes. Did clinicians save time? Did patients get appointments sooner? Did the technology reduce costs, improve efficiency, improve access, or produce better clinical results?

Because many AI tools have been developed using data and infrastructure from large health systems, rural organizations also need rigorous evaluation, strong governance, and reliable data before scaling them.

Patient skepticism is not an obstacle to innovation. It reminds us that technology earns trust through results. If AI gives rural clinicians more capacity to deliver human care — and health systems can prove it does — it can become part of the solution without pretending to be the solution itself.

— Jason Griffin; Missouri City, Texas

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

But U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, in a , also agreed with the administration that it was unconstitutional for the government to use race or ethnicity as the basis to award money under a program created to expand internet skills and access.

“It was definitely disappointing,” said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that filed suit last year after not receiving a award meant to bolster digital and internet skills nationwide. “With this administration it’s really worrisome.”

Congress passed the $2.75 billion Digital Equity Act in 2021 as the skill development component of a multilayered “” initiative under President Joe Biden’s signature infrastructure law, which included a bigger pot of money for expanding internet infrastructure.

A few months into his second term, Trump directly attacked the Digital Equity Act on social media, pledging “” and calling the program “illegal.” The language echoed two Trump executive orders characterizing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs .

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which oversees implementation of the law, responded by Digital Equity Act grant programs, leaving states and organizations like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance in limbo.

In response to Bates’ decision, federal attorneys said the government would reinstate the NDIA-related competitive grant program without racial classification. The government aims to release a new grant application in December, according to a filed in the case.

The NDIA now must reapply for the grant award, which was slated to be disbursed among more than a dozen organizations and tribes, including the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, El Centro Hispano in Arkansas, Portland Community College in Oregon, and Community Service Programs of West Alabama. The grants are meant to go toward digital navigator programs, in which community workers teach technology and internet skills, according to the NDIA.

In western Ohio, Jamie Huber said her organization was a subrecipient of the NDIA grant funds. Huber, director of community services at the Northwestern Ohio Community Action Commission, said that without the funding, she is left searching for money to continue navigator programs such as one she runs for people who are unemployed, homeless, or both.

“How do you find a home? Well, you got to look online. And how do you find a job? You have to look online,” Huber said.

Huber’s digital navigators also teach internet skills at 10 senior centers in rural counties stretching along the corner of Ohio bordering Michigan and Indiana. They help active older adults learn how to go online to pay bills and get healthcare, so they “continue having agency over their own life,” Huber said.

Rural residents live sicker and die younger on average than people in the rest of the country when they live in counties lacking high-speed internet access and healthcare, an analysis by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News found.

At Computer Reach in western Pennsylvania, Executive Director Dave Sevick said his organization has cut staff and programs. He said the nonprofit, which started in 2001, has refurbished more than 24,000 computers, giving them away to families it finds through schools and churches.

“We’re aware that affordability is the biggest issue around, and this doesn’t make it any better for folks,” Sevick said. “We’re helping a little bit by getting a free computer out to people.”

The Digital Equity Act the money should benefit, including low-income households, older people, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups.

According to by the Pew Research Center, people in rural communities were less likely to have internet subscriptions compared with their urban and suburban counterparts.

The Pew Research polling that home broadband use among Black and Hispanic adults lagged that of white and Asian adults. While 81% of white adults surveyed said they subscribed to broadband at home, only 71% of Black adults and 68% of Hispanic adults said the same.

In court, lead federal attorney Patrick Butler argued that Congress failed to prove a compelling government interest when including the racial or ethnic criteria. Congress did not “identify anything close to” a specific instance of discrimination in the broadband industry, Butler said, .

Butler then surprised the court, if the racial or ethnic status could be severed from the law, “we would obviously apply the grant program without considering race.”

In his opinion severing the race factor, Bates that “the President lacks the power to cancel laws passed by Congress based on his bald disagreement with Congress’s policy determinations.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a primary , said she will be “watching very carefully to ensure this administration does what Congress intended.”

“It is indisputable that these challenges are particularly pronounced in low income, rural, and Tribal communities — and there’s a reason Democrats and Republicans across the country support this program so strongly,” Murray said in a statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Biden’s infrastructure bill in 2021 and to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in late 2024 asking the agency to pause the $1.25 billion competitive grants program, arguing the use of racial classifications “does not serve a compelling governmental interest.” Cruz did not respond to requests for comment.

Arielle Roth, administrator of the agency, previously worked as the telecommunications policy director for the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s majority staff under Cruz. She was to lead the agency.

In June, during a House committee hearing, Roth had tense exchanges with Democrats who took issue with changes to the Biden-era infrastructure law’s internet deployment program, which now allows more satellite services rather than prioritizing fiber-optic cable lines.

Lawmakers also asked about the Digital Equity Act’s grant programs.

“Communities across the country deserve a clear answer and a path forward,” Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) said during the hearing. While the National Digital Inclusion Alliance’s lawsuit does not include the state grants, Barragán asked how those grants would be rolled out, considering the federal judge’s decision on race.

California was awarded a $70 million state capacity grant. Early this year, the Justice Department to Congress asserting that the state grant and the competitive grant program both are illegally based on race, citing the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating affirmative action in higher education admissions. Roth declined to answer Barragán’s question, noting there is active litigation.

Barragán said she was “extremely” frustrated by “some of the responses or nonresponses.”

Stephen Yusko, a spokesperson with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, declined to comment or respond to questions for this article.

The government and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance agreed to pause court proceedings to give the agency time to reinstate the competitive grant program. The NDIA has also proposed that the agency provide status reports every 30 days during the court pause “to ensure prompt attention to reinstatement,” according to the most recent .

“We need to make sure it’s all moving forward,” Siefer said.

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

MILLVILLE, Pa. — In an open field, arrows whizzed through the humid June air and struck their targets. Campers and counselors cheered.

It was archery hour at . Operations director Drew Meyer watched, a few tears escaping from behind his dark sunglasses.

“They will surprise you, like, flat out,” he said of the campers, who have all survived brain injuries. “They’ll come out here, and they’ll shoot for three hours and start hitting the target.”

Campers, ranging in age from 10 to 21, have been coming to Camp Cranium in Pennsylvania’s rural Columbia County since 2008. Some of their brain injuries are so severe that they have to relearn basics, from talking to tying their shoelaces. Some use wheelchairs or crutches. But during a week at camp, they climb rock walls, swim, and whiz down a zip line through the lush forest.

The existence of Camp Cranium, and a handful of others like it, is a response to a decades-long national trend: More people, including children, now survive crises resulting in brain injury than did in the 1980s. The improvements in survival are largely due to seat belt laws and and trauma centers that can treat injuries quickly.

But recently, efforts to track and prevent one type of brain injury, traumatic ones, are in flux after Congress didn’t renew a and prevention of traumatic brain injuries, and the Trump administration fired hundreds of employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including the team tracking traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs.

“Brain injury can happen to anybody,” said , executive director of the . “This community deserves more.”

Tracking Brain Injuries

Lucas Hardy, 14, smiled at the encouraging crowd below. In a shady clearing in the woods, he climbed the 30-foot rock wall, aided by a hoist that pulled him out of his wheelchair and helped support his moves. Hardy suffered a traumatic brain injury at age 3, when a tree branch fell on him at a birthday party.

Annually, an estimated 2.8 million Americans experience a TBI — including about 475,000 children, according to the .

Recent data suggests those are undercounts. In 2018, a CDC team piloted a household survey asking about TBIs in a sample of U.S. children and adults. The results concluding that such injuries, which are often considered “hidden” because the damage is internal and unseen, are more widespread than hospitalization numbers suggest.

The mass firings at the CDC in early 2025 studying TBI, right before they were expected to launch a . A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, Emily Hilliard, did not respond to questions about the number of employees terminated, or if they were reinstated or replaced.

In a statement, she said: “The Trump Administration remains committed to supporting efforts to prevent traumatic brain injuries, improve surveillance, and ensure Americans have access to practical, evidence-based information that can help protect their health and safety.”

She said the agency’s TBI work is now handled by other staff members at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Hilliard said the CDC is deciding how to establish a cost-effective national concussion surveillance system within the bounds of current funding, and said the agency in 2026 dedicated funds to support, among other things, an about concussions, an , and concussion surveillance.

But Wolfkiel still worries about how the CDC firings and the impasse over federal funding will affect brain injury research and prevention efforts in the long term.

“The lack of resources and programs and information that’s out there is really just sort of appalling,” Wolfkiel said.

Federal Funding Uncertainty

Tony Sadowski, the camp’s , remembers when his son, Bryan, suffered a brain bleed that caused a hemorrhagic stroke at age 6. “You’re in the emergency room,” he recalled, “not knowing what version of your son’s going to wake up.”

Now 18, Bryan Sadowski has attended the camp for years.

“We’re very lucky to be able to be here,” the elder Sadowski said.

In 1996, before Bryan was born, Congress passed the Traumatic Brain Injury Act, which has provided many states with grants for TBI research, advocacy, and services. Since then, Congress reauthorized the act four times, largely with bipartisan support, until 2024.

It has remained lapsed since then. Trump’s secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, , supported when he was a senator. Congress is whether to reauthorize funding through 2030.

Despite the lapse in funding, money is still flowing to TBI programs at the CDC and in states, according to , president and CEO of the Brain Injury Association of America.

Congress did appropriate $8.25 million for TBI program activities through the . That’s far less than the $23 million Congress provided for each fiscal year, from 2020 through 2024, the last time it .

“The TBI Act is the only piece of federal funding for traumatic brain injury at the federal level,” Willis said. “We’re aiming to preserve what we have.”

The funding uncertainty has not affected the handful of brain injury camps, including Camp Cranium and in Alabama, because they are nonprofits that mostly rely on private donations.

Back at Camp Cranium, bursts of laughter, whoops of delight, and distant chatter punctuated the humid summer air.

While her fellow campers did archery or art, Brianna Engleman moved between groups, collecting song requests for a dance that evening. When she was 5, doctors performed a to relieve her of debilitating seizures. But the surgery itself can injure other parts of the brain.

She lives in Northern Virginia and first attended Camp Cranium as a teen in 2018. It was her first time being around so many people like her, said Engleman, now 21.

“I’ve gotten more confident,” Engleman said. “It made me think, well, there’s actually good people out there.”

Next time she returns to camp, she said, she plans to do so as a counselor.

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

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

“The national security might be something worth paying for,” Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said July 22 in an exclusive interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

The U.S., which has grappled with drug shortages in recent years, relies primarily on China to produce the active ingredients in many antibiotics, according to in JAMA Health Forum. Domestic facilities have closed or shifted to producing other drugs.

“Do we want China to have that sort of leverage for these drugs to be produced principally, maybe 99%, over there, and we don’t have access to them if tension rises between the two countries?” said Cassidy, who is a physician.

On July 21, Trump said in a that he would give generic drug companies two years to move production back to the U.S., after which he would impose 100% tariffs on imported products, rising to 200% the following year. Generic drugs make up an estimated 90% of all prescriptions filled in the U.S.

Cassidy, who has served in Congress , lost his bid for reelection in May after Trump endorsed a Republican primary challenger, Rep. Julia Letlow.

Last month, more than 16 months after his vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, on CBS News’ Face the Nation that the secretary broke promises he made to the senator, including that he would not change the federal recommendations for childhood vaccines.

Asked whether he would summon Kennedy again to discuss those promises, Cassidy said he had asked for him to appear before his committee but had not heard back about whether he would do so. Kennedy in April to discuss the Trump administration’s fiscal 2027 budget request for HHS.

Cassidy told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that when he agreed to vote to advance Kennedy’s nomination, he trusted that Kennedy would keep his word about not disparaging vaccines.

“If they agree to guardrails and disregard those guardrails, you can judge me,” Cassidy said. “You may decide my judgment wasn’t very good, but I don’t think you can say I acted in bad faith.”

Regardless, Cassidy added, Kennedy was going to exert influence in the administration, and he thought it would be better for Kennedy to be in an official post, where his work would be subject to oversight.

“I’m pretty sure that RFK was going to have the president’s ear whether he was in office or not,” he said.

While Kennedy’s efforts to roll back federal vaccine recommendations are being blocked by courts, this week reported that the number of measles cases confirmed in the U.S. so far in 2026 has exceeded the total for 2025 — making it the highest number of cases in 35 years.

Cassidy, a principal author of the 2020 No Surprises Act targeting surprise medical bills, also said he doesn’t think Congress needs to make modifications to the law in the wake of reports that doctors and other healthcare providers are winning huge payouts under the arbitration system the law created. The No Surprises Act was intended to shield patients from receiving big bills for receiving medical care they didn’t know was outside their health plan’s network.

An analysis by this week found that providers were awarded nearly $15 billion in disputed claims in 2025, more than triple the 2024 figure of $4.08 billion.

“The initial step to make sure that people are getting their best deal is price transparency,” Cassidy said.

The HELP Committee on July 22 overwhelmingly approved advancing the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, a bipartisan bill that would further expand the requirements that hospitals, insurers, and other healthcare providers make prices public and available to patients and employers. A House committee advanced a similar bill this week, also with bipartisan support, but it remains unclear whether either measure will be approved by the full House and Senate.

The interview — in which Cassidy also discussed his — was part of the “How Would You Fix It?” series featuring Julie Rovner, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ chief Washington correspondent and host of the What the Health? podcast.

An abbreviated version of this interview aired July 23 in Episode 456 of What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News: “A Shrinking Safety Net.”

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

“I have been vaccinating people throughout my entire career in uniformed services. I believe in vaccines,” Schwartz said at the hearing. “I do believe that mRNA technology is safe and effective.”

Her position contrasts with that of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who ousted Trump’s previous CDC director, Susan Monarez, after she sparred with him over vaccines. Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist, has baselessly called mRNA vaccines the deadliest ever made.

Schwartz “has dedicated her career to protecting the health of the American people.” Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said in an emailed statement. “The president nominated her because of that exemplary record, and Secretary Kennedy looks forward to working with her to advance the Administration’s public health priorities.”

The CDC has had a Senate-confirmed leader for only about one month during Trump’s second term, and the agency has been roiled over the administration’s cuts to public health funding, firings of scientists and other career employees, and efforts to scale back childhood vaccines and access to covid shots.

Schwartz, who was deputy surgeon general in Trump’s first administration and is a former chief medical officer for the Coast Guard, has support in the public health community, where it’s hoped she can restore credibility at the agency she would lead.

“I will follow the science wherever it leads,” Schwartz told senators. “My first priority will be restoring trust in public health institutions.”

Democrats and some Republicans have expressed doubt that Schwartz will maintain any more independence from Kennedy than Monarez, who has said she was fired in August after refusing to sign off on changes Kennedy demanded to vaccine recommendations and personnel cuts. In a released by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), it was revealed Kennedy had pressured Monarez to change CDC guidance regarding the universal childhood flu vaccine.

Monarez “refused to act as a rubber stamp for Secretary Kennedy’s very dangerous agenda,” Sanders said July 15 at the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s confirmation hearing for Schwartz. “Frankly, she stood up for protecting the well-being of the American people.”

The chairman of the HELP Committee, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), pressed Schwartz on whether she would push back against rhetoric or policies not based in science.

“We need unbiased leaders who make decisions based upon science, not politics or ideology,” Cassidy said. “This is not a theoretical.”

Cassidy, a physician, has also quarreled with Kennedy over vaccines. He lost a Republican primary for reelection in May after Trump endorsed one of his opponents. Despite his rupture with the White House, Schwartz almost certainly needs Cassidy’s support to win confirmation. That requires publicly committing to support vaccination and mainstream science.

Schwartz told the committee she would “never compromise” on science.

“The president would never ask me to not follow the law,” she said. “But I will always follow the law.”

Many Democrats on the committee raised concerns about the administration’s politicization of public health. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) asked about the “political scrubbing” of research grants. Trump officials have canceled many research grants under the CDC and the National Institutes of Health for political reasons, including targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

“Restoring trust to the CDC is my No. 1 priority,” Schwartz said. “Scientific integrity is core.”

The American Public Health Association’s CEO, Georges Benjamin, , saying she “possesses the medical background and public health knowledge to understand that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be guided by evidence-based science.”

The APHA has fought many of Trump’s initiatives on public health. After Monarez’s resignation, the organization titled “Kennedy’s attack on public health must be stopped.”

Schwartz told the committee that if she is confirmed, she is committed to “radical transparency” and modernization.

Schwartz expressed support for one Kennedy initiative: She told senators she believes nutrition education and physical fitness assessments are important.

“I am all in on the Make America Healthy Again agenda,” she said.

At the July 15 hearing, Schwartz faced questioning alongside Trump’s pick for HHS assistant secretary for preparedness and response, Sean Kaufman.

Cassidy called out Kaufman for past comments casting doubt on the efficacy of vaccines. The senator raised his voice as he accused Kaufman of spreading “those damn lies.”

Kaufman was conciliatory. “Let me be clear: Vaccines save lives,” he said. “They are safe and effective.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Schwartz will replace Jay Bhattacharya, who is performing the duties of CDC director but is not officially the acting director. Bhattacharya is also the director of the NIH.

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

The Republican blasted California during back-to-back political attacks in May, saying the heavily Democratic state is committing “outrageous fraud” and “stealing” by spending state and federal Medicaid money meant for basic medical treatment on unconventional services such as housing and nutrition assistance, gym memberships, and even tribal prayers and, he claimed, exorcisms.

“The California Medicaid program will pay for herbal medicines, meal deliveries. They’ll pay for housing,” Kennedy said. “I don’t know what housing has to do with healthcare.”

“California, they’re just setting all kind of records,” he added. “They’re wild people.”

Despite criticism from congressional Republicans and growing scrutiny from the Trump administration, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat considering a presidential run, said he’s proud of California’s spending on social services in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. It’s a multibillion-dollar experiment to help medically frail patients meet their housing, food, and other social needs that Newsom says is not only legal but also a more cost-effective and evidence-backed approach to providing healthcare for Californians with complex health conditions. He counters that investing in services outside clinical settings can help people avoid emergency rooms and hospital admissions, improve their long-term health, and ultimately save taxpayers money.

“It’s about whole-person care,” Newsom said, adding that he hopes President Donald Trump’s administration sees California’s leadership and agrees with the “reforms we’re advancing as national best practices.”

Now one of the governor’s marquee health initiatives is at the center of an intensifying partisan battle with Republicans in Washington, D.C., who have moved to rein in billions in healthcare spending on low-income and disabled people across red and blue states. It’s a philosophical divide: Conservatives say social services are a financial strain on Medicaid and shouldn’t be considered healthcare, while liberals argue that investing in prevention ultimately saves money. While experiments proliferated across the country under President Joe Biden, the Trump administration federal policy encouraging state Medicaid programs to address health-related social needs.

The Medicaid fight is putting patients in limbo.

Lucy Rodriguez teaches Mexican folk dancing in the town of Hollister, in California’s Central Coast region. She said her life turned around this year once an intensive case manager with Titanium Healthcare, which contracts with health insurers to provide services, began helping her manage her chronic diseases and stay on top of her medical appointments and prescriptions, even picking up free food boxes for her. The 73-year-old is on Medicare and Medi-Cal, which offers more extensive benefits. The low-income health program has helped pay her utility bills, and she was recently approved for home-delivered meals.

“This has been a godsend,” said Rodriguez, who has diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney disease. “I was getting so stressed out and depressed. It’s really hard when you’re on a fixed income. Groceries are so expensive, and with summer, electricity gets even more expensive. But this is really improving my life.”

She worries the Trump administration will cut benefits to low-income older people.

Last year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services warned states that federal funding for social services would be determined on a . CMS spokesperson Christopher Krepich said the agency is not ending current agreements, known as waivers, that grant states temporary permission to provide social services, which are paid for with state and federal dollars. But future applications, for new services or to extend existing initiatives, could be at risk if they veer too far from traditional healthcare.

“Moving forward, CMS will work with states on innovative waivers that address core healthcare needs, as consistent with evidence-based approaches tied to clinical diagnoses and services, to the goal of ultimately improving health outcomes in the Medicaid population,” Krepich said in a statement.

In a further escalation, the Justice Department put out a allowing states to institutionalize people with disabilities and severe mental illness instead of providing community-based care. Republicans have also targeted states, mostly blue ones, for what they say is a failure to go after waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid. In May, CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz stood alongside JD Vance as the vice president announced the deferral of in Medicaid money to California over suspicions of fraud.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Republicans are simply trying to score political points while ignoring the healthcare needs of poor people. “The federal government wants to politicize fraud,” Bonta said, “and use it, unfortunately, as a bludgeon and a cajole to beat up on blue states.”

Social Healthcare

Health policy researchers say roughly are linked to socioeconomic, environmental, and behavioral factors, such as housing instability, homelessness, food insecurity, and exposure to violence, whereas 20% is associated with medical care delivered in hospitals and clinics. That evidence to tackle social services.

At least 24 states use their own money while drawing federal Medicaid funds for . Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Pennsylvania are among those that provide housing and nutrition assistance.

As the Trump administration pulls back on social services, states are rethinking how to fund benefits that have improved preventive care for low-income people. Some have launched new benefits under what’s known as a state plan amendment, a mechanism states use to modify their Medicaid programs that doesn’t need federal waiver approval. and , for example, use this to add recuperative care for homeless patients after hospitalization. These short-term care facilities offer people the opportunity to recover, bridging the gap between hospital discharge and independent living.

This approach “has the advantage of establishing a permanent, statewide benefit that does not require ongoing federal renewals, offering greater stability and predictability,” said Lynn Sutfin, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

Other states, meanwhile, rely on federal waivers, which require renewal to provide social services. Arizona officials said the state intends to submit a request by the end of September to continue to provide housing and other services to homeless patients, or those at risk of homelessness, with a serious mental illness and a chronic health condition or recent incarceration.

“When members have access to stable housing and supportive services, they are more likely to engage in ongoing care and less likely to experience avoidable emergency department visits and inpatient admissions,” said Roberta Harrison, interim director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.

California, which has been the most aggressive state in adopting social services, has taken a two-pronged approach to keep its vast offerings funded past this year. The state is using its authority to make most of its existing social services and benefits permanent in Medi-Cal managed-care coverage. That regulatory maneuver bypasses federal waiver approval — a move that could attract further Republican scrutiny.

But not everything the state offers can be funded without permission from the federal government. As some services are made permanent, the Newsom administration is seeking new waivers to continue other social services, while also adding more.

It’s an ambitious approach that would expand California’s social healthcare experiment. Newsom said he’s worried that the federal government will decline the . “How could you not be with this administration?” he said. “I’m always concerned.”

New Front in Healthcare

California offers most of its health-related social services under within Medi-Cal, which has a proposed budget of . Although there are more than 14 million residents on Medi-Cal, the state has been selective about who gets help from in its program, called California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal, or . Patients with complex needs can also receive help navigating their health and social needs from specialized social workers under a benefit known as .

Since 2022, California has been offering social services, spending nearly $12 billion in joint state and federal money, long-term Medi-Cal spending by keeping enrollees out of costly institutions including emergency rooms, jails, nursing homes, and mental health crisis centers.

CalAIM had provided social services to more than patients as of September 2025, the most recent state data available. And nearly low-income Californians have received intensive . Some patients receive both services.

Among the services California is making permanent: Homeless patients can get help finding an apartment, with Medi-Cal paying rental and six months of rent. Patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease are eligible for home-delivered meals. Asthmatic patients can get mold removed from their homes to control flare-ups. Low-income seniors with disabilities can get a wheelchair ramp installed free of charge. And inmates leaving jail or prison can be connected immediately with primary care, mental health, and substance use treatment.

The social services — especially housing, food assistance, and home modifications — are success in stabilizing the health of the most complex patients, while achieving savings for Medi-Cal through reductions in emergency room visits and hospitalizations and less reliance on institutional care such as nursing homes, the state Department of Health Care Services.

In the Central Valley, for instance, Health Plan of San Joaquin CEO Lizeth Granados said CalAIM has helped place homeless patients who were routinely hospitalized into housing. And patients with uncontrolled diabetes saw their blood sugar drop after receiving nutrition counseling and home-delivered meals.

Overall, Granados said, the health plan has seen major improvements in chronic disease management and reductions in hospital stays, dropping to 44 inpatient hospitalizations per 1,000 members since it launched in 2022, down from 61 per 1,000 before CalAIM.

In Orange County, officials with CalOptima Health credited CalAIM housing services for contributing to a nearly . “We’ve been able to expand our street medicine programs, too,” said Yunkyung Kim, the insurer’s chief operating officer.

Around the state, Medi-Cal health insurers said they’re optimistic that CalAIM will continue to save money and improve patient health. Yet, the fate of some services will be decided by the Trump administration.

California has asked CMS to continue enrolling jail and prison inmates in Medi-Cal 90 days before their release to maintain consistent treatment for substance use, mental disorders, or physical conditions, a .

The state has also proposed a new job assistance benefit that counties could opt into to help patients find and retain work in response to upcoming federal work requirements imposed by congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by Trump last summer.

And the state wants to continue its array of traditional healers and natural helpers for Californians with tribal affiliations, including music therapy, dancing, drumming, and referrals to sweat lodges for mental health treatment and substance use recovery. While it covers spiritual services, such as ceremonies, rituals, and herbal remedies, state officials said Medi-Cal does not cover exorcisms.

Already, the Trump administration’s positioning has forced the state to eliminate room-and-board benefits, which is threatening local efforts to provide recovery beds.

The state is cutting short-term post-hospitalization housing, which was meant to prevent hospitals from or those at risk of homelessness onto the streets. The CalAIM service providing up to six months of temporary housing and ongoing care is ending at the close of this year. And the state is cutting recuperative care benefits, no longer paying for beds for patients to recover from illness or injury, instead offering only wraparound services.

In San Francisco, these beds have been crucial in reducing overdose deaths, helping transition homeless people off the streets and into housing, and reducing hospital bed usage, said Neal Sheran, a medical director with the city’s Department of Public Health. The city’s health plan operates a sobering center, and recuperative care facilities where patients can recover from hospitalizations.

“We’re concerned,” Sheran said. “Funding for the overnight piece of these programs is really crucial to their success.”

Cuts on the Horizon

Even without federal threats, state budget pressures have strained CalAIM financing. Newsom has proposed for social services by $68.3 million this fiscal year. The cut will deepen next year and remain at $150.2 million per year beginning in 2028.

Providers worry that Medi-Cal patients will lose access. And services, such as home-delivered meals and housing assistance, will be further restricted.

“It’s moving us back to the old days where our healthcare system is more expensive and reactive, instead of investing in prevention,” said Anwar Zoueihid, a vice president and the chief strategy officer at the Los Angeles-based Partners in Care Foundation, a CalAIM provider. “It’s contradictory to Make America Healthy Again.”

To save money, the state is tightening eligibility to limit services and . For instance, Medi-Cal patients with food insecurity would no longer be eligible for home-delivered healthy meals without a qualifying condition like diabetes. And a homeless patient would get capped at six months for help finding an apartment.

Some of the biggest providers of CalAIM say services should be continuously evaluated and curtailed if health plans were too permissive. In some cases, food and housing services were given to low-income patients who didn’t necessarily qualify as the highest-need.

“It’s important everybody takes a look with a very sober view at whether we’re truly benefiting people so we’re spending money in the right places,” said Charlie Robinson, the chief health equity officer at L.A. Care, one of the state’s largest Medi-Cal health insurers.

Dorothy Seleski, the Medi-Cal president for Health Net, said the health insurer isn’t deterred by state and federal cuts.

“Regardless of what happens at the federal level, we are committed,” she said. “This is a significant transformation of the healthcare system, and we are already seeing major reductions in avoidable emergency room trips, avoidable hospital admissions, and we’ve closed gaps in preventive care.”

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

Even the bill’s backers say securing passage this year is a long shot. But the effort is one more opportunity for Democrats to highlight voters’ frustration about healthcare costs leading into the November election.

Polls show Americans are very concerned about affordability, with finding fewer than half of Americans say they can consistently afford healthcare.

Wyden’s bill would focus on what many consider a critical pocketbook issue in traditional Medicare: There’s no limit on what a beneficiary could pay in cost sharing.

“Everyone else in the health insurance neighborhood has one — employer coverage, the Affordable Care Act, all of them have a cap,” the Oregon Democrat told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. “There’s no good, common-sense reason why the flagship health program doesn’t have the same protection.”

Critics of a cap, meanwhile, are likely to pounce on the cost to the federal budget, which could be significant.

Wyden, already making the battle lines clear, added, “I suspect it will come up on the floor of the Senate that Democrats want to give a fair shake to people on traditional Medicare and Republicans want to help billionaires.”

Policy, Political Dynamics at Work

The underlying issue is the 20% share of have to pay for medical services after they’ve met any deductibles. Without a ceiling or upper limit, an expensive condition such as cancer or a long hospital stay could result in beneficiaries paying thousands of dollars in costs.

That concern leads enrolled in traditional Medicare to purchase separate insurance, often called Medigap. (Others get such coverage through job-based retiree plans.)

Medigap insurance plans have seen rapid premium increases and can cost thousands of dollars a year, especially for couples. That price tag can be unaffordable for some beneficiaries, who may instead turn to private-sector Medicare Advantage plans offered by commercial insurers, or go without.

The Wyden proposal would set a $5,000 cap in traditional Medicare. Any amounts paid by a Medigap plan or a retiree health plan toward beneficiaries’ care would count toward that cap. It also includes other provisions to help older people with lower incomes, including eliminating an asset test to qualify for special programs that help reduce costs.

Medicare would pick up any amounts over that $5,000 limit, which is lower than the one Congress set for the rival Advantage plans — , although insurers can set smaller amounts.

Setting a cap in the traditional program, proponents argue, would help level the playing field between traditional Medicare and Advantage plans, which often cost consumers far less than traditional Medicare with a Medigap supplement. Premiums for these policies would probably be lower, they say, because the insurers’ financial exposure would be limited.

The Medicare Advantage program has historically had strong support from Republicans, who like its private-sector aspect and note that it can potentially do more to control costs, such as by using specific networks of doctors and hospitals, or requiring preapproval for some services, which the traditional program cannot do.

The plans also offer enrollees additional benefits, such as eyeglasses, hearing aids, and prescription drug coverage, and have now attracted more than .

Along with that growth, however, has also come increased scrutiny over concerns about denials of patient services and the to the traditional program. Recently, some health systems have , citing concerns about tardy payments or prior authorization requirements, while insurers where they offer Advantage coverage.

The bill has not yet been analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, so there is no official estimate of increased costs to taxpayers for Medicare. Still, it would raise those costs — at a time when other health programs are being cut, the Medicare trust fund is scheduled to of funding in 2033, and the .

That is likely to draw sharp rebukes from fiscal hawks and other conservatives who question whether billions in tax dollars should be used to pick up costs that would otherwise be paid by enrollees or by the supplemental insurance plans many purchase to do so. They are likely to note that beneficiaries could also choose to join private sector Advantage plans, which eliminate the need for supplementary insurance coverage such as Medigap.

Key Questions: Who Benefits? Who Pays?

A cap’s cost to taxpayers, while not officially scored yet, is likely to be significant, although adding one could also save individual consumers money. A recent study from Brown University gives some clues.

A $5,000 cap could save enrollees , the study says, both in direct savings and reductions in their Medigap supplemental premiums. Just over 11% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries, about 3.2 million, would directly benefit from such a cap if it was implemented in 2028, said the study, which did not receive outside funding.

Over the next 10 years, it estimates, just over 52% of all traditional beneficiaries would exceed the $5,000 cap at least once.

Still, lead author Andrew Ryan, a professor at Brown’s School of Public Health, said analysts estimated such a cap “could cost over $50 billion annually, which is a lot of money” to add to the federal balance sheet.

Critics are likely to focus on the cap’s expense and the number of people who might benefit.

“How many people are hitting a level of cost they can’t afford on Medicare? “asked Jackson Hammond, a senior policy analyst with the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank influential with the GOP.

Any cap “is generally going to increase expenses for the program without adding a lot of benefits to enrollees,” said Hammond, who spoke with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News before the legislation was introduced.

Supporters, though, have a different view.

Certainly, with “any policy that’s going to cost money, there will be an argument over where the money is coming from,” said Brian Keyser, a research associate at the liberal Center for American Progress who also spoke with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News before the Wyden measure was introduced.

Keyser co-authored that suggested lawmakers could pay for changes in traditional Medicare, such as an out-of-pocket cap, if they reduced the amount the government pays Medicare Advantage insurers, pointing to government estimates that Advantage would cost the government $76 billion more this year than if the same number of people were in the traditional program.

Finding a way to add a cap “is right and fair because without it, people who become seriously ill can spend their life savings on cost-sharing Medicare,” Keyser said.

Such an idea, however, on and off for years. Knowing that, the bill’s backers acknowledge that passage is unlikely — but they say they’re playing the long game for now.

“We’re going to push for it in the next Congress, when we believe we will be in the majority,” Wyden said.

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

The measure is unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled Congress, but Democrats could use the vote against their opponents on the campaign trail.

When the ACA rule was released in May, the Trump administration as a means to combat enrollment fraud, lower premiums for some people, and offer a wider range of insurance plans, including ones with no set network of doctors or hospitals.

But many Democrats warned the changes would hurt consumers already suffering from high healthcare costs as well as higher prices for gas, groceries, and other household needs. Estimates from the administration found the regulation, called a notice of benefit and payment parameters, could cause to lose ACA coverage.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and fellow Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Ron Wyden of Oregon plan to introduce on Wednesday a to block the rule.

Baldwin told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News in a statement that the rule is “misguided” and said she was “committed to doing everything she can” to stop Republicans from “kicking Americans off their health care.”

The directive from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is an annual exercise that sets standards for ACA coverage during the coming year. Some of the changes in the finalized 2027 rule are technical, but many would affect consumers directly.

They include tighter income verification requirements. The rule also stipulates more eligibility checks on people applying outside of the normal annual enrollment period for such reasons as marriage, divorce, or loss of job-based coverage.

ACA plans themselves would look different too. Insurers would be able to offer some plans with 30% higher out-of-pocket limits (the amount consumers may have to pay each year in cost sharing such as copayments and deductibles), with a new ceiling as high as $15,600 for individual coverage or $31,200 for a family plan.

The Democrats’ effort to overturn the rule is the definition of a long shot; it would need a majority of votes in both the House and the Senate. But simply forcing a floor vote is likely to be seen as a win by the minority party.

“What Democrats are trying to do is get Republicans to vote on policies that would be unpopular if they rose to the level of public consciousness,” said Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Democrats want to showcase that they want to change these policies, even if don’t have the votes to accomplish it.”

Congress has authority under the review act — enacted as part of a larger law in 1996 — to overturn rules issued by federal agencies. such disapproval resolutions have passed, hundreds have been introduced, often mainly to draw attention to an issue.

It is one of the few levers a minority party has to force action on the floor of the Senate.

That’s because if only 30 senators sign a discharge petition to send the measure to the floor, the Democrats get a vote, without needing to go through a Republican-controlled committee or hold a hearing. A companion resolution is expected to be introduced in the House on June 17.

And there’s no doubt that Democrats will try to use any floor vote on health costs as a litmus test for Republicans in the November elections.

“Time and again Democrats have used Republican efforts to undermine the ACA to their political advantage in campaigns, and this year will be no different,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Polls show that the GOP could be vulnerable if Democrats can convince voters their party would do better on health costs, which are a top concern among voters.

, for example, found that 73% of adults see healthcare costs as a very big problem for the country, leading both inflation and the federal budget deficit. KFF’s tracking polls have found healthcare costs to be a top concern, even among Make America Healthy Again supporters allied with President Donald Trump.

At least half of people who identify as MAHA voters say those health costs on their decision to vote and which party they support.

Medical costs in general typically rise faster than inflation, driven by increased hospital and doctor bills and use of drugs, devices, and other healthcare. That leads to higher costs for employers that offer health plans to their workers and for taxpayer-supported programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, as well as higher premiums for insurance plans sold under the ACA. The consultancy PwC projects the cost to treat patients this year will , the highest in nearly two decades.

Higher premiums and lower subsidies also hit many ACA enrollees this year, with about 1.2 million fewer sign-ups than for 2025 as of January.

Costs “are a good Democratic talking point,” said Joseph Antos, a former government health official who is now a senior fellow emeritus at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. “Trump was going to solve inflation, and instead, what do we have?”

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