After his mom finally saw a specialist in Glasgow, about an hour away, she was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer, Bighorn said.

Now, 16 years after his mother’s death, Bighorn has access to regular screenings for cancer and other specialty care that she didn’t have, through a health insurance program the Fort Peck Tribes created in 2016. The program, which covers most of the costs for the roughly 1,000 tribal citizens enrolled, is among a growing number of tribally sponsored health insurance programs.

Such programs vary by tribe, but they essentially screen and enroll people living within tribal boundaries in Affordable Care Act marketplace plans. They allow participating Native Americans flexibility to go to outside doctors and clinics when care through the Indian Health Service is unavailable.

“I’d be in a bind otherwise,” said Bighorn, a 65-year-old tribal game warden and member of the Dakota community.

But the Fort Peck Tribes now limit who has access to that coverage. Other tribal organizations that offer Native Americans similar coverage are struggling with rising costs, too.

The financial crunch began when congressional lawmakers allowed enhanced subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire on Dec. 31. Those tax credits, created under the Biden administration during the covid-19 pandemic, expanded subsidized health coverage for millions of people. By late 2025, ACA plans saw about 24 million enrollees, more than twice the number of pre-pandemic annual sign-ups. The cost of coverage shot up for most of those people as the expanded subsidies expired, and enrollment so far has dropped by more than 1 million people, according to federal health officials.

The subsidies had also boosted tribal health insurance programs, like the one Bighorn is enrolled in. The programs pay the price of each person’s share of premiums after subsidies, and the coverage lowers patients’ treatment costs. Now that premium prices have ballooned, so have tribes’ costs.

Rae Jean Belgarde, who directs Fort Peck Tribes’ program, said the higher costs leave the tribes with one option at this point: “Start limiting who gets help.”

The tribes are helping people shift to other insurance options and, in some cases, find state programs to cover their premiums. Tribal leaders also sent a letter to Montana’s all-Republican congressional delegation asking them to support extending the subsidies.

“Our program is saving lives,” the letter read. Belgarde said she didn’t know whether the lawmakers responded.

Scrambling for Solutions

U.S. House members approved a temporary extension of the enhanced subsidies in January. But that measure stalled in the Senate. Lawmakers are scrambling for an alternative after President Donald Trump threatened to veto an extension if a bill reaches his desk. On Jan. 15, the president released an outline of a health care proposal that includes creating savings accounts for people to pay their health costs — an idea Senate Republicans previously floated as an alternative to the subsidies.

A.C. Locklear, CEO of the National Indian Health Board, a nonprofit that works to improve health in Native communities, said tribes are “looking at ways to cut back just as much as everyone else.”

Native Americans as a group continue to face disproportionately high rates of chronic diseases. Their median age at death is 14 years younger than that of white Americans.

“Reducing access to even just general primary care has a significant impact on those disparities,” Locklear said.

Tribal leaders have said letting the subsidies expire further undermines the federal government’s duty to ensure adequate care for Native Americans.

In exchange for taking tribal land through colonization, the U.S. government made long-standing promises to provide for the health and well-being of tribes. Native Americans are guaranteed free health care at clinics and hospitals operated or funded by the Indian Health Service. But that agency’s chronic underfunding has created massive blackouts in care. It sometimes pays for patients’ outside care through its Purchased/Referred Care program, but that’s limited too. Due to funding shortfalls, the agency prioritizes which treatments it will pay for.

To help fill the coverage gaps, some tribal nations have built their own health insurance programs. When tribes pay health premiums, clinics and hospitals in their areas can bill for services that might otherwise go unpaid. Some tribes have leveraged that money to expand services.

“I don’t see tribes getting rid of these programs,” Locklear said. “But it will drastically shift how much tribes can really put back in their community.”

For example, Tuba City Regional Health Care Corp., in northern Arizona within the Navajo Nation, is unique in providing comprehensive cancer treatment on a reservation, Locklear said. The corporation, he said, estimates its costs to cover patients this year are increasing by roughly 170% to nearly $38,000 per month without the enhanced subsidies.

One of the newer programs is on the Blackfeet reservation in northwestern Montana, where basic health services can be hard to find. Medical visits are often offered on a first-come, first-served basis, and services vanish when staff positions go unfilled, said Lyle Rutherford, a Blackfeet Nation council member.

“Some of it is just getting a regular eye appointment, or a primary care appointment,” Rutherford said.

The tribe has been slowly building its health insurance program since launching it in 2024. Rutherford said the enhanced subsidies made that possible. Fewer than 400 people are enrolled out of an estimated 3,000 who qualify. In January, the tribe paused the employer-sponsored coverage portion of its insurance program, which at the time included 52 people.

He said tribal leaders are seeking extra funding to keep the program afloat, and he hopes Congress finds a solution.

Lives on the Line

The impact goes beyond tribes’ insurance programs. The Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based economic and social policy research nonprofit, estimates that 125,000 Native Americans will become uninsured in 2026 due to the higher costs.

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).

LODGE GRASS, Mont. — Brothers Lonny and Teyon Fritzler walked amid the tall grass and cottonwood trees surrounding their boarded-up childhood home near the Little Bighorn River and daydreamed about ways to rebuild.

The rolling prairie outside the single-story clapboard home is where Lonny learned from their grandfather how to break horses. It’s where Teyon learned from their grandmother how to harvest buffalo berries. It’s also where they watched their father get addicted to meth.

Teyon, now 34, began using the drug at 15 with their dad. Lonny, 41, started after college, which he said was partly due to the stress of caring for their grandfather with dementia. Their own addictions to meth persisted for years, outlasting the lives of both their father and grandfather.

It took leaving their home in Lodge Grass, a town of about 500 people on the Crow Indian Reservation, to recover. Here, methamphetamine use is widespread.

The brothers stayed with an aunt in Oklahoma as they learned to live without meth. Their family property has sat empty for years — the horse corral’s beams are broken and its roof caved in, the garage tilts, and the house needs extensive repairs. Such crumbling structures are common in this Native American community, hammered by the effects of meth addiction. Lonny said some homes in disrepair would cost too much to fix. It’s typical for multiple generations to crowd under one roof, sometimes for cultural reasons but also due to the area’s housing shortage.

“We have broken-down houses, a burnt one over here, a lot of houses that are not livable,” Lonny said as he described the few neighboring homes.

In Lodge Grass, an estimated 60% of the residents age 14 and older struggle with drug or alcohol addictions, according to a local survey contracted by the Mountain Shadow Association, a local, Native-led nonprofit. For many in the community, the buildings in disrepair are symbols of that struggle. But signs of renewal are emerging. In recent years, the town has torn down more than two dozen abandoned buildings. Now, for the first time in decades, new businesses are going up and have become new symbols — those of the town’s effort to recover from the effects of meth.

One of those new buildings, a day care center, arrived in October 2024. A parade of people followed the small, wooden building through town as it was delivered on the back of a truck. It replaced a formerly abandoned home that had tested positive for traces of meth.

“People were crying,” said Megkian Doyle, who heads the Mountain Shadow Association, which opened the center. “It was the first time that you could see new and tangible things that pulled into town.”

The nonprofit is also behind the town’s latest construction project: a place where families together can heal from addiction. The plan is to build an entire campus in town that provides mental health resources, housing for kids whose parents need treatment elsewhere, and housing for families working to live without drugs and alcohol.

Though the project is years away from completion, locals often stop by to watch the progress.

“There is a ground-level swell of hope that’s starting to come up around your ankles,” Doyle said.

Two of the builders on that project are Lonny and Teyon Fritzler. They see the work as a chance to help rebuild their community within the Apsáalooke Nation, also known as the Crow Tribe.

“When I got into construction work, I actually thought God was punishing me,” Lonny said. “But now, coming back, building these walls, I’m like, ‘Wow. This is ours now.’”

Meth ‘Never Left’

Meth use is a long-standing public health epidemic throughout the U.S. and a growing contributor to the nation’s overdose crisis. The drug had been devastating in Indian Country, a term that encompasses tribal jurisdictions and certain areas with Native American populations.

Native Americans face the highest rates of meth addiction in the U.S. compared with any other demographic group.

“Meth has never left our communities,” said A.C. Locklear, CEO of the National Indian Health Board, a nonprofit that works to improve health in Indian Country.

Many reservations are in rural areas, which have higher rates of meth use compared with cities. As a group, Native Americans face high rates of poverty, chronic disease, and mental illness — all are risk factors for addiction. These conditions are rooted in more than a century of systemic discrimination, a byproduct of colonization. Meanwhile, the Indian Health Service, which provides health care to Native Americans, has been chronically underfunded. Cutbacks under the Trump administration have shrunk health programs nationwide.

LeeAnn Bruised Head, a recently retired public health adviser with the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, said that despite the challenges, tribal nations have developed strong survival skills drawing from their traditions. For example, Crow people have held onto their nation’s language; neighbors are often family, or considered such; and many tribal members rely on their clans to mentor children, who eventually become mentors themselves for the next generation.

“The strength here, the support here,” said Bruised Head, who is part of the Crow Tribe. “You can’t get that anywhere else.”

Signs of Rebuilding

On a fall day, Quincy Dabney greeted people arriving for lunch at the Lodge Grass drop-in center. The center recently opened in a former church as a place where people can come for help to stay sober or for a free meal. Dabney volunteers at the center. He’s also the town’s mayor.

Dabney helped organize community cleanup days starting in 2017, during which people picked up trash in yards and alongside roads. The focus eventually shifted to tearing down empty, condemned houses, which Dabney said had become spots to sell, distribute, and use meth, often during the day as children played nearby.

“There was nothing stopping it here,” Dabney said.

The problem hasn’t disappeared, though. In 2024, officials broke up a multistate trafficking operation based on the Crow reservation that distributed drugs to other Montana reservations. It was one example of how drug traffickers have targeted tribal nations as sales and distribution hubs.

A few blocks from where Dabney spoke stood the remains of a stone building where someone had spray-painted “Stop Meth” on its roofless walls. Still, there are signs of change, he said.

Dabney pointed across the street to a field where a trailer had sat empty for years before the town removed it. The town was halfway through tearing down another home in disrepair on the next block. Another house on the same street was being cleaned up for an incoming renter: a new mental health worker at the drop-in center.

Just down the road, work was underway on the new campus for addiction recovery, called Kaala’s Village. Kaala means “grandmother” in Crow.

The site’s first building going up is a therapeutic foster home. Plans include housing to gradually reunite families, a community garden, and a place to hold ceremonies. Doyle said the goal is that, eventually, residents can help build their own small homes, working with experienced builders trained to provide mental health support.

She said one of the most important aspects of this work “is that we finish it.”

Tribal citizens and organizations have said the political chaos of Trump’s first year back in office shows the problem with relying on federal programs. It underscores the need for more grassroots efforts, like what’s unfolding in Lodge Grass. But a reliable system to fund those efforts still doesn’t exist. Last year’s federal grant and program cuts also fueled competition for philanthropic dollars.

Kaala’s Village is expected to cost $5 million. The association is building in phases as money comes in. Doyle said the group hopes to open the foster home by spring, and family housing the following year.

The site is a few minutes’ drive from Lonny and Teyon’s childhood home. In addition to building the new facility’s walls, they’re getting training to offer mental health support. Eventually, they hope to work alongside people who come home to Kaala’s Village.

As for their own home, they hope to restore it — one room at a time.

“Just piece by piece,” Lonny said. “We’ve got to do something. We’ve got these young ones watching.”

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).

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).

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).

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).

A pesar de algunos avances este año, especialmente en estados con mayoría demócrata, los recientes reveses en las legislaturas más conservadoras dejan claro lo difícil que es proteger a los pacientes.

Este año fracasaron proyectos de ley para proteger a los consumidores de deudas médicas en Indiana, Montana, Nevada, Dakota del Sur y Wyoming, debido a la oposición de la industria. Y defensores advierten que los estados deben actuar, ya que se espera que millones de personas pierdan su seguro médico debido a la ley fiscal y de gasto del presidente Donald Trump.

“Este ya era un tema clave incluso antes del cambio de administración en Washington”, dijo Kate Ende, directora de políticas de la organización Consumers for Affordable Health Care, con sede en Maine. “La retirada a nivel federal hizo aún más urgente movilizarse”.

Este año, Maine se unió a una creciente lista de estados que han prohibido que la deuda médica aparezca en los reportes de crédito de sus residentes, una protección que puede facilitar el acceso a una vivienda, un auto o incluso un empleo. La medida fue aprobada por unanimidad y con apoyo bipartidista.

Se estima que 100 millones de personas en Estados Unidos tienen algún tipo de deuda relacionada con la atención médica.

El gobierno federal estaba a punto de prohibir que la deuda médica apareciera en los reportes de crédito, gracias a una normativa emitida en los últimos días del mandato del ex presidente Joe Biden. Esa medida habría beneficiado a unas 15 millones de personas en todo el país.

Pero la administración Trump no defendió la normativa ante las demandas legales de agencias de cobro y burós de crédito, que argumentaban que la Oficina para la Protección Financiera del Consumidor (CFPB, en inglés) se había excedido en su autoridad.

Un juez federal de Texas, designado por Trump, falló que la normativa debía anularse.

Ahora, solo los pacientes que viven en estados que han aprobado sus propias normas sobre reportes de crédito podrán beneficiarse de esta protección. Más de una docena de estados tienen estas restricciones, entre ellos California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Nueva York y Vermont, que al igual que Maine, adoptaron una prohibición este año.

En los últimos años, más estados han aprobado otras protecciones contra la deuda médica, como límites a la tasa de interés que se puede cobrar y restricciones al uso del embargo de salarios o la incautación de bienes para cobrar facturas médicas impagas.

En muchos casos, estas medidas han recibido apoyo bipartidista, lo que refleja la popularidad de las protecciones al consumidor. En Virginia, el gobernador republicano firmó una ley este año que limita el embargo de salarios y establece un tope a los intereses.

Y varios legisladores republicanos en California se unieron a los demócratas para respaldar una medida que facilita el acceso a ayuda financiera de los hospitales para quienes enfrentan facturas elevadas.

“Este es el tipo de asunto de sentido común que afecta al bolsillo de las personas y que atrae tanto a republicanos como a demócratas”, señaló Eva Stahl, vicepresidenta de Undue Medical Debt, una organización sin fines de lucro que compra y perdona deudas médicas, y que ha trabajado para que se amplíen protecciones para pacientes.

Pero en varias legislaturas estatales, el impulso por nuevas protecciones se topó con barreras.

Proyectos de ley para prohibir que las deudas médicas aparecieran en los reportes de crédito fracasaron en Wyoming y Dakota del Sur, a pesar del apoyo de algunos legisladores republicanos. Y las medidas para limitar los cobros agresivos contra residentes con deuda médica fueron rechazadas en Indiana, Montana y Nevada.

En algunos estados, las propuestas enfrentaron una fuerte oposición de agencias de cobro, burós de crédito y bancos, que argumentaron ante los legisladores que sin información sobre deudas médicas podrían terminar otorgando a los consumidores préstamos de alto riesgo.

La representante estatal Lana Greenfield (republicana de Dakota del Sur), repitió las objeciones de la industria al pedir a sus colegas que votaran en contra de la prohibición. “Los bancos pequeños de comunidades pequeñas no podrían obtener información sobre una factura médica muy, muy grande. Y entonces, podrían otorgar un préstamo de buena fe a alguien sin saber realmente cuál era su crédito”, dijo Greenfield en el pleno de la Cámara.

Durante el gobierno de Biden, los investigadores de la CFPB encontraron que, a diferencia de otros tipos de deuda, la médica no era un buen indicador de la solvencia crediticia.

Pero el representante estatal Brian Mulder (republicano de Dakota del Sur), presidente del comité de salud que redactó la legislación, destacó el poder del sector bancario en el estado, donde regulaciones favorables lo han convertido en un imán para las instituciones financieras.

En Montana, una propuesta para proteger parte de los bienes de los deudores frente al embargo avanzó fácilmente en el comité. Sus defensores esperaban que fuera especialmente útil para pacientes nativos americanos, quienes enfrentan de forma desproporcionada la carga de la deuda médica.

Pero cuando el proyecto de ley llegó al pleno de la Cámara, los opositores “aparecieron en masa” y hablaron personalmente con los legisladores republicanos una hora antes de la votación, contó Ed Stafman, legislador demócrata y autor de la propuesta.

“Juntaron el número de votos suficientes para derrotar el proyecto por poco”, dijo.

Tanto defensores de los pacientes como legisladores que respaldaron estas medidas dijeron que son optimistas respecto a superar la oposición de la industria en el futuro.

Y hay señales de que algunas propuestas para ampliar las protecciones a los pacientes podrían avanzar en otros estados conservadores, como Ohio y Texas.

En Texas, una propuesta que obligaría a los hospitales sin fines de lucro a ampliar la ayuda financiera para quienes enfrentan facturas altas ha recibido el respaldo de organizaciones conservadoras influyentes.

“Estas cosas a veces toman tiempo”, dijo Lucy Culp, quien lidera el cabildeo estatal de Blood Cancer United (anteriormente conocida como Leukemia & Lymphoma Society). Esta organización ha impulsado leyes estatales de protección contra la deuda médica en años recientes, incluso en Montana y Dakota del Sur.

Lo más preocupante, dijo Culp, es la ola de pacientes sin seguro que se espera debido a los recortes en la cobertura médica derivados de la nueva ley fiscal aprobada por los republicanos. Esto agravará aún más el problema de la deuda médica en el país.

“Los estados no están preparados para eso”, advirtió Culp.

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).

Despite progress in some mostly blue states this year, however, recent setbacks in more conservative legislatures underscore the persistent challenges in strengthening patient protections.

Bills to shield patients from medical debt failed this year in Indiana, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming in the face of industry opposition. And advocates warn that states need to step up as millions of Americans are expected to lose insurance coverage because of President Donald Trump’s tax and spending law.

“This is an issue that had been top of mind even before the change of administrations in Washington,” said Kate Ende, policy director of Maine-based Consumers for Affordable Health Care. “The pullback at the federal level made it that much more important that we do something.”

This year, Maine joined a growing list of states that have barred medical debt from residents’ credit reports, a key protection that can make it easier for consumers to get a home, a car, or sometimes a job. The measure passed unanimously with bipartisan support.

An estimated 100 million adults in the U.S. have some form of health care debt.

The federal government was poised to bar medical debt from credit reports under regulations issued in the waning days of former President Joe Biden’s administration. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people nationwide.

But the Trump administration did not defend the regulations from lawsuits brought by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped.

Now, only patients in states that have enacted their own credit reporting rules will benefit from such protections. More than a dozen have such limits, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont, which, like Maine, enacted a ban this year.

Still more states have passed other medical debt protections in recent years, including caps on how much interest can be charged on such debt and limits on the use of wage garnishments and property liens to collect unpaid medical bills.

In many cases, the medical debt rules won bipartisan support, reflecting the overwhelming popularity of these consumer protections. In Virginia, the state’s conservative Republican governor this year signed a measure restricting wage garnishment and capping interest rates.

And several GOP lawmakers in California joined Democrats in support of a measure to make it easier for patients to access financial assistance from hospitals for big bills.

“This is the kind of commonsense, pocketbook issue that appeals to Republicans and Democrats,” said Eva Stahl, a vice president at Undue Medical Debt, a nonprofit that buys up and retires patients’ debts and has pushed for expanded patient protections.

But in several statehouses, the drive for more safeguards hit walls.

Bills to ban medical debts from appearing on credit reports failed in Wyoming and South Dakota, despite support from some GOP lawmakers. And measures to limit aggressive collections against residents with medical debt were derailed in Indiana, Montana, and Nevada.

In some states, the measures faced stiff opposition from debt collectors, the credit reporting industry, and banks, who told legislators that without information about medical debts, they might end up offering consumers risky loans.

In Maine, the Consumer Data Industry Association, which represents credit bureaus, told lawmakers that regulating medical debt should be left to the federal government. “Only national, uniform standards can achieve the dual goals of protecting consumers and maintaining accurate credit reports,” warned Zachary Taylor, the group’s government relations director.

In South Dakota, state Rep. Lana Greenfield, a Republican, echoed industry objections in urging her colleagues to vote against a credit reporting ban. “Small-town banks could not receive information on a mega, mega medical bill. And so, they would in good faith perhaps loan money to somebody without knowing what their credit was,” Greenfield said on the House floor.

Under the Biden administration, CFPB researchers found that medical debt, unlike other debt, was not a good predictor of creditworthiness.

But South Dakota state Rep. Brian Mulder, a Republican who chairs the health committee and authored the legislation, noted the power of the banking industry in South Dakota, where favorable regulations have made the state a magnet for financial institutions.

In Montana, legislation to shield a portion of debtors’ assets from garnishment easily passed a committee. Supporters hoped the measure would be particularly helpful to Native American patients, who are disproportionately burdened by medical debt.

But when the bill reached the House floor, opponents “showed up en masse,” talking one-on-one with Republican lawmakers an hour before the vote, said Rep. Ed Stafman, a Democrat who authored the bill. “They lassoed just enough votes to narrowly defeat the bill,” he said.

Advocates for patients and legislators who backed some of these measures said they’re optimistic they’ll be able to overcome industry opposition in the future.

And there are signs that legislation to expand patient protections may make headway in other conservative states, including Ohio and Texas. A proposal in Texas to force nonprofit hospitals to expand aid to patients facing large bills picked up support from leading conservative organizations.

“These things can sometimes take time,” said Lucy Culp, who oversees state lobbying efforts by Blood Cancer United, formerly known as the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. The patients’ group has been pushing for state medical debt protections in recent years, including in Montana and South Dakota.

More concerning, Culp said, is the wave of uninsured patients expected as millions of Americans lose health coverage due to cutbacks in the recently passed GOP tax law. That will almost certainly make the nation’s medical debt problem more dire.

“States are not ready for that,” Culp 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).

“I could hear the bones moving around in my elbow,” said Buttgereit, who was 60 when she slipped on a patch of ice in December outside her apartment in Bozeman, Montana.

Emergency room scans showed she had fractured her left arm near the joint. Doctors told her she needed surgery to repair it.

At the time, Buttgereit didn’t have health insurance — she had struggled to afford coverage after her husband’s death. The local health system, Bozeman Health, estimated Buttgereit would have to pay $50,560 out-of-pocket for the outpatient surgery to have her elbow pieced back together.

The estimate noted: “You could be charged more if complications or special circumstances occur.”

Four days after her fall, Buttgereit went in for surgery, which took about three hours. During a follow-up visit, she said, her doctor told her the procedure ended up being more complicated than expected.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Procedure

Buttgereit broke her humerus, the upper-arm bone that meets two other bones and forms the elbow. The way the bone splintered is known as a distal humerus fracture. It’s rare as far as breaks go, accounting for only about 2% of all fractures among adults. But older people, as well as kids in high-contact sports, are more prone to the big falls that lead to such fractures. The injury is painful and can make it impossible to move the elbow.

Some of these types of fractures heal with time in a splint, but most often surgery is the only fix. The patient is put under anesthesia while a surgeon repositions fragmented bones with plates and screws.

The Final Bill

$97,998. That includes at least $44,300 for the operating room and anesthesia administration, plus more than $50,000 for medical supplies and implants, such as screws and plates. After the hospital applied a self-pay discount, Buttgereit was on the hook for $78,398.40.

The Problem: Surprise Complications, Surprising Charges 

The hospital said the price for Buttgereit’s surgery increased because doctors encountered complications midprocedure.

In particular, the fall had shattered Buttgereit’s bone into more pieces than her surgeon anticipated, according to operating notes. That meant it took more time, skill, and supplies to reconstruct her elbow. And, since she was uninsured, Buttgereit alone faced the burden to pay the higher costs.

“I’ll make payments the rest of my life to pay it all off,” she said.

Buttgereit’s husband died suddenly in 2023. About a year later, she left her job with the company that had employed them both. The memories of him in that space were too difficult, she said. That also meant leaving behind her health coverage. She moved to Bozeman to be closer to one of her daughters and found a health plan at healthcare.gov that the federal government subsidized because of her limited income.

But she also faced a higher cost of living in Bozeman than her Social Security benefits could cover, and she needed part-time work. While that new income helped pay her bills, Buttgereit said, she no longer qualified for the same level of subsidized coverage and couldn’t afford her plan. So she dropped her health insurance.

About two months later, she fell.

After getting the surgery bill, Buttgereit began calling and emailing the hospital’s customer service team, asking how the price had risen from the $50,560 estimate to nearly $98,000. The hospital had automatically applied the self-pay discount of $19,600 to Buttgereit’s bill — 20% of the total. But that still left her with a tab of more than $78,000.

After more time to think pain-free, she said, she also wanted to know why the initial estimate was much steeper than those she found online for similar procedures.

Specifically, Buttgereit asked how to dispute her bill. When she felt she wasn’t making progress contesting the charges with the hospital, she asked about her options under the No Surprises Act, a federal consumer protection law.

According to emails reviewed by KFF Health News, a Bozeman Health billing employee incorrectly told Buttgereit the law applies only to ER services. The employee later said Buttgereit had the right to dispute the bill but gave her an incorrect deadline.

Hospital staffers recommended Buttgereit set up a payment plan and apply to the health system’s financial aid program.

Erin Schaible, a spokesperson with Bozeman Health, told KFF Health News that online estimates don’t reflect the specific details of a patient’s care. In addition to the shattered bones noted in Buttgereit’s surgery notes, Schaible said the physician identified nerve damage midsurgery that required additional work to fix.

“This situation highlights the importance of clear and compassionate communication,” Schaible said. “In response, our team leaders are revising internal protocols for escalating patient concerns and are reeducating staff on best practices for communicating cost estimate changes.”

The Resolution

Buttgereit refused to apply for financial aid, opting instead to challenge what she sees as inflated pricing. Using Healthcare Bluebook, an online price comparison tool that draws on insurance claims data, Buttgereit found similar procedures ranged from $8,000 to $40,000.  

She said she believes that there are also errors on her bill and that the complications didn’t justify the price.

“I felt like going through financial assistance means that I’m OK with the price of the bill,” she said. “I want to get the bill reduced on the front end and then, if I need financial assistance, go through it.”

A billing employee emailed Buttgereit in May to offer an additional $7,000 discount if she set up a payment plan. If she later qualified for financial assistance, “we will adjust the amount accordingly,” the email said.

In June, the employee told Buttgereit her account would be put on hold before a collection process was initiated, “so that you have time to decide what to do.”

Buttgereit agreed to a payment plan of $100 a month, though she continued to contest the total charges.

At that rate, it would take about 60 years to pay off the debt — or longer, if the health system were to charge interest.

Buttgereit made one more bid for help: She emailed the White House.

This month, in the same week she got a detailed letter from the hospital standing by its charges, Buttgereit said she received a call from an official with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, saying she could dispute the bill to federal health officials.

The Takeaway

The best time to push back against a price is before surgery, upon receiving a hospital’s best guess on costs, known as a “good faith estimate.” Otherwise, undergoing surgery is considered tacit acceptance of that price as a baseline.

Patricia Kelmar, director of health care campaigns at the national consumer advocacy group U.S. PIRG, follows ways in which people get tangled financially in the health industry. She said patients should compare cost estimates by searching their hospital’s online pricing tool (as well as those of nearby hospitals) to see whether the estimates align. But not every procedure makes those lists, especially those for uncommon injuries, nor is every hospital’s list easy to access and navigate.

Post-surgery, patients have few resources to fight big bills, but a little-known rule in the No Surprises Act could help, Kelmar said.

The law, which took effect in 2022, is best known for protecting patients from surprise bills for out-of-network, emergency care. But it also created a formal dispute process for uninsured patients, or those paying completely out-of-pocket for nonemergency procedures, if their final tab is $400 or more than the initial estimate.

“This is a valid, important part of making sure that patients who are cash-pay have a watchdog,” Kelmar said.

People can start the patient-provider dispute process online, through the CMS website, by providing medical records and paying a $25 fee. Patients must initiate the process within 120 days of receiving the bill, and the bill may not be sent to a collection agency while under review.

An independent reviewer evaluates whether the final price is drastically different from what a health insurance company would have paid and whether the complication was predictable. If the review finds that the health provider erred on either front, federal health officials could require them to reduce the bill to match the original estimate or the median price insurers pay.

Buttgereit said she initially opted against pursuing that formal dispute process because, after such a review, the floor would be the hospital’s initial estimate, and she still had questions about how it would work. But after hearing from CMS, Buttgereit said it’s the path she plans to take.  

“You’ve got to fight for yourself,” she said. “I don’t know where this is going to end up, but I feel a little bit more hopeful.”

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health News and The Washington Post’s Well+Being that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

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).

Georgia is the only state with a work requirement in place for Medicaid, but several states have been pursuing such a policy for years, only to be blocked by courts or, most recently, the Biden administration. Some seek state-specific touches to the new rules. Others aim to implement work requirements before the federal law takes effect at the end of 2026.

These states’ moves and Trump’s massive tax-and-spending law share one demand: To keep their Medicaid health coverage, adults who can work must prove they’re logging a minimum number of hours at a job or school, or else qualify for one of the few exemptions.

But now, states that jumped ahead need to ensure their proposals, which require federal approval, don’t stray too far from Trump’s law.

“The statute sets both the floor and ceiling” for work requirements, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor with George Washington University.

South Dakota, for example, announced in July that it would not submit an application for work requirements as previously planned amid concerns that the state’s laxer rules would not be allowed under the new federal law. The state’s Department of Social Services secretary had warned that working on a state proposal while the federal rules are being hashed out could be “an exercise in futility.”

Arkansas’ plan, on the other hand, is more stringent than the federal law. There are no exemptions to its work requirements in the application, which is pending with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Arizona’s proposal also includes something that’s not in the federal law: a ban on “able-bodied adults” receiving Medicaid benefits for longer than five years total in their lives.

Arkansas and Arizona government officials said they were working with federal officials to square their plans with the new standards.

Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said the department is analyzing how the new federal standards interact with state waivers.

The federal health department must release rules by next June that outline how states are to implement work requirements, according to Elizabeth Hinton, who has been tracking such waivers as part of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“We don’t exactly know what that will cover,” Hinton said.

It’s unclear how federal officials will respond to the states’ requests, she added, but “we are aware that some folks think there is no wiggle room here.”

States can tweak their Medicaid programs through what are known as demonstration waivers, which are subject to federal approval. The waivers are designed to test new ideas in policy gray areas.

The states that have filed or plan to file such applications with work requirements include Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah.

Congressional Republicans who passed the budget reconciliation bill left room for states to use waivers to fast-track the national standards. Tara Sklar, a professor leading the University of Arizona’s Health Law & Policy Program, said she expects states seeking certain stricter requirements to have a chance of approval, while more lenient ones may face denials.

Federal officials may look favorably on Arizona’s plan, Sklar said, as a five-year lifetime Medicaid limit is different from work requirements. Even if the federal government greenlights stricter work requirements than the federal law calls for, those programs are likely to face legal challenges, she added.

The federal law includes an 80-hour-per-month minimum for work or education, with exemptions for certain adults, including people who are medically frail and parents with young, dependent children.

Montana is the first state to draft a waiver application since Congress finalized national work requirements. State lawmakers first approved work requirements — called “community engagement” standards under the state plan — in 2019, but the state’s application stalled through the end of the first Trump term and the Biden administration.

After Trump was elected again, Montana lawmakers lifted the 2025 expiration date of its Medicaid expansion program, making permanent the program that covered more than 76,000 adults in April, with the expectation that the Trump administration would approve work requirements. In mid-July, state officials released their draft plan to make that a reality “as soon as is practicable.”

The Montana plan largely aligns with the federal law, but it would create additional exemptions, including for people who are homeless or fleeing domestic violence.

Republican state Sen. Gayle Lammers said work requirements that also protect such people who need Medicaid were a big part of persuading legislators to keep the expansion program. At the time, officials didn’t know where the federal government would land on work requirements. And now, Lammers said, it makes sense for Montana to stick to its plan.

“The state should have a say,” Lammers said. “We’re very independent, and everyone is different.”

In South Carolina, state officials are seeking to roll out work requirements for a limited number of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. South Carolina is one of 10 states that has not expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, and yet the state submitted a request with the federal government in June for a partial Medicaid expansion that includes a work requirement component that largely reflects the new federal standards.

In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, called South Carolina’s proposal “a state-specific solution.”

The only state with an active work requirement program now wants to scale it back and awaits federal approval to do so. “Georgia Pathways to Coverage” expires at the end of September unless CMS greenlights an extension of the program with a key change: requiring enrollees to document once a year that they’re working, not monthly. That’s a pivot away from the program’s initial design but also differs from the new federal rules, which call for checks every six months.

Fiona Roberts, a spokesperson for Georgia’s Medicaid agency, said the state is still waiting to hear whether it needs to alter its plan.

So Georgia is among the states in limbo, awaiting guidance from the federal government.

KFF Health News correspondents Sam Whitehead and Lauren Sausser contributed to this report.

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).

Georgia es el único estado con un requisito laboral para Medicaid, pero varios estados llevan años intentando implementarlo, solo para ser bloqueados por los tribunales o, más recientemente, por la administración Biden.

Algunos buscan modificaciones específicas a las nuevas normas para cada estado. Otros pretenden implementar los requisitos laborales antes de que la ley federal entre en vigencia a finales de 2026.

Las acciones de estos estados y la enorme ley de impuestos y gastos de Trump comparten una exigencia: para mantener la cobertura de Medicaid, los adultos que puedan trabajar deben demostrar que lo están haciendo por un mínimo de horas en un trabajo o estudiando, o bien calificar para una de las pocas exenciones.

Pero ahora, los estados que se adelantaron deben asegurarse de que sus propuestas, que requieren aprobación federal, no se alejen demasiado de la ley de Trump.

“El estatuto establece el mínimo y el máximo” para los requisitos laborales, afirmó Sara Rosenbaum, profesora de derecho y políticas sanitarias de la Universidad George Washington.

Por ejemplo, Dakota del Sur anunció en julio que no presentaría una solicitud para los requisitos laborales como se había planeado previamente, ante la preocupación de que las normas estatales, menos estrictas, no se permitieran bajo la nueva ley federal. El secretario del Departamento de Servicios Sociales del estado advirtió que trabajar en una propuesta estatal mientras se debatían las normas federales podría ser “un ejercicio inútil”.

El plan de Arkansas, por otro lado, es más estricto que la ley federal. No hay exenciones a sus requisitos laborales en la solicitud, que está pendiente en los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS).

La propuesta de Arizona también incluye algo que no está en la ley federal: la prohibición de que los “adultos sin discapacidad” reciban beneficios de Medicaid por más de cinco años en total a lo largo de su vida.

Funcionarios gubernamentales de Arkansas y Arizona afirmaron estar trabajando con funcionarios federales para adecuar sus planes a las nuevas normas.

Andrew Nixon, vocero del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Estados Unidos (HHS), afirmó que el departamento está analizando cómo interactúan las nuevas normas federales con las exenciones estatales.

El HHS debe publicar, antes de junio del próximo año, las normas que describan cómo los estados implementarán los requisitos laborales, según Elizabeth Hinton, quien ha monitoreando estas exenciones como parte del Programa de Medicaid y Personas sin Seguro de KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a la información de salud que incluye a KFF Health News.

“No sabemos exactamente qué cubrirá”, declaró Hinton.

Hinton agregó que no está claro cómo responderán los funcionarios federales a las solicitudes de los estados, pero dijo que “somos conscientes de que algunos piensan que no hay margen de maniobra”.

Los estados pueden ajustar sus programas de Medicaid mediante las llamadas “exenciones de demostración”, sujetas a la aprobación federal. Estas exenciones están diseñadas para probar nuevas ideas en áreas política “grises”.

Los estados que han presentado o planean presentar solicitudes con requisitos laborales incluyen: Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, Carolina del Norte, Ohio, Carolina del Sur, Dakota del Sur y Utah.

Los republicanos del Congreso que aprobaron el proyecto de ley de reconciliación presupuestaria permitieron a los estados utilizar exenciones para acelerar la aplicación de las normas nacionales. Tara Sklar, profesora a cargo del Programa de Derecho y Políticas de Salud de la Universidad de Arizona, afirmó que espera que los estados que soliciten requisitos más estrictos tengan posibilidades de ser aprobados, mientras que los más flexibles podrían ser rechazados.

Sklar dijo que oficiales federales podrían ver con buenos ojos el plan de Arizona, ya que un límite vitalicio de cinco años para Medicaid es diferente a los requisitos laborales. Incluso si el gobierno federal aprueba estos requisitos más estrictos que los que exige la ley federal, es probable que esos programas enfrenten impugnaciones legales, afirmó.

La ley federal incluye un mínimo de 80 horas mensuales para trabajar o estudiar, con exenciones para ciertos adultos, como personas con problemas médicos delicados y padres con hijos pequeños dependientes.

Montana es el primer estado en redactar una solicitud de exención desde que el Congreso finalizó los requisitos laborales nacionales. Legisladores estatales aprobaron inicialmente los requisitos laborales —denominados estándares de “participación comunitaria” según el plan estatal— en 2019, pero la solicitud del estado se estancó hasta el final del primer mandato de Trump y durante la administración Biden.

Luego de la reelección de Trump, los legisladores de Montana levantaron la fecha de vencimiento de 2025 de su programa de expansión de Medicaid, declarando permanente el programa que cubría a más de 76.000 adultos en abril, con la expectativa de que la administración Trump aprobara los requisitos laborales.

A mediados de julio, las autoridades estatales publicaron su plan preliminar para hacerlo realidad “tan pronto como sea posible”.

El plan de Montana se alinea en gran medida con la ley federal, pero crearía exenciones adicionales, incluso para personas sin hogar o que huyen de la violencia doméstica.

La senadora estatal republicana Gayle Lammers afirmó que los requisitos laborales que también protegen a las personas que necesitan Medicaid fueron un factor clave para persuadir a los legisladores a mantener el programa de expansión. En ese momento, las autoridades desconocían la postura del gobierno federal sobre los requisitos laborales. Y ahora, según Lammers, tiene sentido que Montana se apegue a su plan.

“El estado debería tener voz y voto”, afirmó Lammers. “Somos muy independientes y cada persona es diferente”.

En Carolina del Sur, las autoridades estatales buscan implementar requisitos laborales para un número limitado de nuevos beneficiarios de Medicaid elegibles. Carolina del Sur es uno de los 10 estados que no ha ampliado la elegibilidad para Medicaid bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA). Sin embargo, en junio presentó una solicitud al gobierno federal para una expansión parcial de Medicaid que incluye un componente de requisito de trabajo que refleja en gran medida las nuevas normas federales.

En una carta al Secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., el gobernador de Carolina del Sur, el republicano Henry McMaster, calificó la propuesta estatal como “una solución específica para el estado”.

El único estado con un programa de requisito de trabajo activo ahora quiere reducirlo y espera la aprobación federal para hacerlo. “Georgia Pathways to Coverage” vence a finales de septiembre a menos que los CMS autoricen una extensión del programa con un cambio clave: exigir a los afiliados que documenten su trabajo una vez al año, no mensualmente. Esto representa un cambio con respecto al diseño inicial del programa, pero también difiere de las nuevas normas federales, que exigen verificaciones cada seis meses.

Fiona Roberts, vocera de la agencia de Medicaid de Georgia, afirmó que el estado aún espera saber si necesita modificar su plan.

Por lo tanto, Georgia se encuentra entre los estados en estado de incertidumbre, a la espera de la orientación del gobierno federal.

Los corresponsales de KFF Health News, Sam Whitehead y Lauren Sausser, contribuyeron con este informe.

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).