Renuka Rayasam, Author at KFF Health News

It’s 2026 and You’re Uninsured. Now What?

Renuka Rayasam — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Health policy changes in Washington will ripple through the country, resulting in millions of Americans losing their Medicaid or Affordable Care Act coverage. But there are still ways to find care.

Over the next decade, the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is expected to slash nearly $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, the state-federal program for people with low incomes and disabilities. The implementation of new work rules will cause some beneficiaries to lose their Medicaid coverage.

Millions of Americans are facing enormous increases in their out-of-pocket costs for ACA coverage. So far, 1.2 million fewer people have signed up for Obamacare plans compared with last year, and health policy analysts estimate more will lose coverage as they fail to pay their premiums.

Health costs are a top concern for Americans. Two-thirds of the public say they are somewhat or very worried about affording health care, more than express the same worries about utilities, food, housing, or gas, according to a January poll from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“All of this pain just doesn’t have to be there,” said Cheryl Fish-Parcham, director of private coverage at the health consumer group Families USA.

Doctors and health policy researchers say health coverage, of any kind, is the best protection against major medical debt.

Caitlin Donovan, a senior director at the Patient Advocate Foundation, recommends exhausting every available option for health coverage before going uninsured.

Even a high-deductible plan can protect patients from medical bankruptcy “if the absolute worst-case scenario happens,” she said.

Here are five ways that the uninsured can find affordable care.

1. Don’t be afraid to talk with your doctor about money

Patients can be hesitant to tell their doctors they’re uninsured or be wary of expressing concern about being able to afford care.

But some hospitals, physicians, and other providers offer cheaper cash pay options, said Cynthia Cox, a senior vice president and the director of the Program on the ACA at KFF.

Often prices are negotiable. “Always ask,” she said.

Health care providers can make adjustments if they know patients are worried about money, said Ateev Mehrotra, a doctor and researcher at Brown University.

“If my patient tells me, ‘Doc, I’m gonna have to pay for this out-of-pocket,’ I’m gonna make a different risk calculus,” Mehrotra said.

That doesn’t mean a patient won’t get the care they need, he said. A doctor, for instance, might order an ultrasound instead of an MRI, which is more expensive.

2. Search for providers that specifically work with uninsured patients

If your usual provider won’t budge on prices, then search for providers that cater to patients without insurance.

Federally qualified health centers, or FQHCs, and other community clinics offer routine and non-emergency care, such as treatment for flu or infection, for low-income residents and the uninsured. Community health centers charge based on a sliding scale and see 52 million patients annually in some of the country’s most underserved areas, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

The Trump administration has made funding cuts that might lead some of the country’s approximately 1,500 FQHCs to close or cut services. But the administration still maintains a site to find a local center.

Planned Parenthood also accepts uninsured patients. Its centers test for sexually transmitted diseases, provide birth control options, and offer postpartum and gender-affirming care and other services.

And the National Association of Free & Charitable Clinics also offers a tool to help people find free or low-cost care.

Most community clinics don’t offer specialty care, but they can usually refer patients who need more intensive services to providers willing to work with uninsured patients.

And academic medical centers tend to have more charity care programs that help uninsured patients lower their bills.

“If you’re uninsured or even underinsured, you might be able to qualify for a significant discount on the cost of your care,” Cox said.

Still, be wary of heading to the emergency room, which is the most expensive place to get care. While ERs are federally required to stabilize all patients regardless of their ability to pay, they can still leave you with a big bill — and often do.

3. Call your local health department

Health services vary widely from county to county, but many offer free vaccinations, family planning services, and testing for sexually transmitted infections, as well as for flu, covid, and tuberculosis.

Some county health departments also offer more advanced care, such as dental services and mental health or substance abuse programs. And some states have consumer assistance programs that can guide residents in finding care, Fish-Parcham said.

In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program makes free or low-cost breast and cervical cancer screenings available to low-income women in all states and territories. And some states cover screenings for other types of cancer as well.

4. It’s easier to shop around for drugs than doctors

Don’t just fill your prescription at the closest pharmacy. Instead, research generic drug options and look around for the best price on brand names.

A handful of sites such as GoodRx and WellRx offer comparison shopping tools and information on other ways to get drug discounts.

And some retailers offer low-cost access to common prescription drugs — at prices cheaper than you would find if you had insurance. Walmart, for instance, sells 90-day prescriptions of dozens of generic versions of drugs for $10. As do Target, Costco, and a new site called the Cost Plus Drug Company.

Many drugmakers also offer patient assistance programs, coupons, and rebates on some medications. Check their websites for details on how to apply.

States also offer drug assistance programs. The steps to qualify and types of drugs vary, but this tool has a list of programs and how they work.

Joining a clinical trial is another way to access treatment. The National Institutes of Health and its National Cancer Institute have lists, but patients must first meet the criteria. Clinical trials aren’t necessarily free, even with insurance, Donovan said, so be sure to ask about any associated costs.

5. Your diagnosis might lead you to specialized resources

Patients with a specific diagnosis might have additional options for specialty treatment.

For example, someone with breast cancer should check with the American Cancer Society and the nonprofit Susan G. Komen organization, Cox said.

The Patient Advocate Foundation hosts a list of vetted foundations that can help offset the cost of medical bills and provide other resources such as transportation and lodging, Donovan said. Just type in basic information such as age, location, and diagnosis to see what is available.

Disease-specific foundations such as those for lupus or irritable bowel syndrome can also steer patients to free or low-cost resources or cover some costs of care, Donovan said.

“Everything is out there,” she said.

As you research affordable care options, don’t be tricked by plans that look like health insurance but don’t offer guaranteed protection against big bills.

Some short-term plans and health care sharing ministries might seem like good deals, but read the fine print. Some red flags to look for: too-good-to-be-true monthly payments; no coverage for preexisting conditions; morality clauses such as those prohibiting the use of alcohol or drugs; or a lack of coverage for benefits such as mental health counseling that are required in ACA plans.

KFF Health News correspondent Sam Whitehead contributed to this report.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact KFF Health News and share your story.

KFF 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 KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

When Health Insurance Costs More Than the Mortgage

Renuka Rayasam — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

When Noah Hulsman, who owns a skate shop in Louisville, Kentucky, learned he no longer qualified for federal subsidies to help him pay for his “gold” Affordable Care Act health plan, the 37-year-old opted for skimpier coverage. But the deductible is about a quarter of his yearly income.

Loretta Forbes realized she would have to drop her plan after her monthly ACA marketplace premiums jumped tenfold in 2026. So the 56-year-old, who lives outside Nashville, Tennessee, started rationing her rheumatoid arthritis medications. Her husband, Jim, gave up on his fledgling handyman business and started looking for a job with insurance coverage.

And when Nicole Wipp learned the monthly premium for her family’s ACA plan would be more than their mortgage payment, she and her husband decided to drop their family plan and buy coverage only for their 15-year-old son.

After crunching the numbers, Wipp, 54, a self-employed lawyer in Aiken, South Carolina, said she and her family made the tough call.

“We decided that, ultimately, it would be better for us to gamble.”

Despite a contentious back-and-forth and the longest government shutdown in history last fall, the GOP-led Congress allowed enhanced ACA subsidies, which had helped millions of Americans cover all or part of their marketplace premiums since 2021, to expire on Dec. 31. With the loss of the subsidies and health care costs already surging, more middle-income people face tough decisions about their health coverage this year.

Hulsman, Forbes, and Wipp don’t qualify for Medicaid, the public insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities. But like many others, they are being squeezed by the increasing costs of groceries, housing, and other necessities. Rising monthly health insurance premiums, along with copayments, high deductibles, and other out-of-pocket medical costs, can often push families like these to the brink.

More than 80% of Americans said their cost of living has increased in the past year, according to a January poll from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. Health care costs ranked at the top of their concerns, with about two-thirds saying that they are somewhat or very worried about affording health care — more than said the same about other necessities, such as food and housing, the poll found.

“Premiums are getting quite unaffordable for a lot of people. The cost of both health care and other basic needs is rising,” said Cheryl Fish-Parcham, director of private coverage at the health consumer group Families USA. “This is an especially critical time for Congress to do something.”

Most Republican lawmakers have refused to renew the enhanced subsidies. Most of the public says that inaction by Congress was the “wrong thing,” according to the KFF poll. Instead, GOP lawmakers have advocated for an expansion of health savings accounts and for more plans with lower premiums and steeper deductibles and copays that don’t reduce overall costs.

President Donald Trump released an outline of a health plan in January with few details about how to lower out-of-pocket costs for millions of Americans. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which he signed in July, is expected to leave millions uninsured over the next decade as it reduces federal health spending by nearly $1 trillion, mostly from Medicaid.

Already about 1.2 million fewer people have signed up for plans for this year under the ACA, also known as Obamacare, according to federal data. Health policy analysts expect more people to stop making payments and drop coverage in the coming months. ACA marketplace insurers have said that they are charging 4 percentage points more in 2026 because they expect healthier people to drop plans as enhanced tax credits expire, leaving more sick and high-cost patients.

Rising costs and lack of congressional action are forcing many to make “untenable choices,” said Joan Alker, executive director and co-founder of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University.

“People are faced with absorbing this huge financial and health risk,” she said.

Forbes, the woman with rheumatoid arthritis near Nashville, had been on an ACA marketplace plan since 2018. But this year she and her husband, Jim, dropped their coverage after learning the monthly premium would jump from $250 to $2,500 because the enhanced subsidies expired. Jim, 59, gave up his handyman business and began searching for a job with health insurance.

“We were like: ‘OK, we can’t breathe. We’re gonna tap out,’” said Forbes, who was diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2021. Last year she lost her job at a retirement facility because she couldn’t work after she had a hysterectomy.

A day before their ACA coverage lapsed, her husband got a job offer at a property management company that provides health coverage. In January, they learned that Forbes was approved for Medicare because of her disability. The $155 monthly premium is automatically deducted from her disability check, she said.

Forbes’ Medicare plan starts in February, just in time for her next cancer screening.

“You cannot imagine what a relief it is to know I will have care,” Forbes said.

Even those who are insured face drastically higher out-of-pocket costs. This year, health insurers’ premiums for ACA marketplace plans jumped an average of 26%, the result of higher hospital costs, the popularity of pricey GLP-1 drugs for obesity and diabetes, and the threat of tariffs, according to KFF. Nearly 4 in 10 adults said they were skipping or postponing necessary care because of costs, a 2025 KFF poll showed.

Hulsman, the Louisville shop owner, said he takes home about $33,000 a year from his business. Last year he paid about $105 a month for a gold plan on the marketplace, with a $750 deductible. This year, with the loss of the enhanced subsidy, Hulsman is paying the same monthly premium for a “bronze” plan, but with a deductible of $8,450, which he must pay out-of-pocket before his insurer starts paying for care. On average, deductibles for bronze plans are more than four times those of gold plans, according to a KFF analysis of 2026 marketplace plans.

Hulsman didn’t consider dropping health insurance, because Kentucky has limited consumer protections for medical debt. But he said he’ll try to get an estimate if he needs to go to a doctor. And he’s worried that a major accident could wipe out his skate shop. He won’t be able to buy inventory or pay shop bills if he has to meet his full deductible, he said.

“I’m just riding the line right now,” the skateboarder said. “One slip and it’s gonna be uncomfortable.”

In South Carolina, Wipp dragged her family to get routine vaccinations on New Year’s Eve — the last day that she and her husband had health coverage.

This year’s monthly premium for a bare-bones bronze family plan would have cost them $1,400, up from $900 last year. They would still have faced high copays for doctor visits and need to meet a deductible of more than $10,000. Instead, they’re paying around $200 to cover just her son.

Wipp, who has a rare condition that causes cysts and other growths to form in the lungs, said she and her husband plan to pay out-of-pocket this year for any initial preventive care. Their second source of money, for larger medical expenses, is an old health savings account. But she said that account doesn’t have enough to cover a major accident or illness. And Wipp can’t add to the account while she is uninsured.

“The third source would be, I don’t know,” Wipp said. “The fourth is bankruptcy.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact KFF Health News and share your story.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Es 2026 y no tienes seguro médico. ¿Y ahora qué?

Renuka Rayasam — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 09:59:00 +0000

Los cambios en las políticas de salud en Washington están teniendo repercusiones en todo el país y haciendo que millones de personas pierdan su cobertura de Medicaid o de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA). Pero todavía hay formas de acceder a la atención médica.

Durante la próxima década, se espera que la ley republicana llamada One Big Beautiful Bill Act recorte casi $1.000 millones del gasto en Medicaid, el programa estatal-federal que brinda atención sanitaria a personas con bajos ingresos y con discapacidades. La implementación de nuevos requisitos de trabajo hará que algunos beneficiarios pierdan su cobertura de Medicaid.

Millones de personas también enfrentan aumentos enormes en los costos de bolsillo de los planes de ACA. Hasta ahora, la inscripción en planes del Obamacare registra 1,2 millones de personas menos que el año pasado. Analistas de políticas de salud estiman que serán aún más los que perderán su cobertura porque no podrán pagar las primas mensuales.

El costo del cuidado de salud es una de las principales preocupaciones de la gente. Dos de cada tres personas aseguran que están algo o muy preocupadas por el costo de la atención médica y por si podrán afrontarlo. Según una encuesta realizada en enero por KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro que provee información sobre salud y que incluye a KFF Health News, esa preocupación es más frecuente aún que la que generan los gastos en servicios públicos, alimentos, vivienda o gasolina.

“Todo este sufrimiento no tiene por qué existir”, dijo Cheryl Fish-Parcham, directora de cobertura privada en la organización de consumidores de salud Families USA.

Médicos e investigadores de políticas de salud afirman que contar con cobertura médica, de cualquier tipo, es la mejor protección contra una deuda médica importante.

Caitlin Donovan, directora sénior de la organización Patient Advocate Foundation, recomienda agotar todas las opciones disponibles de cobertura.

Incluso un plan con deducible alto puede proteger a los pacientes de quedar endeudados de por vida “si ocurre el peor escenario posible”, dijo.

Los siguientes son cinco consejos para que las personas sin seguro encuentren atención médica accesible:

1. No tengas miedo de hablar con tu médico sobre dinero

A veces, los pacientes dudan en decirles a sus médicos que no tienen seguro o les da miedo expresar que les preocupa no poder pagar la atención médica.

Pero algunos hospitales, médicos y otros proveedores ofrecen opciones más baratas si se paga en efectivo, señaló Cynthia Cox, vicepresidenta sénior y directora del Programa sobre ACA en KFF.

Con frecuencia, las tarifas son negociables. “Siempre hay que preguntar”, agregó.

Los proveedores pueden hacer ajustes si saben que el paciente está preocupado por el dinero, expresó el doctor Ateev Mehrotra, investigador de la Universidad Brown.

“Si mi paciente me dice: ‘Doctor, tengo que pagar esto de mi bolsillo’, yo hago un cálculo de riesgos diferente”, explicó Mehrotra.

Eso no significa que el paciente no recibirá la atención que necesita, dijo. Por ejemplo, el profesional podría pedir una ecografía en lugar de una resonancia magnética, que es mucho más costosa.

2. Busca proveedores que trabajen específicamente con personas sin seguro

Si tu proveedor habitual no quiere bajar los precios, busca opciones que atiendan a personas sin seguro.

Los centros comunitarios de salud calificados a nivel federal (FQHC, por sus siglas en inglés) y otras clínicas ofrecen atención médica básica y no urgente —como tratamiento para gripe o infecciones— a personas de bajos ingresos y sin seguro.

Estos centros cobran de acuerdo con una escala ajustada a los ingresos y atienden a 52 millones de pacientes al año en algunas de las zonas más desatendidas del país, según la Asociación Nacional de Centros de Salud Comunitarios (NACHC, por sus siglas en inglés).

La administración Trump ha recortado fondos que podrían llevar a que algunos de los aproximadamente 1.500 centros calificados del país cierren o reduzcan servicios. Sin embargo, el gobierno mantiene un sitio web donde es posible encontrar un centro próximo.

Planned Parenthood también acepta pacientes sin seguro. Sus centros ofrecen pruebas para enfermedades de transmisión sexual, opciones para control de la natalidad, atención posparto, atención médica de afirmación de género para personas trans y otros servicios.

La National Association of Free & Charitable Clinics, una asociación de instituciones que ofrecen atención sin cargo, también brinda una herramienta para ayudar a las personas a encontrar atención médica gratuita o de bajo costo.

La mayoría de estas clínicas comunitarias no ofrece atención especializada, pero suelen derivar a los pacientes que necesitan servicios más complejos a proveedores dispuestos a atender a personas sin seguro.

Además, los centros médicos universitarios suelen tener más programas de caridad que ayudan a reducir los costos para pacientes sin seguro.

“Si no tienes seguro o incluso tu seguro no es sólido, podrías calificar para un descuento significativo en tu atención médica”, informó Cox.

Sin embargo, hay que tener cuidado con ir a la sala de emergencias, que es el lugar más caro para recibir atención.

Aunque, por ley federal, las salas de emergencia deben estabilizar a todos los pacientes sin tener en cuenta su capacidad de pago, están habilitadas para generar cuentas muy elevadas… y a menudo lo hacen.

3. Llama al departamento de salud de tu condado

Los servicios de salud varían mucho entre condado y condado, pero muchos ofrecen vacunas gratuitas, servicios de planificación familiar y pruebas para detectar enfermedades de transmisión sexual, gripe, covid y tuberculosis.

Algunos también brindan atención más avanzada, como servicios dentales y programas de salud mental o de tratamiento por adicciones. Además, algunos estados tienen programas de asistencia al consumidor que pueden ayudar a las personas a encontrar atención médica, explicó Fish-Parcham.

También está el Programa Nacional de Detección Temprana de Cáncer de Mama y de Cuello Uterino de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglés), que ofrece exámenes gratuitos o a bajo costo a mujeres de bajos ingresos en todos los estados y territorios. Algunos estados también cubren exámenes para otros tipos de cáncer.

4. Es más fácil comparar precios de medicamentos que tarifas médicas

No compres tus medicamentos recetados en la primera farmacia que veas. Es mejor buscar versiones genéricas y, en el caso de los medicamentos de marca, comparar los precios porque varían en diferentes farmacias.

Algunos sitios web, como GoodRx y WellRx, ofrecen herramientas para comparar precios y tienen información sobre otras formas de obtener descuentos en medicamentos.

Además, algunas cadenas ofrecen medicamentos recetados comunes a precios incluso más bajos que los que se encuentran con seguro médico. Walmart, por ejemplo, vende recetas de 90 días de docenas de versiones genéricas de medicamentos por $10. Lo mismo hacen Target, Costco y un nuevo sitio web llamado Cost Plus Drug Company.

Muchos fabricantes de medicamentos también ofrecen programas de asistencia al paciente, cupones, reembolsos y descuentos en algunos de sus productos. En sus sitios web es posible obtener más información sobre cómo solicitarlos.

Los estados también tienen programas de asistencia. Si bien los requisitos y los medicamentos que cubren varían, este recurso tiene una lista de los programas disponibles y cómo funcionan.

Otra opción para acceder a tratamientos es participar en un ensayo clínico.

Los Institutos Nacionales de Salud y el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer tienen listas de estos ensayos, aunque los pacientes deben cumplir con ciertos criterios para que los acepten. Los ensayos clínicos no siempre son gratuitos, ni siquiera para quienes disponen de seguro, aclaró Donovan, así que es importante preguntar sobre los posibles costos asociados.

5. Tu diagnóstico podría darte acceso a recursos especializados

Las personas con ciertos diagnósticos pueden acceder a opciones adicionales de tratamiento especializado.

Por ejemplo, alguien con cáncer de mama debería consultar a la Sociedad Americana contra el Cáncer (American Cancer Society) y con la organización sin fines de lucro Susan G. Komen, recomendó Cox.

La Patient Advocate Foundation ofrece una lista de fundaciones verificadas que pueden ayudar a cubrir gastos médicos y brindar otra ayuda como transporte y alojamiento, explicó Donovan. Solo se necesita ingresar información básica como edad, lugar de residencia y diagnóstico para ver qué recursos están disponibles.

Fundaciones centradas en enfermedades específicas, como el lupus o el sindrome de intestino irritable, también pueden ayudar a los pacientes a encontrar recursos gratuitos o de bajo costo, o a cubrir algunos gastos de atención médica, agregó Donovan.

“Todo está disponible”, dijo.

Sam Whitehead, corresponsal de KFF Health News, colaboró en este informe.

¿Tienes dificultades para pagar tu seguro médico? ¿Has decidido renunciar a la cobertura? Haz clic aquí para contactar a KFF Health News y compartir tu historia.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Cuando el seguro médico cuesta más que la hipoteca

Renuka Rayasam — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 09:59:00 +0000

Cuando Noah Hulsman, dueño de una tienda de patinetas en Louisville, Kentucky, se enteró de que ya no calificaba para los subsidios federales que lo ayudaban a pagar su plan de salud “Oro” de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA, por sus siglas en inglés), el hombre de 37 años optó por una cobertura más limitada. Pero el deducible equivale aproximadamente a una cuarta parte de su ingreso anual.

Loretta Forbes se dio cuenta de que tendría que dejar su plan después de que sus primas mensuales del mercado de seguros de ACA se multiplicaran por diez en 2026. Así que esta mujer de 56 años, que vive en las afueras de Nashville, Tennessee, empezó a racionar sus medicamentos para la artritis reumatoide. Su esposo, Jim, abandonó su negocio de reparaciones domésticas que recién comenzaba para buscar un trabajo que ofreciera cobertura médica.

Y cuando Nicole Wipp se enteró de que la prima mensual de su plan familiar de ACA sería más alta que el pago de su hipoteca, ella y su esposo decidieron cancelarlo y comprar cobertura únicamente para su hijo de 15 años.

Después de hacer cuentas, Wipp, abogada independiente de 54 años en Aiken, Carolina del Sur, dijo que su familia tomó una decisión difícil.

“Decidimos que, al final, nuestra única salida era arriesgarnos”.

A pesar de las intensas discusiones y del cierre del gobierno más largo en la historia ocurrido el otoño pasado, el Congreso liderado por el Partido Republicano permitió que los subsidios mejorados de ACA expiraran el pasado 31 de diciembre.

Desde 2021, estos subsidios habían ayudado a millones de personas a cubrir total o parcialmente sus primas en el mercado de seguros. Con su pérdida y el aumento ya existente en los costos de la atención médica, cada vez más personas de ingresos medios enfrentan decisiones imposibles sobre su cobertura este año.

Hulsman, Forbes y Wipp no califican para Medicaid, el programa público de salud para personas con ingresos bajos o que viven con discapacidades. Pero como muchos otros, se han visto afectados por el aumento de los precios de alimentos, vivienda y otras necesidades básicas. Las primas mensuales cada vez más altas, junto con copagos, deducibles elevados y otros gastos médicos de su bolsillo, suelen llevar a familias como estas al borde de la desesperación.

Más del 80% de los estadounidenses dijeron que su costo de vida aumentó el último año, según una encuesta de enero realizada por KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a la información sobre salud que incluye a KFF Health News.

Los costos de atención médica encabezaron la lista de preocupaciones: alrededor de dos tercios dijeron que les preocupa algo o mucho poder pagarla: más que lo que dijeron sobre otros bienes básicos como alimentos o vivienda.

“Las primas están volviéndose realmente inasequibles para muchas personas. El costo tanto de la atención médica como de otras necesidades básicas está subiendo”, dijo Cheryl Fish-Parcham, directora de cobertura privada en el grupo de consumidores de salud Families USA. “Este es un momento especialmente crítico para que el Congreso actúe”.

La mayoría de los legisladores republicanos se ha negado a renovar los subsidios mejorados. Según la encuesta de KFF, la mayoría de la población considera que la inacción del Congreso fue “una decisión equivocada”. En cambio, los legisladores republicanos han promovido la expansión de las cuentas de ahorro de salud y planes con primas más bajas, pero con deducibles y copagos más altos, que no bajan los costos generales.

El presidente Donald Trump publicó en enero un esbozo de plan de salud con pocos detalles sobre cómo reducir los gastos de bolsillo de millones de personas. La ley conocida como One Big Beautiful Bill Act, que el presidente firmó en julio, se espera que deje sin seguro a millones durante la próxima década, al reducir el gasto federal en salud en casi $1.000 millones, principalmente a través de recortes a Medicaid.

Según datos federales, este año cerca de 1,2 millones de personas menos se inscribieron en planes de ACA, también conocida como Obamacare. Analistas de políticas de salud esperan que más personas dejen de pagar sus primas y cancelen su cobertura en los próximos meses.

Las aseguradoras del mercado de ACA han informado que están cobrando 4 puntos porcentuales más en 2026 porque anticipan que las personas más saludables abandonarán sus planes luego del fin de los subsidios mejorados, dejando en el sistema a pacientes más enfermos y costosos.

El aumento de los costos y la falta de acción del Congreso obligan a muchos a tomar “decisiones insostenibles”, dijo Joan Alker, directora ejecutiva y cofundadora del Centro para Niños y Familias de la Universidad Georgetown.

“Las personas enfrentan un enorme riesgo financiero y de salud”, agregó.

Forbes, la mujer con artritis reumatoide cerca de Nashville, tenía un plan del mercado de ACA desde 2018. Pero este año ella y su esposo, Jim, cancelaron su cobertura después de enterarse de que la prima mensual subiría de $250 a $2.500, debido a la expiración de los subsidios. Jim, de 59 años, dejó su negocio de reparaciones domésticas y empezó a buscar un empleo que ofrezca seguro médico.

“Fue como decir: ‘OK, no podemos respirar. Tenemos que rendirnos’”, contó Forbes, quien fue diagnosticada con cáncer de cuello uterino en 2021. El año pasado perdió su empleo en un centro para personas jubiladas porque no pudo seguir trabajando tras una histerectomía.

Un día antes de que venciera su cobertura de ACA, su esposo recibió una oferta de trabajo en una empresa de administración de propiedades que ofrece seguro médico. En enero, se enteraron de que Forbes fue aprobada para recibir Medicare debido a su discapacidad. Dijo que los $155 mensuales de prima se descuentan automáticamente de su cheque de discapacidad.

El plan de Medicare de Forbes comienza en febrero, justo a tiempo para su próximo examen de detección de cáncer.

“No se imaginan el alivio que siento al saber que tendré atención médica”, dijo Forbes.

Incluso quienes tienen seguro médico enfrentan gastos de bolsillo mucho más altos.

Este año, las primas de los planes del mercado de ACA aumentaron en promedio 26%, debido al alza en los costos hospitalarios, la popularidad de medicamentos costosos como los GLP-1 para la obesidad y la diabetes, y la amenaza de aranceles, según KFF. Casi 4 de cada 10 adultos dijeron que iban a renunciar o a retrasar la atención médica necesaria por los costos, según una encuesta de KFF de 2025.

Hulsman, el dueño de la tienda en Louisville, dijo que gana unos $33.000 al año con su negocio. El año pasado pagaba unos $105 al mes por un plan “Oro” del mercado, con un deducible de $750. Este año, sin el subsidio mejorado, Hulsman paga lo mismo por un plan “Bronce”, pero con un deducible de $8.450, que debe cubrir completamente antes de que la aseguradora empiece a pagar.

En promedio, los deducibles de los planes “Bronce” son más de cuatro veces más altos que los de los planes “Oro”, según un análisis de los planes de 2026 realizado por KFF.

Hulsman ni siquiera consideró dejar de tener seguro médico, ya que Kentucky ofrece protecciones limitadas al consumidor frente a deudas médicas. Pero dijo que intentará conocer el precio antes de ir al médico. Y le preocupa que un accidente grave pueda llevar a la quiebra a su tienda de patinetas. Si tiene que cubrir todo el deducible, no podrá comprar inventario ni pagar las cuentas del negocio.

“En este momento estoy aguantando como puedo”, dijo el skater. “Un tropiezo y la cosa se pone fea”.

En Carolina del Sur, Wipp llevó a su familia a vacunarse el 31 de diciembre, el último día en que ella y su esposo tenían cobertura médica.

La prima mensual este año para un plan familiar básico “Bronce” les habría costado $1.400, frente a $900 el año pasado. Aun así, habrían tenido copagos altos para visitas médicas y un deducible de más de $10.000. En cambio, están pagando unos $200 por la cobertura de su hijo.

Wipp, quien tiene una enfermedad poco común que causa quistes y otros crecimientos en los pulmones, dijo que ella y su esposo planean pagar de su bolsillo este año cualquier atención preventiva inicial. Su segunda fuente de dinero para gastos médicos mayores es una antigua cuenta de ahorro de salud. Pero dijo que esa cuenta no tiene suficiente dinero para cubrir un accidente o enfermedad grave.

Y no puede seguir contribuyendo a esa cuenta mientras no tenga seguro.

“La tercera fuente de dinero sería… no sé”, dijo Wipp. “La cuarta es la bancarrota”.

¿Tienes dificultades para pagar tu seguro médico? ¿Has decidido renunciar a la cobertura? Haz clic aquí para contactar a KFF Health News y compartir tu historia.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Baltimore Drove Down Gun Deaths. Now Trump Has Slashed Funding for That Work.

Renuka Rayasam — Mon, 22 Dec 2025 10:00:00 +0000

BALTIMORE — David Fitzgerald knows how tough it is to prevent gun violence. In 15 years working in some of Baltimore’s deadliest neighborhoods for a program called Safe Streets, he said, he’s defused hundreds of fights that could have led to a shooting.

The effort, part of Baltimore’s more than $100 million gun violence prevention plan, relies on staffers like Fitzgerald to build trust with people at risk of such violence and offer them resources like housing or food. Researchers believe these programs reduce gun deaths.

Yet one morning in 2019, Fitzgerald said, his oldest son, Deshawn McCoy, then 26, was shot just outside of the neighborhood he patrolled at the time. Fitzgerald said McCoy was a “really beautiful soul,” who fixed dirt bikes at a local garage. McCoy became the city’s 65th homicide victim in 2019, one of 348 that year, among the city’s deadliest. He left behind three daughters.

“This is our zone,” said Fitzgerald, pointing toward McElderry Park. “My son got cooked over here.”

For years, violence intervention was the work of loosely organized, underfunded groups. Then gun violence spiked during the covid pandemic and the Biden administration and Congress poured in money to better integrate such programs within cities. It appeared to help: In Baltimore and beyond, gun violence has plummeted.

The number of homicides in the city dropped 41%, from more than 300 a year in 2021 to 201 in 2024, according to the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland.

“Gun violence is a sticky, hard problem to solve,” said Daniel Webster, a researcher at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions in Baltimore. “We’re getting it right finally.”

Now President Donald Trump’s administration has gutted funding for that work.

Webster said it could take years to untangle what led to the city’s gun violence drop. Among the factors, he said: the pandemic’s end, investments in violence intervention, improvements that have given police more legitimacy in neighborhoods, targeted prosecutions, and an aggressive effort to remove untraceable ghost guns.

“You need all of these systems working well to have systemic reductions in gun violence,” he said.

The Trump administration has slashed funding for gun violence prevention and research, cutting about $500 million in grants to organizations that support public safety.

At the same time, Trump has loosened gun laws and weakened the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which oversees gun dealers. He has also sent federal troops into the Democratic-led cities of Chicago; Los Angeles; Memphis, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; and Washington, D.C.

Webster said cities are still benefiting from pandemic-era efforts to address gun deaths. But given the Trump policy changes, if violence escalates, city leaders could have a hard time keeping it from spiraling out of control.

Trying Something Different

Safe Streets is among the promising violence prevention programs that could lose funding. Staffers in the city’s most violent neighborhoods operate like community health workers.

During the pandemic, the Biden administration provided billions of dollars to local governments through the American Rescue Plan Act. Biden urged them to deploy money to community violence intervention programs, which have been shown to reduce homicides by as much as 60%. His administration allowed states to spend Medicaid dollars on such programs. The goal: Stop gun deaths.

Few cities seized the opportunity.

Analyzing federal data, professors Philip Rocco of Marquette University and Amanda Kass of DePaul University found local governments used the ARPA money for 132,451 projects. Yet only 231, less than 0.2%, involved community violence intervention, they said.

In Baltimore, then-newly elected mayor Brandon Scott was ready for the federal influx.

Baltimore’s homicide rate had been high since 2015, when a 25-year-old Black man named Freddie Gray died in police custody. Protests erupted and fractures between residents and police deepened. Baltimore ended the year with 342 homicides, the first time since 1999 that more than 300 were recorded in the city.

“We got really good at our jobs” in the years after Gray’s death, said James Gannon, trauma program manager at Sinai Hospital of Baltimore.

Gun deaths tracked what public health researcher Lawrence T. Brown called the Black Butterfly: racially segregated areas that fanned out across Baltimore’s eastern and western neighborhoods around a wealthy central strip. People who faced years of forced displacement and disinvestment became prone to violence, which fueled the cycle.

Every year from 2015 to 2022, the city recorded at least 300 homicides.

“We had to try something different,” said Stefanie Mavronis, director of the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement. Scott created the agency weeks after he was sworn into office in 2020, later funding it with $50 million in ARPA money and $20 million annually from the city’s budget.

Containing an Outbreak

The office’s budget — $22 million in fiscal year 2026 — is a fraction of the city’s $613 million police department budget.

Still, the money allowed Baltimore’s leaders to scale up a new approach: addressing gun violence the way public health officials might handle an infectious disease outbreak, Mavronis said.

City staffers identified the small subset of people most at risk of being shot or becoming the next shooter through crime data and referrals from social service workers, hospitals, and violence intervention staff, she said. Mavronis said that gangs, friends willing to engage in violence for each other, and retaliation had been driving gun deaths in the city.

“This never-ending cycle of violence and loss and trauma,” Mavronis said, “comes from that.”

The city convened hospital presidents to connect gunshot victims and their friends and family to counseling, crisis support, and city services.

It offered people help finding therapy, a job, or emergency relocation — and threatened arrest and prosecution if they retaliated.

“We decided that we were no longer going to subscribe to the belief that one thing, one agency, one part of government, one program was going to help cure Baltimore of this disease of gun violence that has had a stranglehold on this city for the entirety of my life,” Scott said.

The Coming Cliff

Baltimore is on pace this year to post its fewest gun deaths since Richard Nixon was president.

“Some of it is the national zeitgeist of the moment,” said Adam Rosenberg, executive director of Center for Hope at LifeBridge Health, which operates Safe Streets sites and the Violence Response Team at Sinai Hospital. He credits mainly the infusion of funding that allowed more resources and hands-on engagement with high-risk communities.

“We typically talk about how poverty affects homicides, but it works in reverse too,” Webster said. “People don’t invest in homes and businesses or, frankly, in people, where people get shot regularly.”

Fitzgerald, who grew up in East Baltimore, said he started working for Safe Streets in 2010 for the paycheck.

He’s been on both sides of gun violence, he said, as someone hit more than a dozen times in shootings — first when he was 12. At 13, Fitzgerald said, he shot a cousin in the leg. Over years, he was in and out of the criminal justice system, including for charges of attempted murder, which helped him understand the people he now works with every day, he said.

No college “can certify you in my experiences in violence,” he said. “That’s what allows me to identify and detect potentially violent situations.”

Today, Fitzgerald, 49, believes that teaching kids trauma coping mechanisms can drive culture change and stop shootings.

“Our kids see more death than soldiers,” he said.

But federal funding is drying up. Anthony Smith, executive director of Cities United, which supports local leaders on gun violence reduction, estimates that about 65 groups have lost funding this year. And Trump’s signature legislation slashes nearly $1 trillion in anticipated federal Medicaid spending over the next decade.

Center for Hope lost $1.2 million from federal cuts.

“It’s like a car racing along, and you see the cliff coming,” Rosenberg said. “I don’t know if the resources are there anymore, but the need certainly is.”

Rosenberg said that, because of their experiences, staffers such as Fitzgerald are “incredible messengers” for people involved in gun violence, and he noted that they are thoroughly vetted.

Fitzgerald put it this way: “I’m trying to save my kids, the community. The people we’re trying to save is our friends and our family, and ourselves.”

KFF Health News senior correspondent Fred Clasen-Kelly contributed to this report.

If you or someone you know have experienced the pain of a gunshot wound, and are willing to talk about the medical experience, please fill out our form here.

Aunque se reanuda SNAP, nuevas reglas laborales amenazan el acceso al programa de alimentos por años

Renuka Rayasam and Katheryn Houghton and Samantha Liss — Wed, 03 Dec 2025 15:32:00 +0000

Alejandro Santillan-Garcia teme perder la ayuda que le permite comprar comida.

El residente de Austin, de 20 años, calificó el año pasado para recibir beneficios federales de alimentos porque salió del sistema de cuidado temporal (foster care, en inglés) de Texas, al que ingresó cuando era bebé.

El Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria —conocido como SNAP, por sus siglas en inglés, o cupones de alimentos— ayuda a alimentar a 42 millones de personas con bajos ingresos en el país. Ahora, debido a cambios incluidos en la ley que los republicanos llaman One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Santillan-Garcia pronto podría tener que demostrar a las autoridades que está trabajando para conservar este beneficio.

Contó que perdió su último empleo por faltar al trabajo para ir al doctor para tratarse infecciones estomacales recurrentes. No tiene auto y ha solicitado empleo en supermercados, Walmart, Dollar General, “en cualquier lugar que se te ocurra” al que pueda llegar caminando o en bicicleta.

“Ningún trabajo me ha contratado”.

Según la nueva ley federal de presupuesto, más personas deben demostrar que están trabajando, haciendo voluntariado o estudiando para ser elegibles para SNAP.

Quienes no entreguen la documentación a tiempo corren el riesgo de perder la ayuda alimentaria por hasta tres años.

Al principio, se instruyó a los estados que comenzaran a contar “faltas” de los participantes a partir del 1 de noviembre, el mismo día en que millones de personas vieron suspenderse sus beneficios de SNAP por la negativa de la administración de Donald Trump a financiar el programa durante el cierre del gobierno.

Sin embargo, autoridades federales dieron marcha atrás a mitad de ese mes y dieron a los estados hasta diciembre para aplicar las nuevas reglas.

La ley también limita aún más cuándo los estados y condados con alto desempleo pueden eximir a los beneficiarios de estos requisitos. Pero una batalla legal sobre esa disposición ha generado que los plazos para cumplir con las nuevas normas varíen según el lugar donde vive la persona, incluso dentro del mismo estado en algunos casos.

El Departamento de Agricultura de Estados Unidos (USDA, por sus siglas en inglés) no respondió a una lista detallada de preguntas sobre cómo se implementarán las nuevas reglas de SNAP, y la Casa Blanca tampoco respondió a un pedido de comentarios sobre si estas reglas podrían dejar fuera del programa a personas que dependen de él.

La ley sí extendió exenciones para muchos integrantes de pueblos nativos americanos.

Aun así, los estados deben cumplir con las nuevas reglas o enfrentar sanciones que podrían obligarlos a cubrir una parte mayor del costo del programa, que el año pasado fue de aproximadamente $100.000 millones.

El presidente Trump firmó esta enorme ley presupuestaria, junto con los nuevos requisitos de SNAP, el 4 de julio. Según Chloe Green, subdirectora de la Asociación Estadounidense de Servicios Humanos Públicos (American Public Human Services Association), que asesora a los estados en programas federales, los estados inicialmente estimaron que necesitarían al menos 12 meses para aplicar cambios de tal magnitud.

Según la ley, las personas “capaces de trabajar” que están sujetas a requisitos laborales pueden perder el acceso a los beneficios por tres años si pasan tres meses sin presentar documentación que demuestra sus horas trabajadas.

Dependiendo de cuándo los estados apliquen las reglas, muchas personas podrían comenzar a ser excluidas del programa a principios del próximo año, dijo Lauren Bauer, investigadora en estudios económicos del centro de análisis Brookings Institution. Se espera que los cambios dejen al menos a 2,4 millones de personas fuera de SNAP durante la próxima década, según la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso.

“Es muy difícil trabajar si tienes hambre”, sentenció Bauer.

Muchos adultos beneficiarios de SNAP menores de 55 años ya tenían que cumplir con requisitos de trabajo antes de que se promulgara la ley presupuestaria.

Ahora, por primera vez, los que tengan entre 55 y 64 años, y los padres cuyos hijos tengan 14 años o más deben documentar al menos 80 horas mensuales de trabajo o de otras actividades válidas.

La nueva ley también elimina exenciones que desde 2023 se aplicaban a veteranos, personas sin vivienda y jóvenes que salieron del sistema de cuidado temporal, como Santillan-Garcia.

Políticos republicanos han dicho que estas nuevas reglas forman parte de un esfuerzo más amplio para eliminar el despilfarro, el fraude y el abuso en los programas de asistencia pública.

La secretaria de Agricultura, Brooke Rollins, dijo en noviembre que, además de aplicar la ley, requerirá que millones de personas vuelvan a solicitar los beneficios para reducir el fraude, aunque no dio más detalles. En una entrevista con Newsmax, Rollins afirmó que quiere asegurarse de que los beneficios de SNAP lleguen solo a quienes son “vulnerables” y “no pueden sobrevivir sin ellos”.

Green explicó que los estados están obligados a notificar a las personas que estarán sujetas a cambios en sus beneficios antes de que se los corten. Algunos estados han anunciado los cambios en sus sitios web o por correo, pero muchos no están dando suficiente tiempo para que los beneficiarios se pongan al día.

Defensores contra el hambre temen que los cambios, y la confusión que generan, aumenten el número de personas que enfrentan inseguridad alimentaria. Este año, los bancos de alimentos han reportado cifras récord de personas en busca de ayuda.

Incluso cuando cumplen con los requisitos laborales, muchas personas enfrentan dificultades para subir documentos y hacer que los estados procesen sus beneficios a través de sistemas saturados.

En una encuesta del Urban Institute, alrededor de 1 de cada 8 adultos dijo haber perdido los beneficios alimentarios por problemas al entregar la documentación. Algunos fueron dados de baja por errores del estado o por falta de personal.

Pat Scott, trabajadora comunitaria del Centro de Asistencia de Recursos Beaverhead, en la zona rural de Dillon, en Montana, es la única persona en al menos una hora de distancia conduciendo que ayuda a la población a acceder a asistencia pública, incluidos adultos mayores sin transporte confiable. Pero el centro solo abre una vez por semana, y Scott afirma que ha visto a personas perder la cobertura por problemas con el portal estatal en internet.

Jon Ebelt, vocero del Departamento de Salud de Montana, dijo que el estado trabaja continuamente para mejorar sus programas. Agregó que, si bien algunas reglas han cambiado, ya existe un sistema para reportar el cumplimiento de los requisitos laborales.

En Missoula, Montana, Jill Bonny, directora del albergue Poverello Center, explicó que sus clientes sin techo ya enfrentan grandes desafíos para solicitar ayuda: con frecuencia pierden sus documentos en medio del reto diario de cargar con todas sus pertenencias.

Bonny dijo que también le preocupa que los cambios federales puedan llevar a más personas mayores a quedarse sin hogar si pierden los beneficios de SNAP y tienen que elegir entre pagar la renta o comprar comida.

En Estados Unidos, las personas de 50 años o más son el grupo con mayor crecimiento dentro de la población sin vivienda, según datos federales.

Sharon Cornu, directora ejecutiva del St. Mary’s Center, una organización que apoya a adultos mayores sin hogar en Oakland, California, afirmó que las nuevas reglas están generando desconfianza. “Esto no es normal. No estamos jugando con las reglas de siempre”, dijo Cornu sobre los cambios federales. “Es una medida punitiva y malintencionada”.

A principios de noviembre, un juez federal en Rhode Island ordenó al gobierno de Trump entregar los pagos completos de SNAP durante el cierre del gobierno, que terminó el 12 de noviembre.

Ese mismo juez intentó frenar algunos de los nuevos requisitos laborales. Ordenó al gobierno respetar los acuerdos existentes que eximen del requisito de trabajo a ciertas personas en algunos estados y condados hasta que finalicen dichos acuerdos. En total, 28 estados y el Distrito de Columbia tenían estas exenciones, con fechas de finalización distintas.

Para complicar aún más la situación, algunos estados, como Nuevo México, tienen exenciones que hacen que personas en diferentes condados deban cumplir las reglas en distintos momentos.

Green explicó que si los estados no documentan adecuadamente el estatus laboral de los beneficiarios de SNAP, se les forzará a pagar después. Según la nueva ley, por primera vez los estados deben cubrir una parte del costo de los alimentos, y el monto dependerá de qué tan bien calculen los beneficios.

Durante el cierredel gobierno, cuando nadie recibió beneficios de SNAP, Santillan-Garcia y su novia dependieron de tarjetas de regalo de supermercados que les dio una organización sin fines de lucro para alimentar al bebé de su novia. Para comer ellos, recurrieron a un banco de alimentos, aunque muchos productos, como los lácteos, le hacen daño a Santillan-Garcia.

Le preocupa que en febrero vuelva a estar en la misma situación cuando tenga que renovar sus beneficios —ya sin la exención para jóvenes que salieron del sistema de cuidado temporal—. Las autoridades de Texas aún no le informan qué deberá hacer para seguir recibiendo SNAP.

Santillan-Garcia dijo que reza para que, si no logra encontrar trabajo, pueda encontrar otra forma de seguir cumpliendo los requisitos y mantener sus beneficios.

“Probablemente me los van a quitar”, dijo.

Lo que debes saber

Los cambios en SNAP eliminaron las exenciones a los requisitos laborales para:

Personas de entre 55 y 64 años

Cuidadores de menores de 14 años en adelante

Veteranos

Personas sin vivienda

Jóvenes de hasta 24 años que salieron del sistema de cuidado temporal

Qué deben hacer los beneficiarios de SNAP

Consultar con organizaciones de asistencia pública para saber cuándo entran en vigencia las nuevas reglas en su región. Es posible que las revisen al momento de recertificar, pero podrían pedirle cumplir con los requisitos laborales mensuales mucho antes.

Informar a su estado si está a cargo de un menor de 14 años que vive en su hogar; está embarazada; estudia al menos medio tiempo; asiste a un programa de tratamiento de alcohol o drogas; tiene una condición física o mental que le impide trabajar; es una persona indígena; o cuida a un miembro del hogar incapacitado. Si cumple con alguno de estos criterios, podría seguir estando exento.

KFF 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 KFF.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).

Even as SNAP Resumes, New Work Rules Threaten Access for Years To Come

Renuka Rayasam and Katheryn Houghton and Samantha Liss — Wed, 03 Dec 2025 10:00:00 +0000

Alejandro Santillan-Garcia is worried he’s going to lose the aid that helps him buy food. The 20-year-old Austin resident qualified for federal food benefits last year because he aged out of the Texas foster care system, which he entered as an infant.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — commonly referred to as food stamps, or SNAP — helps feed 42 million low-income people in the United States. Now, because of changes included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, to keep his food benefits Santillan-Garcia might soon have to prove to officials that he’s working.

He said he lost his last job for taking time off to go to the doctor for recurrent stomach infections. He doesn’t have a car and said he has applied to a grocery store, Walmart, Dollar General, “any place you can think of” that he could walk or ride his bike to.

“No job has hired me.”

Under the new federal budget law, to be eligible for SNAP benefits, more people are required to show that they are working, volunteering, or studying. Those who don’t file paperwork in time risk losing food aid for up to three years. States were initially instructed to start counting strikes against participants on Nov. 1, the same day that millions of people saw their SNAP benefits dry up because of the Trump administration’s refusal to fund the program during the government shutdown. But federal officials backtracked partway through the month, instead giving states until December to enforce the new rules.

The new law further limits when states and counties with high unemployment can waive recipients from requirements. But a legal battle over that provision means that the deadline for people to comply with the new rules varies depending on where recipients live, even within a state in some cases.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture did not respond to a detailed list of questions about how the new rules around SNAP will be implemented, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment about whether the rules could kick off people who rely on the program. The law did extend exemptions to many Native Americans.

Still, states must comply with new rules or accrue penalties that could force them to pay a bigger share of the program’s cost, which was about $100 billion last year.

President Donald Trump signed the massive budget bill, along with the new SNAP rules, into law on July 4. States initially predicted they would need at least 12 months to implement such significant changes, said Chloe Green, an assistant director at the American Public Human Services Association who advises states on federal programs.

Under the law, “able-bodied” people subject to work requirements can lose access to benefits for three years if they go three months without documenting working hours.

Depending on when states implement the rules, many people could start being dropped from SNAP early next year, said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, a policy think tank. The changes are expected to knock at least 2.4 million people off SNAP within the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“It’s really hard to work if you are hungry,” Bauer said.

Many adult SNAP recipients under 55 already needed to meet work requirements before the One Big Beautiful Bill Act became law. Now, for the first time, adults ages 55 to 64 and parents whose children are all 14 or older must document 80 hours of work or other qualifying activities per month. The new law also removes exemptions for veterans, homeless people, and former foster care youths, like Santillan-Garcia, that had been in place since 2023.

Republican policymakers said the new rules are part of a broader effort to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in public assistance programs.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in November that in addition to the law, she will require millions to reapply for benefits to curb fraud, though she did not provide more details. Rollins told Newsmax that she wants to ensure that SNAP benefits are going only to those who “are vulnerable” and “can’t survive without it.”

States are required to notify people that they are subject to changes to their SNAP benefits before they’re cut off, Green said. Some states have announced the changes on websites or by mailing recipients, but many aren’t giving enrollees much time to comply.

Anti-hunger advocates fear the changes, and confusion about them, will increase the number of people in the U.S. experiencing hunger. Food pantries have reported record numbers of people seeking help this year.

Even when adhering to the work rules, people often report challenges uploading documents and getting their benefits processed by overwhelmed state systems. In a survey of SNAP participants, about 1 in 8 adults reported having lost food benefits because they had problems filing their paperwork, according to the Urban Institute. Some enrollees have been dropped from aid as a result of state errors and staffing shortfalls.

Pat Scott, a community health worker for the Beaverhead Resource Assistance Center in rural Dillon, Montana, is the only person within at least an hour’s drive who is helping people access public assistance, including seniors without reliable transportation. But the center is open only once a week, and Scott says she has seen people lose coverage because of problems with the state’s online portal.

Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson with the Montana health department, said the state is always working to improve its programs. He added that while some of the rules have changed, a system is already in place for reporting work requirements.

In Missoula, Montana, Jill Bonny, head of the Poverello Center, said the homeless shelter’s clients already struggle to apply for aid, because they often lose documentation amid the daily challenge of carrying everything they own. She said she’s also worried the federal changes could push more older people into homelessness if they lose SNAP benefits and are forced to pick between paying rent or buying food.

In the U.S., people 50 or older are the fastest-growing group experiencing homelessness, according to federal data.

Sharon Cornu is the executive director at St. Mary’s Center, which helps support homeless seniors in Oakland, California. She said the rule changes are sowing distrust. “This is not normal. We are not playing by the regular rules,” Cornu said, referring to the federal changes. “This is punitive and mean-spirited.”

In early November, a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to deliver full SNAP payments during the government shutdown, which ended Nov. 12. That same judge sought to buffer some of the incoming work requirements. He ordered the government to respect existing agreements that waive work requirements in some states and counties until each agreement is set to end. In total, 28 states and the District of Columbia had such exemptions, with different end dates.

Adding to the confusion, some states, including New Mexico, have waivers that mean people in different counties will be subject to the rules at different times.

If states don’t accurately document SNAP enrollees’ work status, they will be forced to pay later on, Green said. Under the new law, states must cover a portion of the food costs for the first time — and the amount depends on how accurately they calculate benefits.

During the government shutdown, when no one received SNAP benefits, Santillan-Garcia and his girlfriend relied on grocery gift cards they received from a nonprofit to prioritize feeding his girlfriend’s baby. They went to a food pantry for themselves, even though many foods, including dairy, make Santillan-Garcia sick.

He’s worried that he’ll be in that position again in February when he must renew his benefits — without the exemption for former foster care youths. Texas officials have yet to inform him about what he will need to do to stay on SNAP.

Santillan-Garcia said he’s praying that, if he is unable to find a job, he can figure out another way to ensure he qualifies for SNAP long-term.

“They’ll probably take it away from me,” he said.

What You Should Know

Changes to SNAP removed work-requirement exemptions for:

People ages 55 to 64.

Caretakers of dependent children 14 or older

Veterans

People without housing

People 24 or younger who aged out of foster care

What SNAP Participants Should Do:

Check with public assistance organizations to find out when the new rules go into effect in your region. Your benefits may be checked at recertification, but you may be required to meet the monthly work reporting rules long before that.

Let your state know if you’re responsible for a dependent child younger than 14 who lives in your home; pregnant; a student at least half the time; attending a drug or alcohol treatment program; physically or mentally unable to work; a Native American; or a caretaker of an incapacitated household member. If so, you may still be exempt.

KFF 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 KFF.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).

The Nation’s Largest Food Aid Program Is About To See Cuts. Here’s What You Should Know.

Katheryn Houghton and Samantha Liss and Renuka Rayasam — Fri, 31 Oct 2025 19:29:14 +0000

The Trump administration’s overhaul of the nation’s largest food assistance program will cause millions of people to lose benefits, strain state budgets, and pressure the nation’s food supply chain, all while likely hindering the goals of the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” platform, according to researchers and former federal officials.

Permanent changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are coming regardless of the outcome of at least two federal lawsuits that seek to prevent the government from cutting off November SNAP benefits. The lawsuits challenge the Trump administration’s refusal to release emergency funds to keep the program operating during the government shutdown.

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the government to use those funds to keep SNAP going. A Massachusetts judge in a separate lawsuit also said the government must use its food aid contingency funds to pay for SNAP, but gave the Trump administration until Nov. 3 to come up with a plan.

Amid that uncertainty, food banks across the U.S. braced for a surge in demand, with the possibility that millions of people will be cut off from the food program that helps them buy groceries.

On Oct. 28, a vanload of SpaghettiOs, tuna, and other groceries arrived at Gateway Food Pantry in Arnold, Missouri. It may be Gateway’s last shipment for a while. The food pantry south of St. Louis largely serves families with school-age children, but it has already exhausted its yearly food budget because of the surge in demand, said Executive Director Patrick McKelvey.

New Disabled South, a Georgia-based nonprofit that advocates for people with disabilities, announced that it was offering one-time payments of $100 to $250 to individuals and families who were expected to lose SNAP benefits in the 14 states it serves.

Less than 48 hours later, the nonprofit had received more than 16,000 requests totaling $3.6 million, largely from families, far more than the organization had funding for.

“It’s unreal,” co-founder Dom Kelly said.

The threat of a SNAP funding lapse is a preview of what’s to come when changes to the program that were included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed in July take effect.

The domestic tax-and-spending law cuts $187 billion within the next decade from SNAP. That’s a nearly 20% decrease from current funding levels, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The new rules shift many food and administrative costs to states, which may lead some to consider withdrawing from the program, which helped about 42 million people buy groceries last year. Separate from the new law, the administration is also pushing states to limit SNAP purchases by barring such things as candy and soda.

All that “puts us in uncharted territory for SNAP,” said Cindy Long, a former deputy undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture who is now a national adviser at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

The country’s first food stamps were issued at the end of the Great Depression, when the poverty-stricken population couldn’t afford farmers’ products. Today, instead of stamps, recipients use debit cards. But the program still buoys farmers and food retailers and prevents hunger during economic downturns.

The CBO estimates that about 3 million people will lose food assistance as a result of several provisions in the budget law, including applying work requirements to more people and shifting more costs to states. Trump administration leaders have backed the changes as a way to limit waste, to put more people to work, and to improve health.

This is the biggest cut to SNAP in its history, and it is coming against the backdrop of rising food prices and a fragile labor market.

The exact toll of the cuts will be difficult to measure, because the Trump administration ended an annual report that measures food insecurity.

Here are five big changes that are coming to SNAP and what they mean for Americans’ health:

1. Want food benefits? They will be harder to get.

Under the new law, people will have to file more paperwork to access SNAP benefits.

Many recipients are already required to work, volunteer, or participate in other eligible activities for 80 hours a month to get money on their benefit cards. The new law extends those requirements to previously exempted groups, including homeless people, veterans, and young people who were in foster care when they turned 18. The expanded work requirements also apply to parents with children 14 or older and adults ages 55 to 64.

Starting Nov. 1, if recipients fail to document each month that they meet the requirements, they will be limited to three months of SNAP benefits in a three-year period.

“That is draconian,” said Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research group. About 1 in 8 adults reported having lost SNAP benefits because they had problems filing their paperwork, according to a December Urban Institute survey.

Certain refugees, asylum-seekers, and other lawful immigrants are cut out of SNAP entirely under the new law.

2. States will have to chip in more money and resources.

The federal law drastically increases what each state will have to pay to keep the program.

Until now, states have needed to pay for only half the administrative costs and none of the food costs, with the rest covered by the federal government.

Under the new law, states are on the hook for 75% of the administrative costs and must cover a portion of the food costs. That amounts to an estimated median cost increase for states of more than 200%, according to a report by the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality.

A KFF Health News analysis shows that a single funding shift related to the cost of food could put states on the hook for an additional $11 billion.

All states participate in the SNAP program, but they could opt out. In June, nearly two dozen Democratic governors wrote to congressional leaders warning that some states wouldn’t be able to come up with the money to continue the program.

“If states are forced to end their SNAP programs, hunger and poverty will increase, children and adults will get sicker, grocery stores in rural areas will struggle to stay open, people in agriculture and the food industry will lose jobs, and state and local economies will suffer,” the governors wrote.

3. Will the changes lead to more healthy eating?

The Trump administration, through its “Make America Healthy Again” platform, has made healthy eating a priority.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has championed the restrictions on soda and candy purchases within the food aid program. To date, 12 states have received approval to limit what people can buy with SNAP dollars.

Federal officials previously blocked such restrictions, because they were difficult for states and stores to implement and they boost stigma around SNAP, according to a 2007 USDA report. In 2018, the first Trump administration rejected an effort from Maine to ban sugar-sweetened drinks and candy.

A store may decide that hassle isn’t worth participating in the program and drop out of it, leaving SNAP recipients fewer places to shop.

People who receive SNAP are no more likely to buy sweets or salty snacks than people who shop without the benefits, according to the USDA. Research shows that encouraging healthy food choices is more effective than regulating purchases.

When people have less money to spend on food, they often resort to cheaper, unhealthier alternatives that keep them sated longer rather than paying for more expensive food that is healthy and fresh but quick to perish.

4. How will SNAP cuts affect health?

Advocacy organizations working to end hunger in the nation say the cuts will have long-term health effects.

Research has found that kids in households with limited access to food are more likely to have a mental disorder. Similarly, food insecurity is linked to lower math and reading skills.

Working-age people with food insecurity are more likely to experience chronic disease. That long list includes high blood pressure, arthritis, diabetes, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Those health issues come with costs for individuals. Low-income adults who aren’t on SNAP spend on average $1,400 more a year on health care than those who are.

About 47 million people lived in households with limited or uncertain access to food in 2023.

5. What does this mean for the nation’s food supply chain?

SNAP spending directly boosts grocery stores, their suppliers, and the transportation and farming industries. Additionally, when low-income households have help accessing food, they’re more likely to spend money on other needs, such as prescriptions or car repairs. All that means that every dollar spent through SNAP generates at least $1.50 in economic activity, according to the USDA.

A report by associations representing convenience stores, grocers, and the food industry estimated it could cost grocers $1.6 billion to comply with the new SNAP restrictions.

Advocates warn stores may pass the costs on to shoppers, or they may close.

KFF 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 KFF.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).

Refugees Will Be Among the First To Lose Food Stamps Under Federal Changes

Renuka Rayasam — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:00:00 +0000

CLARKSTON, Ga. — After fleeing the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, Antoinette landed in the Atlanta area last November and began to find her footing with federal help.

Separated from her adult children and grieving her husband’s death in the war, she started a job packing boxes in a warehouse, making just enough to cover rent for her own apartment and bills.

Antoinette has been relying on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, for her weekly grocery trips.

But now, just as life is starting to stabilize, she will have to deal with a new setback.

President Donald Trump’s massive budget law, which Republicans call the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, slashes $187 billion — or nearly 20% — from the federal budget for SNAP through 2034. And separate from any temporary SNAP stoppages due to the federal shutdown, the law cuts off access completely for refugees and other immigrant groups in the country lawfully. The change was slated to take effect immediately when the law was signed in July, but states are still awaiting federal guidance on when to stop or phase it out.

For Antoinette, 51, who did not want her last name used for fear of deportation and likely persecution in her native country, the loss of food aid is dire.

“I would not have the means to buy food,” she said in French through a translator. “How am I going to manage?”

Throughout its history, the U.S. has admitted into the country refugees like Antoinette, people who have been persecuted, or fear persecution, in their homelands due to race, religion, nationality, political opinions, or membership in a particular social group. These legal immigrants typically face an in-depth vetting process that can start years before they set foot on U.S. soil.

Once they arrive — often with little or no means — the federal government provides resources such as financial assistance, Medicaid, and SNAP, outreach that has typically garnered bipartisan support. Now the Trump administration has pulled back the country’s decades-long support for refugee communities.

The budget law, which funds several of the president’s priorities, including tax cuts to wealthy Americans and border security, revokes refugees’ access to Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, starting in October 2026.

But one of the first provisions to take effect under the law removes SNAP eligibility for most refugees, asylum seekers, trafficking and domestic violence victims, and other legal immigrants. About 90,000 people will lose SNAP in an average month as a result of the new restrictions narrowing which noncitizens can access the program, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“It doesn’t get much more basic than food,” said Matthew Soerens, vice president of advocacy and policy at World Relief, a Christian humanitarian organization that supports U.S. refugees.

“Our government invited these people to rebuild their lives in this country with minimum support,” Soerens said. “Taking food away from them is wrong.”

Not Just a Handout

The White House and officials at the United States Department of Agriculture did not respond to emails about support for the provision that ends SNAP for refugees in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

But Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for reduced levels of immigration to the U.S., said cuts to SNAP eligibility are reasonable because foreign-born people and their young children disproportionately use public benefits.

Still, Camarota said, the refugee population is different from other immigrant groups. “I don’t know that this would be the population I would start with,” Camarota said. “It’s a relatively small population of people that we generally accept have a lot of need.”

Federal, state, and local spending on refugees and asylum seekers, including food, health care, education, and other expenses, totaled $457.2 billion from 2005 to 2019, according to a February 2024 report from the Department of Health and Human Services. During that time, 21% of refugees and asylum seekers received SNAP benefits, compared with 15% of all U.S. residents.

In addition to the budget law’s SNAP changes, financial assistance given to people entering the U.S. by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a part of HHS, has been cut from one year to four months.

The HHS report also found that despite the initial costs of caring for refugees and asylees, this community contributed $123.8 billion more to federal, state, and local governments through taxes than they received in public benefits over the 15 years.

It’s in the country’s best interest to continue to support them, said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit refugee resettlement agency.

“This is not what we should think about as a handout,” she said. “We know that when we support them initially, they go on to not just survive but thrive.”

Food Is Medicine

Food insecurity can have lifelong physical and mental health consequences for people who have already faced years of instability before coming to the U.S., said Andrew Kim, co-founder of Ethnē Health, a community health clinic in Clarkston, an Atlanta suburb that is home to thousands of refugees.

Noncitizens affected by the new law would have received, on average, $210 a month within the next decade, according to the CBO. Without SNAP funds, many refugees and their families might skip meals and switch to lower-quality, inexpensive options, leading to chronic health concerns such as obesity and insulin resistance, and potentially worsening already serious mental health conditions, he said.

After her husband was killed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Antoinette said, she became separated from all seven of her children. The youngest is 19. She still isn’t sure where they are. She misses them but is determined to build a new life for herself. For her, resources like SNAP are critical.

From the conference room of New American Pathways, the nonprofit that helped her enroll in benefits, Antoinette stared straight ahead, stone-faced, when asked about how the cuts would affect her.

Will she shop less? Will she eat fewer fruits and vegetables, and less meat? Will she skip meals?

“Oui,” she replied to each question, using the French for “yes.”

Since arriving in the U.S. last year from Ethiopia with his wife and two teen daughters, Lukas, 61, has been addressing diabetes-related complications, such as blurry vision, headaches, and trouble sleeping. SNAP benefits allow him and his family to afford fresh vegetables like spinach and broccoli, according to Lilly Tenaw, the nurse practitioner who treats Lukas and helped translate his interview.

His blood sugar is now at a safer level, he said proudly after a class at Mosaic Health Center, a community clinic in Clarkston, where he learned to make lentil soup and balance his diet.

“The assistance gives us hope and encourages us to see life in a positive way,” he said in Amharic through a translator. Lukas wanted to use only his family name because he had been jailed and faced persecution in Ethiopia, and now worries about jeopardizing his ability to get permanent residency in the U.S.

Hunger and poor nutrition can lower productivity and make it hard for people to find and keep jobs, said Valerie Lacarte, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute.

“It could affect the labor market,” she said. “It’s bleak.”

More SNAP Cuts To Come

While the Trump administration ended SNAP for refugees effective immediately, the change has created uncertainty for those who provide assistance.

State officials in Texas and California, which receive the most refugees among states, and in Georgia told KFF Health News that the USDA, which runs the program, has yet to issue guidance on whether they should stop providing SNAP on a specific date or phase it out.

And it’s not just refugees who are affected.

Nearly 42 million people receive SNAP benefits, according to the USDA. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that, within the next decade, more than 3 million people will lose monthly food dollars because of planned changes — such as an extension of work requirements to more people and a shift in costs from the federal government to the states.

In September, the administration ended a key report that regularly measured food insecurity among all U.S. households, making it harder to assess the toll of the SNAP cuts.

The USDA also posted on its website that no benefits would be issued for anyone starting Nov. 1 because of the federal shutdown, blaming Senate Democrats. The Trump administration has refused to release emergency funding — as past administrations have done during shutdowns — so that states can continue issuing benefits while congressional leaders work out a budget deal. A coalition of attorneys general and governors from 25 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Oct. 28 contesting the administration’s decision.

Cuts to SNAP will ripple through local grocery stores and farms, stretching the resources of charity organizations and local governments, said Ted Terry, a DeKalb County commissioner and former mayor of Clarkston.

“It’s just the whole ecosystem that has been in place for 40 years completely being disrupted,” he said.

Muzhda Oriakhil, senior community engagement manager at Friends of Refugees, an Atlanta-area nonprofit that helps refugees resettle, said her group and others are scrambling to provide temporary food assistance for refugee families. But charity organizations, food banks, and other nonprofit groups cannot make up for the loss of billions of federal dollars that help families pay for food.

“A lot of families, they may starve,” she said.

KFF 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 KFF.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).

Mercury in Your Hot Dog? Vaccine Skeptics Face Their Limits at Crucial CDC Meeting

Arthur Allen and Renuka Rayasam — Fri, 19 Sep 2025 23:14:49 +0000

ATLANTA — Public health officials watched with dread as a panel shaped by the Trump administration took up an agenda to begin dismantling six decades of vaccination development and progress.

But while the result seemed foretold, the debate was far from unanimous.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, met at a satellite campus of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because the agency’s headquarters were still smashed up from a deadly gun attack last month by a man who said the covid vaccine had made him depressed and suicidal.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made it clear he wants the panel to change the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule, which establishes, sometimes with legal authority, which vaccines are to be mandated, paid for, and administered by states, insurers, and doctors across the country.

Kennedy fired the 17-member panel in June and has so far restocked it with 12 people, including outspoken critics of vaccination. On Sept. 18, the new panel’s discussions reflected its thin expertise and ignorance of how the vaccination schedule came to be. Scientific questions answered decades ago were asked as if they were brand-new.

“We are rookies,” said biostatistician Martin Kulldorff, the committee’s chair, noting many “technical issues that we might not grasp as of yet.”

Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, watched the telecast anxiously.

“It reminds me when as children we would have a mock United Nations meeting,” he said. “This would be like that, except we would have actually made decisions for the United Nations.”

Kennedy’s CDC accomplished what 30 years of public health attempts to fight anti-vaccine sentiment hadn’t: a head-to-head comparison of evidence and arguments. But while the winner was clear in the eyes of most experts, some doubted the result would be good.

“The whole purpose of the people on this committee is to circulate these old recycled anti-vax talking points,” said Sean O’Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado who previously was a liaison from the American Academy of Pediatrics to ACIP. On Friday morning, he said, a colleague had a mother in his practice who refused the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine “because she heard something bad in the news about it last night.”

Until now, public health owned places like ACIP, while vaccine foes and skeptics dominated social media. At this meeting, the skeptics had moved onto public health’s turf — where sometimes flimsy arguments and expertise were exposed.

Pharmacist Hillary Blackburn, for example, asked why children needed two measles, mumps, and rubella shots. ACIP began recommending a second shot in 1989 during a deadly measles outbreak. The two-shot regimen provided more than 95% immunity and led to the virtual elimination of measles from the United States. This year under the Trump administration more than 1,400 cases have been reported, mostly in unvaccinated people.

In one noteworthy gaffe, ACIP member Retsef Levi, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology operations management professor, misinterpreted data from a graph showing declines in hepatitis B in the United States since the 1980s. While rates had fallen in older groups, Levi said, cases in babies hadn’t declined substantially since 2005, when he inaccurately said a birth dose was first recommended.

“Where’s the argument to vaccinate even younger children at all,” he said. “Where is the benefit?”

In fact, the recommendation for a newborn shot began in 1991 and was reinforced and expanded in 2005. The first generation of hepatitis B-vaccinated babies are well into their 30s now.

“As time goes on,” CDC scientist Adam Langer patiently explained, “the people who benefited from the change in policy at the very beginning of the policy are moving into different age groups.”

Kulldorff, Levi, and committee member Evelyn Griffin, a gynecologist, also suggested that vaccines shouldn’t be recommended unless they are tested in placebo trials, which would require certain children not to be vaccinated — a practice considered unethical.

Kulldorff began the meeting defiantly. He did not mention the CDC shooting, but disparaged former agency officials Kennedy had forced out and challenged nine former CDC directors to a debate.

He also asked if anyone in the audience would eat a hot dog laced with thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative the committee banned from influenza vaccines at its last meeting. (No one has ever offered thimerosal as a condiment, but years of study showed the minuscule amounts in vaccines did no harm).

At the June meeting, HHS censored a CDC appraisal of thimerosal while inviting an anti-vaccine activist to present an error-filled criticism of the substance. But on Sept. 18 the panel got what looked like straight science from CDC professionals.

As the committee prepared to debate ending a 34-year-old ACIP recommendation for babies to get a dose of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, CDC career scientists Langer and John Su presented evidence of the vaccine’s safety and benefits.

Langer also laid out the history of the fight against hepatitis B — including the failed effort to control the disease by vaccinating people most at risk, including people who use drugs, sex workers, and pregnant women who tested positive for the virus. Years of trial and error showed that in the U.S., at least, it was necessary to vaccinate newborns to really knock down the disease.

Levi, who frequently mentions the vaccination status of his own six children, challenged the idea that a healthy baby from a “normal” household — one with no history of drug use or prostitution — needed the vaccine.

Cody Meissner, one of three panel members who put up a spirited defense of the status quo in the hepatitis debate, noted that when it comes to vaccination campaigns, “the more we try and define a target group to vaccinate, the less successful we are.” Meissner, a Dartmouth College professor, has published studies of vaccines and the diseases they fight since the 1970s.

Long-observed tropes of vaccine skepticism were abundant on the first day of the meeting. Levi praised a 2004 study from Guinea-Bissau, an outlier that suggested that babies, especially females, were more likely to die if they got a hepatitis B shot. Other panelists said the study, performed in a poor country with high infant mortality where children got an outdated vaccine, wasn’t relevant. But more studies were needed in general, Levi said. “We sit here with very lousy evidence,” he said.

Nurse Vicky Pebsworth of the National Vaccine Information Center, which opposes all vaccine mandates, frequently brought her own selective research into the meeting. She read off the names of studies other panelists hadn’t received to back her arguments that vaccines under discussion were not safe.

But while “too many, too soon” is a common anti-vaccine refrain, Judith Shlay from the National Association of County and City Health Officials, which had a nonvoting chair at the meeting, used it to support the current schedule. She pointed out that the panel’s debate over a combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella shot for children would result in a separate shot for the virus that causes chickenpox, adding to the number of inoculations on the childhood schedule.

“Some parents want to have fewer injections,” she said.

With an 8-3 vote at the end of the day, the committee nonetheless recommended separate vaccinations for MMR and chickenpox.

Everyone seemed puzzled about what had transpired with an ensuing vote on whether the Vaccines for Children Program, which pays for more than half of childhood vaccinations, should respond to ACIP’s new recommendation. The panel revoted on the issue on Sept. 19.

Nor could anyone provide a clear answer as to what prompted the committee’s discussion and planned vote on the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine, since there was no new evidence suggesting any harm from it.

Two of Kennedy’s senior aides, both vaccine skeptics, pushed the hepatitis B discussion onto the ACIP schedule, according to testimony at a Sept. 17 Senate hearing by former CDC chief medical officer Debra Houry, who resigned to protest administration policies.

ACIP member Robert Malone, who has claimed that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, said hepatitis B was on the agenda because it is given to newborns at birth and of special concern to parents newly awakened to vaccine doubt. He appeared to nod off during a CDC staff presentation on the safety of the hepatitis B shot.

Vaccination of babies has always triggered parents. The 19th-century poet Alexander Hope Hume described evil vaccinators who turned “the rosy darling” who “crows with glee” into “a wailing infant” whose every vein “ferments with poison.”

The agenda item was not really about the merit of the hepatitis B vaccine, Malone acknowledged.

“The signal that is prompting this is not one of safety; it’s one of trust,” he said.

But in the end, the committee reconsidered what would have been its first drastic move to reverse a successful U.S. vaccination campaign. It postponed its vote on the hepatitis B birth dose.

KFF 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 KFF.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).