The state could tackle rural health issues long into the future by investing its awards from the Rural Health Transformation Program, the director of Wyoming’s health department, Stefan Johansson, told state lawmakers.

But it’s unclear whether the maneuver will pass muster with the federal government.

If approved, Wyoming’s Rural Health Transformation Perpetuity fund could provide $28.5 million for the state to spend every year, according to materials presented to lawmakers.

Congressional Republicans created the Rural Health Transformation Program as a last-minute sweetener in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer. The funding was intended to offset concerns about the outsize fallout anticipated in rural communities from the new law, which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.

Since 2010, 152 rural hospitals in the U.S. have shuttered completely or stopped offering inpatient services, according to the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina. The guidelines for the federal rural health program say states can use only 15% of their funding for direct payments to providers, including hospitals.

CMS officials announced first-year funding on Dec. 29 after scoring states’ applications. States had until Jan. 30 to submit revised budgets and other documents that align with their grant awards. CMS has until March 1 to review and approve the updated material.

Wyoming — the least populous state, with about 588,000 residents — will receive $205 million in the program’s first year, $5 million more than it asked for.

States must spend each year’s grants by the end of the following fiscal year, according to CMS rules. If they don’t, unused money will be redistributed to other states. The final deadline for all spending is Oct. 1, 2032, with leftover funds being returned to the federal government.

Given those rules, “how do you square that with squirreling money away in an account?” state Rep. Ken Pendergraft, a Republican, asked during a hearing on Wyoming’s plan.

Johansson said that depositing the federal grants into the perpetuity fund counts as expending them.

He said that CMS called in December to specifically ask questions about the fund and that he believes the agency has formally approved it. But “the devil’s always in the details,” he said, as the state works with CMS during the budget review period.

Emails obtained by KFF Health News through public records requests show CMS told officials in some states in early November that the grant money can’t “fund an endowment, capital fund, or other vehicle resembling an investment fund with the purpose of generating income.”

Wyoming officials wrote in the state’s application that the perpetuity fund won’t be making or keeping any profit.

“All program income from these investments will directly fund” rural health programs, they wrote.

CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden did not directly comment on whether Wyoming’s perpetuity idea is allowed. Instead, she said states must follow regulations related to the program and federal grants.

The Trump administration gave states a mandate to spend their money by fall 2032, but on projects that will continue to help rural patients even after the federal program ends.

The perpetuity fund would ensure just that, said Patrick Hardigan, dean of the College of Health Sciences at the University of Wyoming.

“Rather than spend out now,” Hardigan said, “we would have this available to help fund us over a longer time period.”

The state health department has already presented lawmakers with a bill to create the perpetuity fund and approve other parts of its rural health plan.

The legislation says Wyoming would put 80% of this year’s award — $164 million — and 69.5% of the funding it receives over the next four years into the fund. The state treasurer’s office would invest the fund in equities, including stocks. The health department plans to spend 4% of the fund’s money — in line with its expected return — each year, according to materials presented to lawmakers.

About 41% of the annual fund distribution would be spent on incentive payments for qualifying small hospitals, the bill says. The assistance could include one-time grants, medical debt relief for patients, and ongoing payments to offset fixed costs. This funding could amount to 2.5% to 10% of these hospitals’ annual operating expenses, according to an estimate in Wyoming’s application.

Bennett said it’s unclear whether all those types of payments are allowed under the federal rules.

“I think that states will try to do a lot of creative things like this, and CMS will approve or not on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

The bill says around 27% of annual spending would go to incentive payments to encourage coordination or consolidation among rural ambulance services. The funding could be ongoing or grants that help pay for ambulances, communications equipment, and regional dispatch services.

But these incentives would come with strings attached. Hospitals and ambulance services could receive payments only if they reduce “unprofitable, duplicative or nonessential” services and participate in “cost-containment arrangements,” such as regional collaborations and shared services.

About 22% of the annual spending would provide scholarships to help Wyomingites afford nursing, behavioral health, emergency medical services, and physician education. In exchange, recipients would have to work in the state for five years.

The remaining spending, around 11%, would be for scholarships to help doctors in training afford medical school, residency programs, and fellowships if they agree to work in an “underserved” Wyoming county for five years. The state health department would prioritize scholarships for people pursuing family medicine, obstetrics, or other high-demand specialties.

Johansson told Wyoming lawmakers that CMS could claw back money if a future state legislature decides to spend the fund in ways not allowed under the federal rural health program. He said this “check and balance” could last for decades.

“I can’t predict the future,” Johansson said, but “I think they have the authority to go look at the appropriate use of those funds through their audit parameters.”

Other states proposed funds in their applications, but Wyoming’s appears unique, according to a KFF Health News review of state applications.

For example, Kentucky wants to create a rural health endowment to continue its work once the federal program ends. But it would be backed by charitable donations, not seed money and investments from the federal funding.

Several states mention putting some of their federal award money into what they call rural health “catalyst funds.” But these funds, sometimes augmented with private contributions, would be invested in rural health technology.

Bennett said he’s never heard of a state investing any other federal health grant the way Wyoming wants to.

He said that in setting aside significant portions of its Rural Health Transformation Program awards, Wyoming would have much less money for rural health care in the short term in exchange for an ongoing revenue stream that could last decades.

“Everything has trade-offs,” Bennett said.

The Wyoming House Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the bill on Feb. 12, sending the legislation to the House floor.

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).

Según el gobierno, el objetivo es ofrecer más opciones y primas más bajas.

Sin embargo, la iniciativa también contempla un fuerte aumento de algunos gastos de bolsillo anuales  —que podrían superar los $27.000 en un tipo de cobertura— y podrían hacer que casi 2 millones de personas pierdan su seguro médico.

Los cambios se producen en un momento en que el costo de la atención de salud es una preocupación clave para muchos estadounidenses: algunos están teniendo dificultades para pagar sus primas de ACA desde que los subsidios mejorados vencieran a finales del año pasado. Las cifras iniciales de inscripción para este año muestran una caída de más de un millón de personas.

La cobertura médica y su accesibilidad se han convertido en temas políticamente sensibles de cara a las elecciones de medio término de noviembre.

Los cambios propuestos por la administración Trump forman parte de una extensa norma que modifica distintos aspectos del sistema, incluidos los paquetes de beneficios, los gastos de bolsillo y las redes de proveedores de salud. Las aseguradoras usan estas reglas  como base para fijar las primas para el año siguiente.

Después de un período de comentarios públicos —en el que personas, organizaciones y distintos sectores pueden opinar sobre el proyecto— la norma se oficializará esta primavera.

La propuesta “pone a los pacientes, contribuyentes y estados en primer lugar al reducir costos y reforzar la rendición de cuentas sobre el dinero de los contribuyentes”, dijo Mehmet Oz, administrador de los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS, por sus siglas en inglés), en un comunicado de prensa del 9 de febrero.

Una de las formas en que lo haría es impulsando un tipo de cobertura —los planes catastróficos— que, según el propio documento, el año pasado atrajeron apenas a unos 20.000 asegurados, aunque otras estimaciones elevan esa cifra a cerca de 54.000.

“Para mí, esta propuesta indica que la administración ha encontrado su próximo gran objetivo en los planes catastróficos”, dijo Katie Keith, directora de la Iniciativa de Política de Salud y Derecho en el O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law del Georgetown University Law Center.

Estos planes tienen costos anuales de bolsillo muy altos para el asegurado, pero suelen ofrecer primas más bajas que otras opciones de ACA. Antes estaban limitados a personas menores de 30 años o a quienes enfrentaban ciertas dificultades económicas, pero el gobierno de Trump permitió que se inscribieran personas de más edad que perdieron la elegibilidad para subsidios para la cobertura de 2026. Aún no se sabe cuántas personas eligieron esta opción.

La norma consolida este cambio porque hace elegibles a quienes tengan ingresos por debajo del nivel de pobreza ($15.650 este año) y a quienes ganen más de dos veces y media esa suma siempre que hayan perdido el acceso a un subsidio de ACA que reducía sus gastos de bolsillo. El texto también señala que una persona que cumpla con estos criterios sería elegible en cualquier estado, un punto importante porque esta cobertura actualmente está disponible solo en 36 estados y en el Distrito de Columbia.

Además, la propuesta exigiría que el límite máximo de gastos de bolsillo en estos planes alcanzara $15.600 al año para una persona y $27.600 para una familia, escribió Keith esta semana en Health Affairs.

Actualmente, el tope de gastos de bolsillo para planes catastróficos es de $10.600 para una persona y $21.200 para cobertura familiar. Salvo la atención preventiva y tres consultas cubiertas con un médico de atención primaria, ese monto debe alcanzarse antes de que el resto de la cobertura entre en vigencia.

En el texto presentado, la administración afirma que los cambios propuestos ayudarían a diferenciar los planes catastróficos de los planes “Bronce”, el siguiente nivel, y posiblemente impulsarían una mayor inscripción en los primeros. Según el mismo documento, hoy esa diferencia no siempre es significativa cuando las primas son similares. Elevar el tope de gasto de bolsillo de los planes catastróficos a esos niveles, argumentan, serviría para establecer esa distinción.

“Cuando existe una diferencia tan clara, los consumidores más sanos —que suelen ser los candidatos ideales para inscribirse en planes catastróficos— se sienten más motivados a elegir uno de estos planes, en lugar de un plan Bronce”, señalan.

Sin embargo, como los subsidios de ACA no pueden usarse para pagar las primas de los planes catastróficos, es posible que esto desaliente a los posibles beneficiarios.

La inscripción en los planes Bronce, que actualmente tienen un deducible anual promedio de $7.500, se ha duplicado desde 2018 hasta alcanzar unos 5,4 millones de consumidores el año pasado. Este año es probable que la cifra sea mayor.

Los datos de inscripción en algunos estados muestran un desplazamiento hacia los planes Bronce, ya que los consumidores fueron dejando los planes “Plata”, “Oro” o “Platino”, que tienen primas más altas, tras el vencimiento de subsidios mejorados a finales de 2025.

La iniciativa del gobierno también permitiría que las aseguradoras ofrezcan planes Bronce con niveles de copagos y deducibles que superen lo que hoy permite ACA, pero solo si esa misma aseguradora también vende otros planes Bronce con niveles más bajos de costos compartidos.

En lo que describen como un enfoque “novedoso”, las nuevas regulaciones permitirían que las aseguradoras ofrezcan planes catastróficos multianuales, en los que las personas podrían permanecer inscritas hasta por 10 años. Durante ese período, los límites de gastos variarían. Por ejemplo, los costos podrían ser más altos en los primeros años y luego bajar a medida que el plan se mantenga vigente. La presentación solicita comentarios específicos sobre cómo podría estructurarse un plan de este tipo y qué efecto tendrían los planes multianuales en el mercado en general.

“Por lo que entendemos hasta ahora, las aseguradoras podrían ofrecer la póliza por un año o por períodos consecutivos de hasta 10 años”, explicó Zach Sherman, director gerente de política de cobertura y diseño de programas en HMA, también conocida como Health Management Associates, una firma de consultoría en políticas de salud que trabaja para estados y aseguradoras. “Pero aún estamos analizando los detalles de cómo funcionaría”, añadió.

Matthew Fiedler, investigador principal del Centro de Políticas de Salud de Brookings Institution, advirtió que el paquete regulatorio que propone el gobierno incluye muchas disposiciones que podrían “exponer a los inscritos a gastos de bolsillo mucho más altos”.

Además de los cambios previstos para los planes Bronce y catastróficos, Fiedler señaló otra disposición que permitiría vender en el mercado de ACA planes que no tengan redes fijas de proveedores de salud. Es decir, la aseguradora no habría firmado contratos con médicos ni hospitales específicos para aceptar su cobertura.

En su lugar, estos planes pagarían a los proveedores un monto fijo por sus servicios médicos. Podría ser una tarifa única o un porcentaje de lo que paga Medicare. La iniciativa establece que las aseguradoras tendrían que garantizar “acceso a una variedad de proveedores” dispuestos a aceptar esas sumas como pago total. Sin embargo, los asegurados podrían quedar expuestos a gastos inesperados si un médico o centro de salud no acepta esas condiciones y le cobra al paciente la diferencia.

Debido al amplio alcance de la norma —que incluye muchas otras disposiciones— se espera que reciba cientos, si no miles, de comentarios públicos hasta principios de marzo.

El corredor de seguros de Pennsylvania Joshua Brooker dijo que le gustaría que se exija a las aseguradoras que venden planes catastróficos con gastos de bolsillo muy altos que también ofrezcan otros planes catastróficos con límites anuales más bajos.

En términos generales, agregó, una mayor variedad de opciones podría resultar atractiva para personas en ambos extremos de la escala de ingresos.

Según explicó, algunos consumidores con mayores ingresos —especialmente quienes ya no califican para subsidios para las primas de ACA— preferirían pagar una prima más baja, como la que se espera en los planes catastróficos, y asumir de su propio bolsillo los gastos médicos hasta alcanzar ese tope máximo.

“Están más preocupados por un infarto que cueste medio millón de dólares”, reflexionó Brooker.

La situación es más difícil para quienes están por debajo de la línea de pobreza, no califican para subsidios de la ACA y, en 10 estados, muchas veces tampoco cumplen los requisitos para Medicaid, opinó. “En esos casos, es probable que se queden sin seguro médico”. Al menos un plan catastrófico, dijo, podría permitirles acceder a la atención preventiva y limitar un desastre financiero si terminan en un hospital. “A partir de ahí, incluso podrían calificar para programas de atención caritativa del hospital que ayuden a cubrir los gastos de bolsillo”, dijo.

En general, afirmó: “ofrecer más opciones en el mercado no perjudica, siempre que la propuesta se divulgue de manera adecuada y el consumidor la entienda”.

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 idea echoes a policy implemented during his first term, when Trump suggested that requiring hospitals to post their charges online could ease one of the most common gripes about the health care system — the lack of upfront prices. To anyone who’s gotten a bill three months after treatment only to find mysterious charges, the idea seemed intuitive.

“You’re able to go online and compare all of the hospitals and the doctors and the prices,” Trump said in 2019 at an event unveiling the price transparency policy.

But amid low compliance and other struggles in implementing the policy since it took effect in 2021, the available price data is sparse and often confusing. And instead of patients shopping for medical services, it’s mostly health systems and insurers using the little data there is, turning it into fodder for negotiations that determine what medical professionals and facilities get paid for what services.

“We use the transparency data,” said Eric Hoag, an executive at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, noting that the insurer wants to make sure providers aren’t being paid substantially different rates. It’s “to make sure that we are competitive, or, you know, more than competitive against other health plans.”

Not all hospitals have fallen in line with the price transparency rules, and many were slow to do so. A study conducted in the policy’s first 10 months found only about a third of facilities had complied with the regulations. The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services notified 27 hospitals from June 2022 to May 2025 that they would be fined for lack of compliance with the rules.

The struggles to make health care prices available have prompted more federal action since Trump’s first effort. President Joe Biden took his own thwack at the dilemma, by requiring increased data standardization and toughening compliance criteria. And in early 2025, working to fulfill his promises to lower health costs, Trump tried again, signing a new executive order urging his administration to fine hospitals and doctors for failing to post their prices. CMS followed up with a regulation intended to up the fines and increase the level of detail required within the pricing data.

So far, “there’s no evidence that patients use this information,” said Zack Cooper, a health economist at Yale University.

In 2021, Cooper co-authored a paper based on data from a large commercial insurer. The researchers found that, on average, patients who need an MRI pass six lower-priced imaging providers on the way from their homes to an appointment for a scan. That’s because they follow their physician’s advice about where to receive care, the study showed.

Executives and researchers interviewed by KFF Health News also didn’t think opening the data would change prices in a big way. Research shows that transparency policies can have mixed effects on prices, with one 2024 study of a New York initiative finding a marginal increase in billed charges.

The policy results thus far seem to put a damper on long-held hopes, particularly from the GOP, that providing more price transparency would incentivize patients to find the best deal on their imaging or knee replacements.

These aspirations have been unfulfilled for a few reasons, researchers and industry insiders say. Some patients simply don’t compare services. But unlike with apples — a Honeycrisp and a Red Delicious are easy to line up side by side — medical services are hard to compare.

For one thing, it’s not as simple as one price for one medical stay. Two babies might be delivered by the same obstetrician, for example, but the mothers could be charged very different amounts. One patient might be given medications to speed up contractions; another might not. Or one might need an emergency cesarean section — one of many cases in medicine in which obtaining the service simply isn’t a choice.

And the data often is presented in a way that’s not useful for patients, sometimes buried in spreadsheets and requiring a deep knowledge of billing codes. In computing these costs, hospitals make “detailed assumptions about how to apply complex contracting terms and assess historic data to create a reasonable value for an expected allowed amount,” the American Hospital Association told the Trump administration in July 2025 amid efforts to boost transparency.

Costs vary because hospitals’ contracts with insurers vary, said Jamie Cleverley, president of Cleverley and Associates, which works with health care providers to help them understand the financial impacts of changing contract terms. The cost for a patient with one health plan may be very different than the cost for the next patient with another plan.

The fact that hospital prices might be confusing for patients is a consequence of the lack of standardization in contracts and presentation, Cleverley said. “They’re not being nefarious.”

“Until we kind of align as an industry, there’s going to continue to be this variation in terms of how people look at the data and the utility of it,” he said.

Instead of aiding shoppers, the federally mandated data has become the foundation for negotiations — or sometimes lawsuits — over the proper level of compensation.

The top use for the pricing data for health care providers and payers, such as insurers, is “to use that in their contract negotiations,” said Marcus Dorstel, an executive at price transparency startup Turquoise Health.

Turquoise Health assembles price data by grouping codes for services together using machine learning, a type of artificial intelligence. It is just one example in a cottage industry of startups offering insights into prices. And, online, the startups’ advertisements hawking their wares often focus on hospitals and their periodic jousts with insurers. Turquoise has payers and providers as clients, Dorstel said.

“I think nine times out of 10 you will hear them say that the price transparency data is a vital piece of the contract negotiation now,” he said.

Of course, prices aren’t the only variable that negotiations hinge on. Hoag said Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota also considers quality of care, rates of unnecessary treatments, and other factors. And sometimes negotiators feel as if they have to keep up with their peers — claiming a need for more revenue to match competitors’ salaries, for example.

Hoag said doctors and other providers often look at the data from comparable health systems and say, “‘I need to be paid more.’”

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 the doctor says you need a prescription or treatment, sometimes you need approval from your health insurance first. That’s called prior authorization. Without that sign-off, insurance won’t pay.

What triggers the need for prior authorization is not fully clear. It’s another “black box” part of the health care system.

You might think insurance companies mostly target expensive treatments or care approaches when a disagreement over effectiveness prompts a prior authorization review. Often that’s not the case. Some doctors complain they spend a lot of time filling out paperwork to try to secure approval for medicine or treatments that are routine.

In the meantime, patients can be left in pain, while their medical conditions worsen.

Health Care Helpline helps you navigate the health system hurdles between you and good care. Send us your tricky question and we may tap a policy sleuth to puzzle it out. 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).

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

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

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

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

“Ahora mismo tengo miedo”, dijo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tavares y otros investigadores hallaron que solo el 8% de la población total de Medicaid que se considera “apta para trabajar” no trabaja. Este grupo está compuesto en su mayoría por mujeres muy pobres que han salido de la fuerza laboral para convertirse en cuidadoras. Entre ellas, 1 de cada 4 tiene 50 años o más.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Estoy muy preocupada”, dijo Wallace.

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).

While more Americans enrolled than some policy analysts had expected, the number was still 1.2 million below what it was at the same time last year. And experts say it will be months until the numbers are final. The timing will depend on how many of those people who signed up for coverage actually pay their premiums and remain enrolled. 

In coming weeks, “consumers may find they really can’t afford the premiums and cancel their plans, while carriers may also cancel coverage for nonpayment,” said Pat Kelly, executive director of Your Health Idaho, a state-based ACA marketplace, during a Jan. 22 call with reporters. 

The drop comes after several years of record-breaking enrollment, with 24.2 million sign-ups for the 2025 enrollment year. Enrollment growth took off after enhanced subsidies — which lowered the amount most households had to pay out of their own income toward premiums and removed an upper-income cap — went into effect during the Biden administration. Lawmakers, in adopting the enhanced subsidies, set an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2025. 

Congressional debate over extending those more generous subsidies was heated, even leading to the longest-ever government shutdown. Now, the subsidies are back to their original level, and people who earn more than four times the federal poverty rate (about $62,600 for an individual or $84,600 for a couple) can’t qualify for any at all. 

Falling enrollment was seen in most states this year, with the biggest drop in North Carolina, where sign-ups fell by nearly 22%, federal data shows. 

In a few places — including New Mexico, Texas, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia — the number of people selecting ACA plans increased. 

The jump was largest in New Mexico, with its tally of people selecting plans up by nearly 18%. Increases were in the single digits in the other states and Washington, D.C. 

New Mexico — uniquely — used its own tax dollars to fully offset the loss of the more generous federal tax subsidies for all consumers. A few other states, including California, Colorado, Maryland, and Washington, used state money to help some enrollees. 

We’ll keep watching to see how this unfolds over the coming weeks.

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 changes come as affordability is a key concern for many Americans, some of whom are struggling to pay their ACA premiums since enhanced subsidies expired at the end of last year. Initial enrollment numbers for this year fell by more than 1 million.

Health care coverage and affordability have become politically potent issues in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

The proposed changes are part of a lengthy rule that addresses a broad swath of standards, including benefit packages, out-of-pocket costs, and health care provider networks. Insurers refer to these standards when setting premium rates for the coming year.

After a comment period, the rule will be finalized this spring.

It “puts patients, taxpayers, and states first by lowering costs and reinforcing accountability for taxpayer dollars,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz in a Feb. 9 press release.

One way it would do so focuses heavily on a type of coverage — catastrophic plans — that last year attracted only about 20,000 policyholders, according to the proposal, although other estimates put it closer to 54,000.

“To me, this proposal reads like the administration has found their next big thing in the catastrophic plans,” said Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

Such plans have very high annual out-of-pocket costs for the policyholder but often lower premiums than other ACA coverage options. Formerly restricted to those under age 30 or facing certain hardships, the Trump administration allowed older people who lost subsidy eligibility to enroll in them for this year. It is not yet known how many people chose to do so.

The payment rule cements this move by making eligible anyone whose income is below the poverty line ($15,650 for this year) and those earning more than 2.5 times that amount who lost access to an ACA subsidy that lowered their out-of-pocket costs. It also notes that a person meeting these standards would be eligible in any state — an important point because this coverage is currently available in only 36 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, the proposal would require out-of-pocket maximums on such plans to hit $15,600 a year for an individual and $27,600 for a family, Keith wrote this week in Health Affairs. (The current out-of-pocket max for catastrophic plans is $10,600 for an individual plan and $21,200 for family coverage.) Not counting preventive care and three covered primary care doctor visits, that spending target must be met before a policy’s other coverage kicks in.

In the rule, the administration wrote that the proposed changes would help differentiate catastrophic from “bronze” plans, the next level up, and, possibly, spur more enrollment in the former. Currently, the proposal said, there may not be a significant difference if premiums are similar. Raising the out-of-pocket maximum for catastrophic plans to those levels would create that difference, the proposal said.

“When there is such a clear difference, the healthier consumers that are generally eligible and best suited to enroll in catastrophic plans are more motivated to select a catastrophic plan in lieu of a bronze plan,” the proposal noted.

However, ACA subsidies cannot be used toward catastrophic premiums, which could limit shoppers’ interest.

Enrollment in bronze plans, which currently have an average annual deductible of $7,500, has doubled since 2018 to about 5.4 million last year. This year, that number will likely be higher. Some states’ sign-up data indicates a shift toward bronze as consumers left higher-premium “silver,” “gold,” or “platinum” plans following the expiration of more generous subsidies at the end of last year.

The proposal also would allow insurers to offer bronze plans with cost-sharing rates that exceed what the ACA law currently allows, but only if that insurer also sells other bronze plans with lower cost-sharing levels.

In what it calls a “novel” approach, the proposal would allow insurers to offer multiyear catastrophic plans, in which people could stay enrolled for up to 10 years, and their out-of-pocket maximums would vary over that time. Costs might be higher, for example, in the early years, then fall the longer the policy is in place. The proposal specifically asks for comments on how such a plan could be structured and what effect multiyear plans might have on the overall market.

“As we understand it thus far, insurers could offer the policy for one year or for consecutive years, up to 10 years,” said Zach Sherman, managing director for coverage policy and program design at HMA, also known as Health Management Associates, a health policy consulting firm that does work for states and insurance plans. “But the details on how that would work, we are still unpacking.”

Matthew Fiedler, senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the proposed rule included a lot of provisions that could “expose enrollees to much higher out-of-pocket costs.”

In addition to the planned changes to bronze and catastrophic plans, he points to another provision that would allow plans to be sold on the ACA exchange that have no set health care provider networks. In other words, the insurer has not contracted with specific doctors and hospitals to accept their coverage. Instead, such plans would pay medical providers a set amount toward medical services, possibly a flat fee or a percentage of what Medicare pays, for example. The rule says insurers would need to ensure “access to a range of providers” willing to accept such amounts as payment in full. Policyholders might be on the hook for unexpected expenses, however, if a clinician or facility doesn’t agree and charges the patient the difference.

Because the rule is so sweeping — with many other parts — it is expected to draw hundreds, if not thousands, of comments between now and early March.

Pennsylvania insurance broker Joshua Brooker said one change he would like to see is requiring insurers that sell the very high out-of-pocket catastrophic plans to offer other catastrophic plans with lower annual maximums.

Overall, though, a wider range of options might appeal to people on both ends of the income scale, he said.

Some wealthier enrollees, especially those who no longer qualify for any ACA premium subsidies, would prefer a lower premium like those expected in catastrophic plans, and could just pay the bills up to that max, he said.

“They’re more worried about the half-million-dollar heart attack,” Brooker said. It’s tougher for people below the poverty level, who don’t qualify for ACA subsidies and, in 10 states, often don’t qualify for Medicaid. So they’re likely to go uninsured. At least a catastrophic plan, he said, might let them get some preventive care coverage and cap their exposure if they end up in a hospital. From there, they might qualify for charity care at the hospital to cover out-of-pocket costs.

Overall, “putting more options on the market doesn’t hurt, as long as it is disclosed properly and the consumer understands it,” he 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).

The Food and Drug Administration is back in the headlines, with a political appointee overruling agency scientists to reject an application from the drugmaker Moderna for a new flu vaccine, and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary continuing to take criticism from anti-abortion Republicans in the Senate for alleged delays reviewing the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone.

Meanwhile, in a very unlikely pairing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, and Sen. Josh Hawley, the conservative Republican from Missouri, are co-sponsoring legislation aimed at breaking up the “vertical integration” of health care — when a single company owns health insurers, drug middlemen, and clinician practices.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jackie Fortiér of KFF Health News, Lizzy Lawrence of Stat, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• A top FDA official overruled agency staff in refusing to consider Moderna’s application for a new flu vaccine. The rejection, which Moderna is challenging, comes after the company consulted with the agency under President Joe Biden on how to develop the clinical trial for the vaccine and then spent considerable time and money. Clear, consistent federal guidance is important to maintaining the drug development ecosystem, and the decision stands as a warning to other companies developing new treatments.
• With measles cases rising and trust in federal vaccine recommendations falling, the Vaccine Integrity Project, based at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy, and the American Medical Association are launching their own vaccine review process — a parallel vaccine recommendation project offering an alternative to what are seen as ideologically driven federal recommendations.
• President Donald Trump unveiled the new TrumpRx website, billed as helping people save money on prescription drugs. But the site’s offerings are limited and offer limited benefits: It serves only those trying to buy drugs without insurance coverage, and some of the biggest savings are on popular obesity drugs rather than other commonly needed treatments. Nonetheless, it offers Trump a chance to stamp his name on an effort to lower drug prices.
• And more reporting is illuminating the health-related side effects of Trump’s immigration crackdown, including infectious disease outbreaks at detention centers. While at least some of the problems are not new to immigration enforcement, the large numbers of people being detained are intensifying the problems.

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

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “The Children of Dilley,” by Mica Rosenberg.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Why Washington’s All-In on Smart Rings,” by Amanda Chu.  

Lizzy Lawrence: KFF Health News’ “US Cancer Institute Studying Ivermectin’s ‘Ability To Kill Cancer Cells,’” by Rachana Pradhan.  

Jackie Fortiér: Stat’s “The New Childhood Vaccine Guidelines Have a Paid Leave Problem,” by Ariana Hendrix.  

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Stat’s “Prasad Overruled FDA Staff To Reject Moderna’s Flu Vaccine Application,” by Lizzy Lawrence.
• KFF Health News’ “Public Health Workers Are Quitting Over Assignments to Guantánamo,” by Amy Maxmen.
• KFF Health News’ “‘I Can’t Tell You’: Attorneys, Relatives Struggle To Find Hospitalized ICE Detainees,” by Claudia Boyd-Barrett.

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

Julie Rovner: Hello from KFF Health News and WAMU public radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today, we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Lizzy Lawrence of Stat News. 

Lizzy Lawrence: Hi.  

Rovner: And up early to join us from California, my KFF Health News colleague Jackie Fortiér. Welcome, Jackie.  

Jackie Fortiér: Hey, everyone. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but plenty of news. So let’s jump right in. We will start this week at the Food and Drug Administration, where things are — why don’t we call it — newsmaking. The biggest FDA story that broke this week was controversial vaccine chief Vinay Prasad outright rejecting an application for a new flu vaccine from Moderna, maker of the mRNA covid vaccine that so many anti-vaxxers have criticized. Lizzy, you broke this story. Congratulations. What happened exactly? And why is this such a big deal beyond the flu vaccine? 

Lawrence: This is a big deal because to refuse to file is a pretty rare occurrence in general, because in general the FDA and industry like to have agreed-upon standards for clinical trials before companies embark on them and pour millions of dollars into them. So that was surprising. And then— 

Rovner: And refuse to file means that they said that they’ve got the application and said: Yeah, we’re not accepting that. We’re not going to review this. Right? 

Lawrence: Yes, yes. And Prasad wrote that the grounds for this was that it wasn’t an adequate, controlled trial. Well, Moderna is saying that actually the FDA greenlit this trial back under the Biden administration in 2024. They acknowledged that there was basically a control vaccine that the FDA say they would prefer that Moderna use for the older population. But they said, however, it’s acceptable if you don’t do that. 

Rovner: And I want to make sure I understand this. The complication here is that this is supposed to be a better vaccine for older people, but right now there’s vaccines for older people that start at age 65 and this is a vaccine that’s supposed to start at age 50, right? So it was unclear who they were going to test it against, whether it was going to be the 50-to-64s or the 65s and older. Because there isn’t a vaccine right now that’s approved for 50 and up, right? 

Lawrence: Exactly, exactly. So it was there’s the high-dose vaccine, which is recommended for the above-65s, but that is not recommended for the 50-to-64, which is part of why Moderna didn’t use that high-dose vaccine, because the population that they were studying was broader than this over-65s. So anyway, so yeah, so refusing to file is already rare, and then for there to be an overriding refuse to file, where the, I was told, basically, while there may have been individuals who agreed with Dr. Prasad’s assessment, the review team, every discipline, thought that it was reviewable. And the head of vaccines wrote a memo explaining why he thought it was viable, so that the career staff kind of documented their thoughts here. It’s not clear whether this will be made public ever, but one would hope, with radical transparency, but we’ll see. Despite that, Dr. Prasad still refused to review Moderna’s application. 

Rovner: So obviously it’s a big deal for the flu vaccine, but it’s a big deal beyond this. Moderna’s CEO was on cable news this morning, said that, as you said, after consulting with the FDA officials about the trial, they spent a billion dollars on this trial. How do we expect companies to invest in new medicines like this if the FDA is basically acting on vibes? 

Lawrence: I don’t know. Yeah. And it’s interesting. It doesn’t seem like there’s a ton of sympathy from this administration. Even back last year, [FDA] Commissioner [Marty] Makary tweeted something — this was when they were limiting, wanted to require more data for covid vaccines for the under-65 crowd. And I think he said something like: Our goal is not to save companies money. That’s not something we — which of course that isn’t. The FDA’s goal is to promote public health. But it’s definitely a change in tune. I think that in the past, the FDA has understood that you’re really only going to get innovation if you have clear, consistent guidance and that it’s a really worst-case scenario for a company to spend a billion dollars on a clinical trial and then there’s nothing to show for it and nothing for it to benefit patients, either. So. 

Rovner: Is this over? What happens now? 

Lawrence: So now Moderna has requested a meeting to challenge this decision, and now there begins a kind of negotiation. It might be possible that the FDA would, in fact, would review at least the 50-to-64 cohort, because they don’t have any objections there, seemingly. But we’ll have to see. On a call yesterday, a senior FDA official talked about Moderna kind of coming to the agency with humility and acknowledging that the FDA had recommended this high-dose vaccine. And so I don’t know. I think companies are definitely — it’s a lesson that they’re, especially if you’re in the vaccine space, you have to tread very carefully. 

Rovner: Yeah. And I would think others in the drug space, too. It’s not just — that’s the point of this — it’s not just vaccines. Alice, you wanted to say something. 

Ollstein: Oh, yeah. Not only the monetary investment, which we’ve touched on a bunch, but companies spend years. So it’s the time investment as well. And why would you dedicate years of effort to something that you’re not sure if a political appointee is going to swoop in and override career scientific officials’ assessment, if you can’t trust the regulatory system to work as it’s always worked. There really is just a lot of risk there, and you might see people not making these submissions on all kinds of fronts. Of course, this is coming as we’ve had a really bad flu season. I’ve had people in my life get really sick and say it’s been really, really bad. So the prospect of having something that works better to prevent, or even just make it milder, not coming to fruition is rough. 

Rovner: Yeah. And this year, as we know, this year’s flu vaccine was not very well matched to the strains that ended up circulating. And that’s kind of the point of this Moderna vaccine, this mRNA vaccine, is that they say it would be much faster for them to match strains to what’s going around. If it works as the clinical trials suggest it would actually be a better flu vaccine than we have now. 

Well, meanwhile, cases of measles are also continuing to multiply, as they do when people aren’t vaccinated, and not just in the places we’ve talked about, like Texas and South Carolina, but also all around us here in the nation’s capital, apparently, as a result of people traveling here for the anti-abortion March for Life in January. There have been more than 730 confirmed cases of measles in the U.S. already this year. That’s four times more than have been typical for a full year, and it’s not yet the middle of February. Yet that doesn’t seem to be deterring the administration from its anti-vaccine activities. So now, the American Medical Association and the University of Minnesota Vaccine Integrity Project have announced they’ll convene a parallel group of experts to make vaccine recommendations, basically saying they are done following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This has been brewing for a while. Right, Lizzy? 

Lawrence: Yes. As soon as the secretary fired all of the experts who served on the advisory panel to the CDC on vaccines, I think there’s been unease. And now, as you said, there’s an active parallel public health establishment that’s trying to spread credible information and provide an alternative resource, because it’s clear that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] has become compromised when it comes to vaccine recommendations. And yet, you’re seeing the spread of infectious diseases right now. 

Fortiér: Having kind of this rival court is not surprising, because they’ve refused to participate in any of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meetings for months and months. I do wonder if this will maybe change some of the tone. We do have an upcoming ACIP meeting in February. Normally we would have a agenda out by now. Before Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] we would have them weeks in advance, and we haven’t seen one yet, so we’re really not totally sure what they’re going to be talking about. But Dr. [Mehmet] Oz did say this week that he finally advised people — he’s the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] director— to take the vaccine. And there’s been over 933 cases in just South Carolina during this outbreak that started last October. And so when I talk to people on the ground who are treating folks in South Carolina and have been treating them for months, and they’ve been doing vaccine clinics and things like that, they were just so fed up with Dr. Oz and the administration, because they partially blame them for these various outbreaks. And I had one of them tell me, like, well, it’s like a band-aid on a bullet hole. Like, now they’re finally encouraging people to get vaccinated when we could have had this months ago. 

Rovner: And, of course, the CDC doesn’t have a director at the moment, because the Senate-approved director was summarily fired and/or quit, not clear which, after refusing to basically rubber-stamp the immunization panel’s recommendations that had not been made at the time. So the American Academy of Pediatrics is suing to stop this February ACIP meeting. I did not hear what the last decision was on that, but I know that there’s still a lot of movement around here. I guess the big worry is: Who should the public trust now? Is it going to be this sort of grouping of medical societies led by the AMA, or the CDC, which people and doctors are used to following the advice of? 

Ollstein: And there’s all these state alliances forming to do the same thing. And so I think, yeah, the more competing recommendations the average person hears, the more they just sort of throw their hands up and say: I don’t even know who to trust anymore. I’m not listening to any of these people. And the trust that’s eroded in the federal government, that’s going to be really hard to recuperate in the future. You can’t just flip a switch and say: OK, it’s a different government. We trust them again. Once those seeds of doubt are planted in people’s minds, it’s really hard to unearth. And so, if not permanent damage, all of this is doing at least very long-term damage to the idea of expertise and authoritative information. 

Rovner: And science, which this administration insists it wants to follow. Well, turning to FDA-related “MAHA” [“Make America Healthy Again”] news, the agency said last week it would relax enforcement of its food additive regulations to make it easier for manufacturers to say they’re not using artificial dyes. Now this was a huge deal when the agency announced the phaseout of artificial coloring. Looking at you, fancy-colored Froot Loops. Now the administration says it’s going to allow foodmakers to say they’re not using artificial colors as long as they’re not using petroleum-based dyes. Apparently, natural dyes are OK. But even that is controversial, and it appears that this whole effort really relies on manufacturers’ willingness to comply rather than, you know, actual regulation, which is kind of what the FDA does for a living. It’s a regulatory agency. 

Ollstein: Well, every time the word “natural” comes up, I always laugh because there is no definition of that. And there are plenty of things that are natural that could kill you or hurt you very badly. And there are plenty of things that are synthetically manufactured that are helpful and fine for you. And so it has this veneer of safety, veneer of health with no actual substance. So my red flags go up whenever I hear that word, and I think everyone should be skeptical. 

Rovner: But it goes with RFK Jr.’s quest now that you should, quote, “eat real food.” 

Lawrence: Right. Yeah. I was going to say same with “chemical.” I feel like, “chemical” abortion drug, “chemical.” And it’s like, a lot of things are chemicals. That’s not— 

Ollstein: Yeah, like in your own body, naturally. 

Lawrence: Yeah. 

Ollstein: You have chemicals. 

Lawrence: We are chemicals. 

Ollstein: We are chemicals. 

Rovner: You guys are all too young to remember the Dow Chemical advertising line “Better Living Through Chemistry,” which at the time, in the ’60s and ’70s, was true. There was, there — we’ve had a lot of better living through chemistry. And some of it has turned out to be maybe not so good for us, but a lot of it has turned out to be pretty darn good for us. 

Well, finally, in FDA land, Commissioner Marty Makary this week met with anti-abortion senators about that ongoing review of the abortion pill mifepristone, which senators want the FDA to remove from the market. Alice, how’d that meeting go? 

Ollstein: Not great for the FDA, from what I was told. I got on the phone with Sen. Josh Hawley after it, and he was extremely frustrated. He said he didn’t get answers to any of the questions he’s been sending in public letters to the FDA for months and now asking in this briefing behind closed doors that they held on Capitol Hill this week. He said he didn’t get answers about what the timeline is for this review of the abortion pill mifepristone, what the review consists of, whether it’s even begun, really, whether it’s even underway. And so he is sort of concluding that this is not going anywhere, and he wants Congress to step in and take action. Now, Congress has tried to step in and take action before. They’ve tried to put restrictions on mifepristone in the FDA funding bill. That didn’t pass. So I don’t know if this is even plausible in this environment where Congress can’t really pass much of anything anymore. 

But Hawley is not just another Republican senator. He is very intertwined with the anti-abortion movement. His wife is an extremely prominent anti-abortion lawyer who’s led a lot of the major cases trying to restrict or ban mifepristone. They founded their own anti-abortion advocacy group. And so it really shows that the tensions, clashes, whatever we want to call them, between the anti-abortion movement and the Trump administration, so after backing the Trump administration for years and years, they’re really getting fed up. And they’re fed up that even after they achieved their grand goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, there are actually more abortions happening now than before, and that’s largely through these pills and people’s ability to get them. And so they’re getting increasingly impatient with the Trump administration, who has been sort of stringing them along and saying: Yeah, we’re working on it. We’re working on it. But they want to see results. Now, of course, if there were some sort of restrictions imposed, that could have a big political effect. And so a lot of Republicans are very torn about that. But not Sen. Hawley. Sen. Hawley wants to see it.  

Rovner: That’s right. Well, moving to what I call FDA-adjacent news, one of the many thorny issues that FDA has been dealing with is the compounding of those very popular and very pricey obesity drugs. When the drugs were in shortage, it was legal for compounders to make their own copies. But now the shortage for both of the leading medications — semaglutide, made by Novo Nordisk, and tirzepatide, made by Eli Lilly — is over, and those cheaper copycats were supposed to be pulled from the market. So it was a bit of a surprise when the company Hims, one of those direct-to-consumer drug sites, announced the unveiling of a semaglutide tablet just weeks after the first such drug was approved by the FDA, by Novo Nordisk. The FDA promptly referred the company to the Justice Department for possible violation of federal drug laws, after which Hims said, Oh, maybe we won’t start selling the drug after all. Oh, and Novo is suing for patent infringement. But I would think that the war over the “fat” drugs, as President [Donald] Trump likes to call them, is likely to lower prices just as effectively as government regulation might. Or am I misreading that? Lizzy, this has been quite the sideshow, if you will. 

Lawrence: Yeah. It might. I think that the compounding, the FDA’s crackdown on Hims was very interesting to me because I think before the commissioner had come into his role, there was some speculation. He had worked for a telehealth company that prescribed compounded drugs. And there’s also, I think compounders have tried to tap into a little bit of the MAHA medical freedom aspect. But clearly that’s not been the case, at least at the FDA. They are clearly very upset about this and mean business, and I think it’s tying into their crackdown on direct-to-consumer drug advertising as well. But as far as price, yeah. I think the deals that Trump has managed to strike with the companies could actually be reducing price for patients. I think we’ll have to see. I know there’s obviously drug pricing programs as well that they could pursue. So, yeah, we’ll have to see.  

Rovner: All right. Well, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

OK. We’re back. And speaking of President Trump, there’s also drug news this week that’s not directly related to the FDA. That’s the official unveiling of TrumpRx, the website the president says will lower drug prices like no one’s “ever seen before.” That’s a direct quote, by the way. Except it turns out that’s not quite the case. First, these discounts are only for people who are paying out-of-pocket, not those with insurance, which makes them valuable mostly for people who have no coverage or people who take drugs that insurance often doesn’t cover, like those for obesity or infertility. Yet of the 43 drugs so far that are promoted on the TrumpRx website, about half already have cheaper generic copies available through sites like GoodRx and Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs. And really, the website just points people to already existing manufacturer websites that were already offering those lower prices. So what is the point of TrumpRx? 

Lawrence: Great question. Yeah. This administration has been very focused on, obviously, media and wins and attaching President Trump’s name to things. So it accomplishes that goal. Maybe it does raise awareness for these other sites that already exist. But that’s a theme of a lot of the movement on health care so far, has been — there’s been a lot of chaos, and then there’s also sometimes things that they announce as like a grand, brand-new, no-one’s-ever-thought-of-it-before policy, but then there are already, of course, existing programs or avenues for that. 

Rovner: And to be fair, Trump has jawboned down some prices, including some prices for the obesity drugs, by basically dragging in the CEOs of these companies and saying, You will lower prices. 

Lawrence: Yeah, yeah. The dealmaking has been effective. And I think the question is: Will this last beyond his administration? Will there be a legacy there? 

Ollstein: I think there’s also some danger in overpromising, because he’s out there saying things that don’t comport with how math works. He’s basically suggesting prices will come down so many percents that we’ll be getting paid to take drugs, because that’s what more than 100% is. And people who are hearing that, voters who are hearing that, if they aren’t seeing that show up in their bills, if they’re not actually seeing those drastic, drastic drops that they’re being promised by the president, are they going to get upset? And is that going to impact how they vote? So yes, there has been some, on the margins, improvements, but when you’re out there promising 600% reductions and not delivering, there’s a risk to that. 

Rovner: Jackie, you wanted to add something. 

Fortiér: Well, I was going to say, I think it’s also confusing for a lot of people, from a consumer perspective, because you log on and I think people, they hear these huge promises, like Alice is talking about, and then they think that they can, necessarily, buy the drugs through there and immediately get them shipped, what these third parties like Hims and Weight Watchers are doing a lot of with the GLP-1s. And that’s not how this works. You still have another step of getting a prescription and then going to the pharmacy and using these to potentially get discounts and lower prices, in the same way that these have been available from pharmaceutical manufacturers and other things like GoodRx for years. But it’s that disconnect between, even if you can get a discount, actually getting the discount and crediting the Trump administration for that that I think is going to be really difficult for a lot of voters to make that connection in the way that the administration wants them to. 

Rovner: And this was ever the case with rebates — for other consumer products, not just talking about drugs. We’ll give you a $15 rebate, but you have to fill out 87 forms and send it to this place and get it exactly right, do it before the end date, and we’ll send you back $15. Because they count on most people not being able or willing to follow all of the various steps. So instead of giving everybody the discounted price, they make you really basically work for your discount, which is a consumer thing, but it’s pretty popular in the drug space as well. Rather than just lowering prices, they’re going to say, We will give you a discount, but you’re going to have to do this, that, and the other thing in order to get it. 

Fortiér: Right. But when you’re president and you want credit for it, it’s going to be a little more — it’s harder in order to make that connection. Sorry. 

Rovner: Yes, that’s true. That is a good point. All right, moving on. We have talked a lot about consolidation in the health care industry, particularly companies like UnitedHealthcare, which used to be just an insurer, now owns its own PBM [pharmacy benefit manager], its own claims processing company, and thousands of medical practices around the country. Well, now an extremely unlikely pair in the Senate, Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren and Missouri Republican Josh Hawley, have joined to introduce something called the Break Up Big Medicine Act, which would basically outlaw so-called vertical integration, like that of United and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Cigna and CVS Health, which owns Aetna, the insurer. Some are referring to this as the health version of the 1932 Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial from investment banking — and, side note, whose repeal in 1999 is considered a major factor setting off the financial crisis of 2008. But that was a risk thing. It was done to prevent another stock market crash like the one in 1929. This is a cost thing. This is to go after high health care costs. Could it work? Could it pass? And is this the beginning of the next big thing in health reform? 

Lawrence: Perhaps. Yeah. Last year, I worked with my colleagues on a series kind of examining UnitedHealth Group and the effects of consolidation on doctors and patients. And at the time, I think, there were some vocal lawmakers on either side of the aisle who were criticizing this, especially in the wake of the murder of the UnitedHealth CEO, and which had a surprising — the public sort of had this reaction and to— 

Rovner: Not in United’s favor. 

Lawrence: Not in United’s favor. And so I think that there is, this is a political issue that affects everyone, Republican and Democrat, the, well, cost in general, but I think there’s a lot of resentment and anger, and it seems like that is bringing together these unlikely and pretty powerful senators. I’m not an expert on the Hill. I don’t know if this has a chance. Especially, it’s targeting massive, powerful companies with hands in every part of the health care system. So it’s something that you would imagine the entire health care industry would fight against. But, yeah, I don’t know. 

Rovner: And I will point out that Sen. Josh Hawley, in addition to all his anti-abortion activities, last year, when Congress was debating the Medicaid cuts, kept vowing not to vote for those Medicaid cuts. So he’s — which, of course, in the end, he did — but he’s been sort of on the consumer side of health care for a while now. It’s just this is not brand new to him. 

Lawrence: Right. And I’m not sure how many other Republican senators would follow him down this path. But it’s definitely a noteworthy development, and curious to see where it goes. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’m curious to see sort of if the populist part of health care costs sort of rises to the fore. We’ll have to, we will have to watch that space. Well, finally this week, more on the impact of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns and health. My KFF Health News colleague Amy Maxmen has a story about health professionals in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps actually resigning rather than accepting postings to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where some immigrants are being detained in prisons that used to hold al-Qaida suspects. Another KFF Health News story by Claudia Boyd-Barrett describes how when people detained by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] end up in the hospital, often their immediate families and their lawyers aren’t even allowed to know where. And remember, last week we talked about cases of measles in some immigration detention facilities. Well, now there are two confirmed cases of tuberculosis at the ICE facility at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. I’m thinking maybe the health part of this is starting to kind of get to people as much as the whole depriving-civil-liberties part. 

Fortiér: Yeah, and there’s also been cases of covid-19, which makes sense. You’re going to have respiratory viruses as you get hundreds of people grouped together. That makes sense. A judge in California a couple days ago ordered that there had to be adequate health provided to detainees in one specific California — it was a prison and now it’s an ICE detainee facility. That’s specific to there, but it’s — more and more senators, I think, are also looking at this and pointing out that they’re just not providing the health facilities that people need. And especially ongoing care — a lot of folks need diabetes treatment, and that treatment just isn’t really happening in many cases. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’ve talked about this at some length, over many weeks, that people in detention are not getting health care, even though it is required, that we keep hearing stories about people not getting needed health care. I didn’t know until I read this story that people who actually end up being hospitalized, that their family members are not allowed to know. That’s allegedly, well, it is because of security, because the idea is that if somebody who’s in detention is in a hospital, you don’t necessarily want bad people knowing that and being able to come to the hospital. But these are people often who are, as we have documented at length, do not have criminal records, and it’s hard to find out where they are. Alice, you wanted to add something. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So there was a recent GAO [Government Accountability Office] report about this, and it found that people were not getting evaluated when they entered a facility to see if they were medically vulnerable and at risk of having a really bad episode or emergency, and that even children, pregnant women, vulnerable populations weren’t getting that initial evaluation, which then led to problems down the road. And it also said that people upon their release — either deportation or release within the United States if that’s what a court ordered — they weren’t being given their medical records, their prescriptions. And so the continuity of care was disrupted. And it’s important to note that that GAO report was about a few years ago under the Biden administration. So this isn’t new. These problems aren’t new, but they’re getting much worse, because the number of people detained is at record levels and so everything’s just getting multiplied. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is. Well, we will keep watching that space. OK, that’s this week’s news. Before we get to our extra credits, I am pleased to present the winner of our annual KFF Health News Health Policy Valentine contest. It’s from [Andrew Carleen] of Massachusetts, based on a story about Medicare Advantage overpayments. And it goes like this: “I thought it was love. My heart felt spring-loaded. Turns out our relationship was significantly upcoded.” Congratulations, and happy Valentine’s Day to all. 

OK, now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Ollstein: Sure. So I have a kind of fun story [“Why Washington’s All-In on Smart Rings”] from my co-worker Amanda Chu about how the Oura ring has taken over D.C. They have been heavily lobbying the Trump administration and Congress to prevent tough regulations. Basically, there’s a debate about whether it should be regulated as a medical device or not. 

Rovner: Tell us again what it does. 

Ollstein: It’s a ring you wear on your finger that monitors different health metrics. And so the Trump administration MAHA movement has gone all in on this. They love it. The Pentagon has a huge contract with them. Other government agencies are looking at it, too. I think it’s interesting because it is this very sort of conservative mindset of individual responsibility in health care and, oh, if you could just track your own metrics and do the right things. That’s an approach that is sort of counter to the idea of public health and government protecting your health through policy. 

Rovner: And we know HHS Secretary Kennedy is a big fan of wearables. 

Ollstein: Exactly, and this is one of the most popular ones right now. And so this story does a good job digging into all the lobbying and also into concerns about data privacy and pointing out that these technologies are moving much faster than government can regulate them. And that is leaving some lawmakers really concerned about who could have access to this data. 

Rovner: Jackie. 

Fortiér: Mine is by Ariana Hendrix. She’s a writer based in Norway. It’s entitled “The New Childhood Vaccine Guidelines Have a Paid Leave Problem.” It was published in Stat. And she writes eloquently about being a parent in Norway and knowing that her children wouldn’t go to day care until they were about 16 months old, because Norway has paid parental leave. And she points out, beyond the vaccine debate there’s a bigger issue, that the U.S. lacks universal health care and federal paid parental leave. So changes in infant vaccines in the U.S. have a large effect, because babies in the U.S. often go to day care, when they’re around a lot of other kids when they’re just a few weeks old. So she points to the, in January, the infant RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] vaccine was moved to the high-risk category of shots, so now it isn’t routinely recommended for all babies in the U.S. And RSV, of course, is the most common cause of hospitalizations for infants, and that’s due to the fact that they’re exposed to the virus in day care a lot earlier than other children in other countries like Norway and Denmark whose vaccine schedules U.S. officials are now kind of trying to emulate. So she does a really great job of laying out how families face greater health and financial risks in the U.S. without the same safety net that other countries have. 

Rovner: Or just the same social policies that other countries have. 

Fortiér: Yeah, it reminded me— 

Rovner: It’s hard to, right, it’s hard to import another country’s — part of another country’s — policies without importing all of them. It is really good story. Lizzy. 

Lawrence: Yeah. So my piece is by Rachana Pradhan and KFF Health News, and it’s about the “US Cancer Institute Studying Ivermectin’s ‘Ability To Kill Cancer Cells.’” And I thought this piece was very interesting, just because in general I’ve been fascinated by — politicization of medicine isn’t new — but just like right-wing-coded products and left-wing-coded products. And in this piece, Rachana talks about NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya kind of talking about how, It’s the people’s NIH and if a lot of people are using it, well, we want to investigate it. So she just, she does a really good job of kind of unpacking why this is problematic, that they’re kind of just choosing a random medication and there’s not really any scientific reason to be investing in it as much as they are. And she got a response from NIH after the fact as well, kind of where they were trying to defend this decision to pour this much investment. And so, yeah, I think it’s just a really interesting development in NIH land. 

Rovner: It is. My extra credit this week is from ProPublica, by Mica Rosenberg, and it’s called “The Children of Dilley.” It’s about what immigration detention looks like from the point of view of children being held at a family facility in Dilley, Texas. That’s the one where the two cases of measles were diagnosed earlier this winter. The story includes some pretty wrenching letters and video calls from kids who were living elsewhere in the U.S., while their parents were mostly working within the immigration system. And these kids had been ripped from their daily lives, their other parents and siblings in some cases, their schools and their classmates, and in many cases, from hope itself. Wrote one 14-year-old from Hicksville, New York, quote: “Since I got to this Center all you will feel is sadness and mostly depression.” It really is a must-read story. 

OK. That is this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Jackie. 

Fortiér: Bluesky mainly, @jackie-fortier. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: Mainly on Bluesky, @alicemiranda, and still on X, @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Lizzy. 

Lawrence: On X, @LizzyLaw_. On Bluesky, @lizzylawrence. 

Rovner: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From KFF Health News” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app, YouTube, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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 59-year-old, who lives in Harrisburg, North Carolina, closed her nonprofit circus arts school last year because she could no longer see well enough to complete paperwork. She then worked making dough at a pizza shop for a bit. Currently, she sorts recyclable materials, including cans and bottles, at a local concert venue. It is her main source of income ― but the work isn’t year-round.

“This place knows me, and this place loves me,” Kelley said of her employer. “I don’t have to explain to this place why I can’t read.”

Kelley, who lives in a camper, survives on less than $10,000 a year. She says that’s possible, in part, because of her Medicaid health coverage, which pays for arthritis and anxiety medications and has enabled doctor visits to manage high blood pressure.

But she worries about losing that coverage next year, when rules take effect requiring millions of people like Kelley to work, volunteer, attend school, or perform other qualifying activities for at least 80 hours a month.

“I’m scared right now,” she said.

Before the coverage changes were signed into law, Republican lawmakers suggested that young, unemployed men were taking advantage of the government health insurance program that provides coverage to millions of low-income or disabled people. Medicaid is not intended for “29-year-old males sitting on their couches playing video games,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN.

But, in reality, adults ages 50 to 64, particularly women, are likely to be hit hard by the new rules, said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. For Kelley and others, the work requirements will create barriers to keeping their coverage, Tolbert said. Many could lose Medicaid as a result, putting their physical and financial health at risk.

Starting next January, some 20 million low-income Americans in 42 states and Washington, D.C., will need to meet the activity requirements to gain or keep Medicaid health coverage.

Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming didn’t expand their Medicaid programs to cover additional low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act, so they won’t have to implement the work rules.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the work rules will result in at least 5 million fewer people with Medicaid coverage over the next decade. Work rules are the largest driver of coverage losses in the GOP budget law, which slashes nearly $1 trillion to offset the costs of tax breaks that mainly benefit the rich and increase border security, critics say.

“We’re talking about saving money at the expense of people’s lives,” said Jane Tavares, a gerontology researcher at the University of Massachusetts Boston. “The work requirement is just a tool to do that.”

Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said requiring “able-bodied adults” to work ensures Medicaid’s “long-term sustainability” while safeguarding it for the vulnerable. Exempt are people with disabilities, caregivers, pregnant and postpartum individuals, veterans with total disabilities, and others facing medical or personal hardship, Nixon told KFF Health News.

Medicaid expansion has provided a lifeline for middle-aged adults who otherwise would lack insurance, according to Georgetown University researchers. Medicaid covers 1 in 5 Americans ages 50 to 64, giving them access to health coverage before they qualify for Medicare at age 65.

Among women on Medicaid, those ages 50 through 64 are more likely to face challenges keeping their coverage than their younger female peers and are likely to have a greater need for health care services, Tolbert said.

These middle-aged women are less likely to be working the required number of hours because many serve as family caregivers or have illnesses that limit their ability to work, Tolbert said.

Tavares and other researchers found that just 8% of the total Medicaid population is considered “able-bodied” and not working. This group consists largely of women who are very poor and have left the workforce to become caretakers. Among this group, 1 in 4 are 50 or older.

“They are not healthy young adults just hanging out,” the researchers stated.

Plus, making it harder for people to maintain Medicaid coverage “may actually undermine their ability to work” because their health problems go untreated, Tolbert said. Regardless, if this group loses coverage, their chronic health conditions will still need to be managed, she said.

Adults often start wrestling with health issues before they’re eligible for Medicare.

If older adults don’t have the means to pay to address health issues before age 65, they’ll ultimately be sicker when they qualify for Medicare, costing the program more money, health policy researchers said.

Many adults in their 50s or early 60s are no longer working because they’re full-time caregivers for children or older family members, said caregiver advocates, who refer to people in the group as “the sandwich generation.”

The GOP budget law does allow some caregivers to be exempted from the Medicaid work rules, but the carve-outs are “very narrow,” said Nicole Jorwic, chief program officer for the group Caring Across Generations.

She worries that people who should qualify for an exemption will fall through the cracks.

“You’re going to see family caregivers getting sicker, continuing to forgo their own care, and then you're going to see more and more families in crisis situations,” Jorwic said.

Paula Wallace, 63, of Chidester, Arkansas, said she worked most of her adult life and now spends her days helping her husband manage his advanced cirrhosis.

After years of being uninsured, she recently gained coverage through her state’s Medicaid expansion, which means she’ll have to comply with the new work requirements to keep it. But she’s having a hard time seeing how that will be possible.

“With me being his only caregiver, I can’t go out and work away from home,” she said.

Wallace’s husband receives Social Security Disability Insurance, she said, and the law says she should be exempt from the work rules as a full-time caregiver for someone with a disability.

But federal officials have yet to issue specific guidance on how to define that exemption. And experience from Arkansas and Georgia ― the only states to have run Medicaid work programs ― shows that many enrollees struggle to navigate complicated benefits systems.

“I’m very concerned,” Wallace 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).

Todo esto es parte del complejo panorama durante el período de inscripción abierta de ACA para 2026. El debate en el Congreso sobre si extender los subsidios mejorados que se otorgaron durante la administración Biden provocó el cierre gubernamental más largo de la historia y centró la atención pública en el aumento de los costos de atención médica y en el problema de quién puede pagarlos.

Los subsidios mejorados, que redujeron el porcentaje del ingreso familiar que se debía pagar por la atención médica y eliminaron el límite de ingresos para calificar, expiraron a fines del año pasado. Como resultado, casi todas las personas que compran cobertura de ACA enfrentaron un aumento en los costos. Para algunos, las primas se duplicaron o incluso más, aunque aún se mantienen subsidios menos generosos.

Muchos expertos esperaban que la inscripción en ACA disminuyera este año, después de alcanzar un récord de 24 millones de inscritos en 2025.

“Si aumentas mucho el precio de algo, la economía nos dice que muchas personas comprarán menos o simplemente no lo comprarán”, dijo Katherine Hempstead, oficial de políticas de la Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Lo que hay que ver ahora:

Los números iniciales no son definitivos

La Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO, por sus siglas en inglés) advirtió al Congreso en diciembre de 2024 que si no se renovaban los subsidios mejorados, 2,2 millones de personas perderían su seguro médico en 2026, y esa cifra aumentaría en los años siguientes. Analistas del Wakely Consulting Group también estimaron que millones optarían por no tener seguro este año.

Datos publicados el 28 de enero por funcionarios federales mostraron una disminución de aproximadamente 1.2 millones de inscripciones en comparación con el año anterior, tanto en el mercado federal de cuidadodesalud.gov como en los mercados manejados por los estados. En total, hubo 23 millones de personas inscritas, incluyendo 3.4 millones nuevas en la cobertura de ACA.

En la misma fecha del año pasado, había 24.2 millones de inscritos, con 3.9 millones de nuevos participantes.

Pero hay más detrás de esos números iniciales.

Por un lado, los datos de ambos años se basan en las inscripciones hasta el 15 de enero para el mercado federal, que cerró ese día su periodo de inscripción abierta. En cambio, los datos de los mercados estatales, en la mayoría de los casos, solo incluyen inscripciones hasta el 10 o el 11 de enero, aunque algunos permitieron inscripciones hasta fines de mes. Así que los números no reflejan lo que pudo haber pasado en esos últimos días. ¿Hubo un repunte en las inscripciones en los estados? ¿O, por el contrario, aumentaron las cancelaciones?

Además, los datos iniciales incluyen tanto a personas que se inscribieron por primera vez como a quienes ya tenían cobertura y fueron reinscritos automáticamente para 2026, lo cual plantea otras dudas.

En el caso de los asegurados que fueron reinscritos, los números reales no se conocerán hasta dentro de varias semanas o meses, cuando se sepa cuántos pagaron efectivamente sus primas. Algunos tal vez no prestaron atención a los costos de su reinscripción o esperaban que el Congreso extendiera los subsidios.

Ese es un factor importante a considerar porque las estimaciones de la CBO y de Wakely sobre cuántas personas perderían su seguro se basan en proyecciones de cobertura durante todo el año, no solo en las inscripciones iniciales.

En las próximas semanas, “algunos consumidores podrían darse cuenta de que realmente no pueden pagar las primas y cancelar sus planes, mientras que las aseguradoras también podrían cancelar coberturas por falta de pago”, dijo Pat Kelly, director ejecutivo de Your Health Idaho, el mercado estatal de ACA, durante una llamada con periodistas el 22 de enero.

Grandes diferencias entre los estados

También hay cambios importantes en los otros 19 estados (y el Distrito de Columbia) que administran sus propios mercados, algunos de los cuales han publicado datos más detallados sobre las inscripciones que el gobierno federal.

La mayoría de los estados registró una disminución en la inscripción para 2026 respecto al año anterior, siendo Carolina del Norte el que presentó la mayor caída, con una reducción del 22%, según datos federales.

En unos pocos estados —incluidos Nuevo México, Texas, California y Maryland—, además del Distrito de Columbia, aumentó el número de personas que eligieron planes de ACA.

El mayor incremento se dio en Nuevo México, con un aumento cercano al 14% en las personas que seleccionaron planes. En los otros estados y en Washington, D.C., los aumentos fueron de un solo dígito.

Nuevo México, de manera particular, usó fondos estatales para compensar por completo la pérdida de los subsidios federales mejorados para todos los consumidores. Otros estados, como California, Colorado, Maryland y Washington, usaron fondos estatales para ayudar a algunos inscritos.

La Red de Mercados Estatales (State Marketplace Network), un colectivo de 22 mercados estatales apoyado por la Academia Nacional de Políticas Estatales de Salud, dijo que las cifras iniciales de inscripción son preocupantes. Comparado con el mismo período del año anterior, las cancelaciones de planes aumentaron 83% en Colorado, las bajas se cuadruplicaron en Idaho y se duplicaron en Virginia.

Las nuevas inscripciones bajaron 32% en California respecto al mismo período del año pasado, según datos estatales. En Pennsylvania, personas de 55 a 64 años —el grupo con las primas más altas— y adultos jóvenes de 26 a 34 años están cancelando su cobertura en mayor proporción que otros grupos de edad, según datos del estado.

“Estamos viendo tasas mucho más altas de personas que abandonan su cobertura”, señaló Devon Trolley, director ejecutivo de la Autoridad del Intercambio de Seguros de Salud de Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Health Insurance Exchange Authority). “En los últimos dos meses tuvimos 70.000 bajas, desde personas que se jubilaron anticipadamente hasta pequeños empresarios y agricultores que no saben cómo llegar a fin de mes”.

Algunos republicanos atribuyen esta disminución a medidas contra el fraude respaldadas por la administración Trump, que incluyeron cambios regulatorios y legislativos.

Aunque algunas de esas acciones fueron frenadas por un tribunal federal y no han entrado en vigencia, críticos de ACA —algunos de los cuales han publicado estimaciones controversiales sobre millones de personas que habrían sido inscritas de manera inapropiada— dicen que esas medidas explican la baja. Previamente habían culpado a los subsidios mejorados de fomentar inscripciones no autorizadas o cambios de plan motivados por comisiones de corredores de seguros.

No obstante, los estados que administran sus propios mercados de ACA informaron que había muy pocos o ningún caso de cambios no autorizados. A diferencia del mercado federal, las plataformas estatales aplican controles adicionales para evitar que los corredores accedan a la cobertura de los consumidores sin autorización.

Entre quienes no regresaron al mercado, la razón principal es el costo, dijo Mila Kofman, directora ejecutiva de la Autoridad del Intercambio de Beneficios de Salud de DC (DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority), que administra el mercado de ACA en el distrito.

“Cuando analizamos quiénes son estas personas, vemos que la mitad son pequeños empresarios”, dijo Kofman. “No se trata de personas que estén cometiendo fraude”.

Primas más bajas, deducibles más altos

En lugar de quedarse con la reinscripción automática, muchos asegurados en distintos estados optaron por cambiarse a planes “Bronce”, que tienen primas más bajas pero deducibles más altas que los planes Plata, Oro o Platino.

California reportó que el 73% de los miembros que renovaron y cambiaron de plan eligieron uno bronce, en comparación con solo el 27% en el mismo período del año pasado, según la Red de Mercados Estatales. En Maine, los planes Bronce ahora representan casi el 60% de todas las pólizas compradas.

“Las personas tienen que ver qué se ajusta a su presupuesto mensual y buscar primas más bajas”, dijo Stacey Pogue, investigadora sénior del Centro para Reformas del Seguro de Salud de la Universidad de Georgetown. “Algunos cruzan los dedos esperando no tener que usar el deducible”.

En promedio, los planes Bronce tienen un deducible anual de $7.500. Todos los planes de ACA están obligados a cubrir ciertos servicios preventivos —como algunas vacunas, pruebas de detección de cáncer y otros exámenes— sin copago ni deducible, pero la mayoría de los demás servicios se cubren solo después de cumplir con el deducible anual.

Los deducibles altos pueden hacer que algunos pacientes eviten buscar atención médica, señaló Hempstead.

“Tienen miedo de usar su cobertura”, dijo. “Pueden posponer algo hasta que se vuelve más grave”.

Agregó que los proveedores médicos, incluidos hospitales y doctores, se están preparando para un aumento de pacientes asegurados que no pueden pagar sus deducibles.

“Todos anticipan que los hospitales tendrán que dar más atención caritativa, lo cual afectará sus finanzas y podría obligarlos a despedir personal, cerrar o reducir servicios”, dijo.

¿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.

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).