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).

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).

Brader, de 27 años y residente de Bloomington, Indiana, tiene un marcapasos y una enfermedad dolorosa en las articulaciones. Además, sufre una lesión en la columna que le fusionó las vértebras del cuello, lo que le impide girar la cabeza.

La agencia estatal de Medicaid considera a Brader como “médicamente frágil”, lo que le da acceso a un conjunto ampliado de beneficios, como terapia física.

Pero nuevas reglas federales exigirán que más de 18 millones de personas beneficiarias de Medicaid en todo el país demuestren, a partir de 2027, que trabajan, hacen voluntariado o estudian al menos 80 horas al mes para mantener su cobertura.

Brader está exenta mientras siga siendo considerada médicamente frágil.

Pero ante la falta de directrices claras a nivel federal, los estados deben llegar a un acuerdo sobre cómo definir la fragilidad médica, una decisión de gran impacto que podría hacer que muchas personas pierdan el acceso a Medicaid, según funcionarios estatales, defensores del consumidor y expertos en políticas de salud.

“Estoy aterrada”, dijo Brader. “Ya he luchado mucho para conseguir esta atención médica”.

Mucho en juego

La ley One Big Beautiful Bill Act del presidente Donald Trump recortará casi $1.000 billones de dólares a Medicaid a lo largo de la próxima década. Buena parte de esos ahorros proyectados provendrían de dejar de cubrir a quienes no califiquen bajo las nuevas reglas laborales.

Esos recortes ayudan a financiar otras prioridades del Partido Republicano, como más seguridad fronteriza y recortes de impuestos que benefician sobre todo a personas con altos ingresos.

Legisladores conservadores han argumentado que Medicaid —el programa de seguro médico del gobierno para personas de bajos ingresos o con discapacidades— ha crecido demasiado, especialmente tras su expansión a más personas adultas de bajos ingresos bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA, por sus siglas en inglés). También afirman que exigirles trabajar a los beneficiarios es una medida de sentido común.

La nueva ley fiscal y presupuestaria de Trump ofrece excepciones a varias personas que podrían tener dificultades para cumplir con las reglas laborales, incluyendo aquellas consideradas “médicamente frágiles”. La ley define ciertas condiciones como fragilidad médica, por ejemplo, ceguera, discapacidad y adicciones. Pero no incluye muchas otras.

En su lugar, la norma exime a quienes tengan una “condición médica seria o compleja”, un término cuya interpretación puede variar según el estado.

Funcionarios estatales señalan que necesitan más claridad para asegurar que las personas que no pueden trabajar por razones de salud mantengan su derecho a Medicaid. También les preocupa que, incluso con una definición clara, muchas personas enfrenten el reto burocrático de tener que probar constantemente  que son médicamente frágiles, lo cual es difícil si no se puede acceder a una atención médica adecuada.

“Hay mucho en juego”, dijo Kinda Serafi, socia de la firma consultora Manatt Health.

Los nuevos requisitos laborales afectarán a beneficiarios de Medicaid en 42 estados y en Washington, DC. Ocho estados —Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Carolina del Sur, Tennessee, Texas y Wyoming— no expandieron sus programas de Medicaid para incluir a más personas adultas de bajos ingresos, por lo que no tendrán que implementar estas reglas.

Según la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (Congressional Budget Office), una entidad no partidista, se espera que estas reglas laborales de Medicaid sean el principal factor que provoque la pérdida de cobertura médica en la próxima década.

El 44% de las personas adultas cubiertas por los programas de Medicaid en estados que lo ampliaron tienen al menos una afección crónica, según KFF.

Un desafío para los estados

Las agencias estatales de Medicaid se apresuran a implementar las nuevas reglas con poca orientación del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Estados Unidos (HHS, por sus siglas en inglés) que aún no ha emitido directrices específicas. Andrew Nixon, vocero de la agencia, dijo que la definición federal de “médicamente frágil” se aclarará el próximo año.

En última instancia, serán los estados los que tengan que decidir quién está lo suficientemente enfermo como para quedar exento de los requisitos laborales. Y no será fácil para el personal estatal ni para los sistemas informáticos hacer ese seguimiento.

Cada año, los sistemas estatales de elegibilidad evalúan a millones de personas solicitantes para determinar si califican para Medicaid y otros programas gubernamentales. Ahora, esos mismos sistemas también tendrán que verificar si personas nuevas o ya inscritas cumplen con los requisitos laborales.

Jessica Kahn, socia en la firma consultora McKinsey & Co., ha instado a los estados a comenzar desde ya a planear cómo adaptar sus sistemas para verificar el estatus laboral. Los estados pueden hacer “muchísimo” incluso sin esperar directrices federales, dijo Kahn —quien fue funcionaria federal de Medicaid— durante una reciente audiencia de asesoría sobre el programa. “El tiempo se acaba”.

Las personas encargadas de Medicaid a nivel estatal evalúan este reto.

“La fragilidad médica es algo muy complejo”, dijo Emma Sandoe, directora de Medicaid en Oregon, durante un panel reciente. Las condiciones que impiden trabajar, como los trastornos de salud mental, son difíciles de demostrar, explicó.

Un estado podría intentar usar información de los expedientes médicos de una persona, por ejemplo, para determinar si es médicamente frágil. Pero esa información puede no reflejar con claridad la salud de alguien, especialmente si no tiene acceso regular a servicios médicos.

Es una tarea difícil para sistemas de elegibilidad que históricamente no han tenido que revisar registros médicos para evaluar solicitudes, señaló Serafi, de Manatt Health.

“Esto es completamente nuevo para los sistemas de inscripción, y simplemente no están preparados”, añadió.

Grupos de cabildeo que representan a compañías privadas de seguros médicos que administran Medicaid en varios estados también han pedido a las autoridades federales que definan claramente qué significa ser médicamente frágil, para que se aplique de manera uniforme.

En una carta enviada el 3 de noviembre, las organizaciones Planes de Salud Medicaid de Estados Unidos (MHPA, en inglés) y la Asociación de Planes Afiliados a la Comunidad (ACAP, en inglés) recomendaron que se permita a las personas solicitantes calificar para la exención simplemente al indicar en su solicitud que tienen condiciones que las hacen médicamente frágiles. Según las dos organizaciones, implementar con éxito estas exenciones será “crucial” dada la “gravedad de los riesgos para la salud que implica perder cobertura” para estas poblaciones.

Algunos funcionarios estatales temen que haya consecuencias imprevistas por estas reglas laborales para personas con enfermedades crónicas.

Jennifer Strohecker, quien recientemente renunció como directora de Medicaid en Utah, reiteró la gravedad de este asunto, especialmente para personas con diabetes afiliadas a Medicaid.

Explicó que, si bien pueden llevar una vida funcional con insulina, eso podría cambiar si pierden la cobertura por no cumplir con los requisitos laborales.

Actualmente, el hecho de que alguien sea considerado médicamente frágil depende en gran medida del lugar donde viva.

Por ejemplo, en Arkansas, las personas deben indicar en sus solicitudes de Medicaid si tienen una discapacidad, son ciegas o necesitan ayuda para realizar actividades diarias.

Según Gavin Lesnick, vocero del Departamento de Servicios Humanos de Arkansas, aproximadamente el 6% de las 221.000 personas inscritas en el programa de expansión de Medicaid del estado se consideran médicamente frágiles.

En West Virginia, el estado acepta la designación de fragilidad médica cuando una persona la reporta por cuenta propia.

En Dakota del Norte, el proceso es más estricto. Quienes solicitan deben completar un cuestionario sobre su salud y presentar documentación adicional, como notas del historial médico y planes de tratamiento. Más de la mitad de las solicitudes fueron rechazadas el año pasado, según Mindy Michaels, vocera del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos.

La Administración de Servicios Familiares y Sociales de Indiana, que gestiona Medicaid en ese estado, se negó a ofrecer entrevistas y dijo que no podía comentar sobre casos individuales, como el de Brader.

Brader teme que la burocracia adicional la haga perder otra vez su cobertura de Medicaid. Contó que en 2019 fue expulsada temporalmente del programa por no cumplir con las reglas laborales del estado, cuando Indiana determinó que su trabajo como estudiante no contaba como empleo.

“Siempre que he intentado recibir ayuda del estado de Indiana, ha sido una pesadilla burocrática”, dijo.

Mientras los estados esperan una guía federal, Kristi Putnam —miembro del conservador Instituto Cicero y ex secretaria del Departamento de Servicios Humanos de Arkansas— dijo que, incluso si un estado crea una lista extensa de condiciones que califican como fragilidad médica, siempre habrá que poner un límite.

“No se puede crear una política de exenciones que lo cubra todo”, afirmó.

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 27-year-old resident of Bloomington, Indiana, has a pacemaker and a painful joint disease. She also has fused vertebrae in her neck from a spinal injury, preventing her from turning her head.

Indiana’s Medicaid agency currently considers Brader “medically frail,” giving her access to an expanded set of benefits, such as physical therapy.

New federal rules will require more than 18 million Medicaid enrollees nationwide to show they’re working, volunteering, or going to school for 80 hours a month starting in 2027 to keep their coverage. Brader is exempt as long as she’s deemed medically frail.

But lacking sufficient federal guidance, states are wrestling with how to define medical frailty — a consequential decision that could cut Medicaid coverage for many people, said state officials, consumer advocates, and health policy researchers.

“It’s terrifying,” Brader said. “I already have fought so hard to get my health care.”

‘Incredibly High’ Stakes

President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act slashes nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, with much of the savings projected to come from no longer covering those who don’t qualify under the new work rules. Those spending cuts help offset the costs of GOP priorities, such as extra border security and tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy.

Conservative lawmakers have argued that Medicaid, the government health insurance program for people with low incomes or with disabilities, has grown too large and expensive, especially in the wake of its expansion to more low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act. They also say that requiring participants to work is common sense.

The work rules in Trump’s tax-and-spending law offer exemptions for several groups who might struggle to meet them, including people deemed “medically frail.” The law spells out certain “medically frail” conditions such as blindness, disability, and substance use disorder. But it does not list many others.

Instead, the law exempts those with a “serious or complex medical condition,” a term whose interpretation could vary by state.

State officials say they need more clarity to ensure that people who cannot work for health reasons retain rightful access to Medicaid. They also worry that, even with a clear definition, people will face the onerous task of having to regularly vouch for being medically frail, which is a challenge without reliable access to medical care.

“The stakes are incredibly high,” said Kinda Serafi, a partner at consulting firm Manatt Health.

The new work requirements will affect Medicaid recipients in 42 states and Washington, D.C. Eight states — Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming — did not expand their Medicaid programs to cover additional low-income adults, so they won’t have to implement the work rules.

The Medicaid work rules are expected to be the largest driver of health insurance coverage losses over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Forty-four percent of all adults covered by states’ expanded Medicaid programs have at least one chronic health condition, according to KFF.

A Challenge for States

State Medicaid agencies are scrambling to implement the rules with little direction from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has yet to issue specific guidance. Federal officials will clarify the “medically frail” definition next year, said Andrew Nixon, an agency spokesperson.

Ultimately, states will have to decide who is unhealthy enough to be exempt from work rules. And it won’t be easy for state workers and their computer systems to track.

Every year, state eligibility systems screen millions of applicants to check if they qualify for Medicaid and other government programs. Now, these same systems must screen applicants and existing enrollees to determine whether they meet the new work rules.

Jessica Kahn, a partner at consulting firm McKinsey & Co., has urged states to start planning how to adapt eligibility systems to verify work status. States can do a “tremendous amount” of work without direction from the federal government, said Kahn, a former federal Medicaid systems official, who spoke during a recent Medicaid advisory panel hearing. “Time is a-wasting already.”

State Medicaid directors are pondering the challenge.

“Medical frailty gets so complex,” Emma Sandoe, Oregon’s Medicaid director, said during a recent panel discussion. Conditions that can keep people from working, such as mental health disorders, can be hard to prove, she said.

A state might try to use data pulled from a person’s health records, for instance, to determine medical frailty. But information from a patient’s chart may not paint a clear picture of someone’s health, especially if they lack regular access to medical care.

It’s a tall order for eligibility systems that historically have not had to scrape medical records to screen applicants, said Serafi of Manatt Health.

“That is an incredibly new thing that eligibility enrollment systems are just not fluent in at all,” Serafi said.

Lobbying groups for the private health insurance companies that help run Medicaid in many states also have urged federal regulators to clearly define medical frailty so it can be applied uniformly.

In a Nov. 3 letter to federal officials, the Medicaid Health Plans of America and the Association for Community Affiliated Plans advocated for allowing enrollees to qualify for the exemption by saying on their applications that they have conditions that make them medically frail. Successfully implementing exemptions for the medically frail will be “crucial” given the “severe health risks of coverage loss for these populations,” the groups said.

Some state officials worry about unintended consequences of the work rules for people with chronic conditions.

Jennifer Strohecker, who recently resigned as Utah’s Medicaid director, reiterated the high stakes, especially for those with diabetes on Medicaid. They may be very healthy and functional with insulin, but if they fail to complete the work requirements, that may change, Strohecker said during a recent Medicaid advisory hearing.

Whether someone is deemed medically frail already depends heavily on where they live.

For example, in Arkansas, people indicate on their Medicaid applications that they’re disabled, blind, or need help with daily living activities.

Approximately 6% of the roughly 221,000 people enrolled in Arkansas’ Medicaid expansion program are deemed medically frail, according to Gavin Lesnick, a spokesperson for the Arkansas Department of Human Services.

In West Virginia, the state accepts a medical frailty designation when an applicant self-reports it.

The burden of proof is higher in North Dakota. Applicants there must answer a questionnaire about their health and submit additional documentation, which may include medical chart notes and treatment plans. More than half of applicants were denied last year, according to Health and Human Services Department spokesperson Mindy Michaels.

Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration, which runs its Medicaid program, declined an interview and said it could not comment on individual cases, like Brader’s.

Brader worries the additional red tape will cause her to lose Medicaid again. She said she was temporarily kicked off the program in 2019 for failing to meet the state’s work rules when Indiana said her work-study job didn’t count as employment.

“Anytime I have tried to receive help from the state of Indiana, it has been a bureaucratic nightmare,” she said.

As states await federal guidance, Kristi Putnam, a senior fellow at the conservative Cicero Institute and former secretary of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, which oversees the state Medicaid program, said even if a state creates an extensive list of qualifying “medically frail” conditions, the line must be drawn somewhere.

“You can’t possibly create a policy for exemptions that will catch everything,” she said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The texts were part of a pilot run to test technology the Trump administration says will make it easier for some Medicaid enrollees to prove they meet new requirements — working, studying, job training, or volunteering at least 80 hours a month — set to take effect in just over a year.

But only 894 people completed the quarterly wage check, or just under 7% of enrollees who got the text, according to Drew Maranto, undersecretary for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We’re hoping to get more to opt in,” Maranto said. “We plan to raise awareness.”

The clock is ticking for officials in 42 states — excluding those that did not expand Medicaid at all — and Washington, D.C., to figure out how to verify that an estimated 18.5 million Medicaid enrollees meet rules included in President Donald Trump’s tax and spending law. They have until the end of next year, and federal officials are giving those jurisdictions a total of $200 million to do so.

The policy change is one of several to free up money for Trump’s priorities, such as increased border security and tax breaks that mainly benefit the wealthy.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said the work rules will be the main reason millions of people won’t be able to access health insurance over the next decade. It estimates changes to the Medicaid program will result in 10 million fewer Americans covered by 2034 — more than half of them because of the eligibility rules.

For now, state officials, health policy researchers, and consumer advocates are watching the pilot program in Louisiana and another in Arizona. Mehmet Oz, director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has touted those test-drives and said they will allow people to verify their incomes “within seven minutes.”

“There have been efforts to do this in the past, but they haven’t been able to achieve what we can achieve because we have technologies now,” said Oz, during a television appearance in August.

Brian Blase, the president of the conservative Paragon Health Institute and a key architect of Medicaid changes in the new law, has chimed in, saying during a recent radio appearance that with today’s artificial intelligence “people should be able to seamlessly enter how they are spending their time.”

KFF Health News found scant evidence to support such claims. Federal and state officials have offered little insight into what new technology the two pilots have tested. They do say, however, that it connects directly with the websites of Medicaid enrollees’ payroll providers, rather than using artificial intelligence to draw conclusions about their activities.

Oz said the Trump administration’s efforts started “as soon as the bill was signed” in July. But work on the pilot programs began under the Biden administration.

And Medicaid is a state-federal program: The federal government contributes most of the funds, but it is up to the states to administer them, not the federal government.

“Oz can say, ‘Oh no, we’re going to fix this. We’re going to do this.’ Well, they don’t actually run the program,” said Joan Alker, a health policy researcher at Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families.

Officials have also offered few details about the pilots’ effectiveness in assisting enrollees in Medicaid or other public benefit programs.

The shortage of information has some state officials and health policy researchers worried that the Trump administration lacks viable solutions to help states implement the work rules. As a result, they say, people with a legal right to Medicaid benefits could lose access to them.

“What actually keeps me up at night is the fear that members that are eligible for Medicaid and are trying to get health care services would fall through the cracks and lose coverage,” said Emma Sandoe, Oregon’s Medicaid director.

Officials involved in the Louisiana and Arizona projects declined to answer many specific questions about their efforts, instead directing KFF Health News to federal officials.

Spokespeople for Arizona’s Medicaid and Economic Security departments — Johnny Córdoba and Brett Bezio, respectively — did not share data on how many people participated in the state’s pilot test nor describe the outcome. They said the pilot had been used to verify eligibility only for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a smaller program than Medicaid.

The Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona, a nonprofit that helps people sign up for such SNAP benefits, hadn’t heard of the pilot program.

State officials and health policy researchers said neither pilot program could confirm whether a person meets other qualifying activities — such as community service — or any of the numerous exemptions. The tools being tested can verify only income.

Andrew Nixon, director of communications for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Oz’s agency, wrote in a statement that the digital tools officials aim to share with states “are largely under development.”

One person doing that development is Michael Burstein, who until recently worked at the U.S. Digital Service, which later became known as the Department of Government Efficiency.

As the U.S. Digital Service was turned into DOGE, Burstein and other staffers left and started a nonprofit called Digital Public Works to finish supporting the technology to make it easier for people to verify their incomes for Medicaid enrollment.

But without permission from state officials, Burstein would not describe the tool in development, aside from saying that it’s mobile-first, can quickly verify income for a new or returning client, “and we’re pretty happy with it.”

The state agencies that manage benefit programs, such as Medicaid and SNAP, are understaffed, and they use different eligibility systems, many of which need updating, which makes improving them “a challenging task,” he said.

The $200 million in start-up costs the federal government has earmarked for systems to track work requirements equals roughly four times what it cost to administer Georgia’s Medicaid work requirement program alone.

That state, which has the nation’s only active work requirement program, called Georgia Pathways to Coverage, in September was granted a temporary extension, despite a recent report from a federal watchdog saying it hadn’t received enough federal oversight. A complicated sign-up process has kept enrollment in the program far below Georgia’s own projections.

Trump’s tax and spending law allows states to ask for extra time — until the end of 2028 — to start enforcing the rules, but only with the approval of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It also allows counties with high unemployment rates to be exempted, but states must apply for that exemption.

Even with an app that states can use to prove people are eligible for Medicaid, enrollees would still need to know that app existed and how to use it — neither of which is a given, Alker said. There is also no guarantee they’d have reliable cell service or internet access. As KFF Health News has reported, millions of Americans live in rural areas without reliable internet.

Private vendors also have been working on such apps, said Jennifer Wagner, who researches Medicaid eligibility and enrollment at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Wagner said she has seen several vendors demonstrate products they plan to pitch to states for the work rules. Many are limited in scope, she said, like those in the pilot tests.

“Nobody has a magical solution that’ll make sure eligible people don’t lose coverage,” she said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“We’re going to take care of the sickest patients first,” Margo, a family medicine physician, said.

It’s not like there was space on that June afternoon anyway. A small monitor on the wall pulsed with the vitals of current patients, who filled the ER. An ambulance idled outside in the South Texas heat with a patient waiting for a bed to open up.

“Everybody shows up here,” Margo said. “When you’re overwhelmed and you’re overrun, there’s only so much you can do.”

Starr County, a largely rural, Hispanic community on the southern U.S. border, made headlines in 2024 when it voted Republican in a presidential election for the first time in more than a century. Immigration and the economy drove the flip in this community, where roughly a third of the population falls below the poverty line.

Now, recent actions by the Trump administration and the GOP-controlled Congress have triggered a new concern: the inability of doctors, hospitals, and other health providers to continue to care for uninsured patients. It’s a fear not only in Starr County, which has one of the highest uninsured rates in the nation. Communities across the U.S. with similarly high proportions of uninsured people could struggle as additional residents lose health coverage.

About 14 million fewer Americans are expected to have health insurance in a decade due to President Donald Trump’s new tax-and-spending law, which Republicans dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and the pending expiration of enhanced subsidies that slashed the price of Affordable Care Act plans for millions of people. The new law also limits programs that send billions of dollars to help those who care for uninsured people stay afloat.

“You can’t disinsure this many people and not have, in many communities, just a collapse of the health care system,” said Sara Rosenbaum, founding chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health.

“The future is South Texas,” she said.

KFF Health News is examining the impact of national health care policy changes on uninsured people and their communities. Though the Trump administration told KFF Health News it is making “a historic investment in rural health care,” people who treat low-income patients, as well as researchers and consumer advocates, say recent policy decisions will make it harder for people to stay healthy. Doctors, hospitals, and clinics that make up the health care safety net could lose so much money they must close their doors, some of them warn.

“Because the patient’s bill is not going to get paid,” said Joseph Alpert, editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Medicine and a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona. “Uninsured patients stress the health care system.”

Starr County shows how this dynamic unfolds.

Primary care doctors in the county serve an average of just under 3,900 people each, nearly three times the U.S. average.

Margo, the family physician, said because so many people lack insurance and there are so few places to seek care, many residents treat the ER as their first stop when they’re sick.

In many cases, they have neglected their health, making them sicker and more expensive to treat. And federal law requires ERs at hospitals in the Medicare program to stabilize or transfer patients, regardless of their ability to pay.

That leaves Margo and his team to practice what he described as “disaster medicine.”

“They come in with chest pain or they stop breathing. They collapse. They’ve never seen a doctor,” Margo said. “They’re literally dying.”

Health Systems in ‘Survival Mode’

When people are uninsured or on Medicaid, they tend to rely on a safety net of doctors, hospitals, clinics, and community health centers, which offer services free of charge or absorb getting reimbursed at lower rates than they do treating patients on commercial insurance.

Those providers’ financial situations can often be precarious, leading them to rely on myriad federal supports. The Trump administration’s cuts to health care and Medicaid in the name of eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” have many concerned they won’t weather the additional financial strain.

Trump’s new law funds his priorities, like extending tax cuts that mainly benefit wealthier Americans and expanding immigration enforcement. Those costs are covered in part by a nearly $1 trillion reduction in federal health spending for Medicaid within the next decade and changes to the ACA, such as requiring additional paperwork and shortening the time for people to sign up.

Many Republicans have argued Medicaid has gotten too large and strayed from the state-federal program’s core mission of covering those with low incomes and disabilities. And the GOP has fought to roll back the ACA since its passage.

Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, said projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office about how many people could lose health insurance are an “overestimate.” He did not provide an estimate the administration sees as more accurate.

Supporters of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” say those who need health coverage can still get it if they meet new requirements such as working in exchange for Medicaid coverage.

And Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said even with the legislation, Medicaid spending will grow, just not as quickly.

The budget law won’t cause “the sky to fall,” Cannon said. “The inefficient providers should be shutting down.”

A recent survey from AMGA, formerly the American Medical Group Association, which represents health systems across the country, found nearly half of rural facilities could close or restructure due to Medicaid cuts. Nearly three-quarters of respondents said they anticipated layoffs or furloughs, including of front-line clinicians.

Public health departments, which often fill gaps in care, also face federal funding cuts that have reduced their capacity. In South Texas’ Cameron County, the health department has eliminated nearly a dozen positions, said agency head Esmer Guajardo. In neighboring Hidalgo County, the health department has laid off more than 30 people, said Ivan Melendez, who helps oversee its operations.

In July, the Texas Department of State Health Services canceled Operation Border Health, a massive annual event that last year provided free health services to nearly 6,000 South Texas residents.

Gateway Community Health Center in Laredo, a border city north of the Rio Grande Valley, is in “survival mode,” with about a third of patients already lacking insurance and even more who will struggle to afford health care if the ACA subsides aren’t renewed, said David Vasquez, its director of communications and public affairs. The center is looking for other forms of funding to avoid layoffs or cuts to services, and its expansion and hiring plans are on hold, Vasquez said.

That downsizing is happening as more people lose health insurance and need free or reduced-cost care.

Esther Rodriguez, 39, of McAllen has been out of work for two years and her husband makes $600 a week working in construction. Neither of them has health insurance.

Medicaid covered the bills for the births of her five children. Now, she depends on a mobile health clinic run by a local medical school, where she can pay out-of-pocket for routine checkups and drugs to control her Type 2 diabetes. If she needed more care, Rodriguez said, she would go to the ER.

“You have to adapt,” she said in Spanish.

‘Death by a Thousand Cuts’

People’s inability to pay results in uncompensated care, or services that hospitals, doctors, and clinics don’t get paid for, which, under an earlier version of the megabill, was projected to increase by $204 billion over the next decade, according to the Urban Institute, a nonprofit think tank.

But the Trump administration is also cutting other support that helped offset the cost of care for people who can’t pay. The new law caps federal programs that many health providers for low-income people have come to depend on, especially in rural areas, to shore up their budgets. These include taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs. Such provider taxes are a “financial gimmick,” Desai said.

While the law creates a temporary $50 billion fund to support rural doctors and hospitals, that’s a little over a third of estimated Medicaid funding losses in rural areas, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. Desai called the analysis “flawed.”

Any loss in revenue could spell financial ruin, especially for small rural hospitals, said Quang Ngo, president of the Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals Foundation.

“It’s kind of like death by a thousand cuts,” he said. “Some will probably not make it.”

And the hits could keep coming. The Trump administration’s budget request for the coming fiscal year calls for cuts to multiple rural health programs operated through the Health Resources and Services Administration. Desai said the spending law’s investment in rural health “dwarfs” the cuts.

In February, the Trump administration announced funding cuts of 90% to the ACA navigator program, which helps people find health insurance. That program has been “historically inefficient,” Desai said.

In December 2023, nearly 3 million of Texas’ uninsured were eligible for ACA subsidies, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to Texas 2036, a public policy think tank.

Maria Salgado spends her workdays tabling at community events, dropping off flyers at doctors’ offices, and holding one-on-one meetings with clients of MHP Salud, a nonprofit that connects residents to Medicaid and ACA coverage.

She worried funding cuts would really set the organization’s efforts back: “A lot of community members here, they’re going to be left behind,” said Salgado, a community health worker, or promotora.

Chris Casso, a primary care physician who grew up in McAllen and now practices there, held back tears as she described treating patients who have put off seeing a doctor because of an inability to pay, only to have their preventable conditions deteriorate.

She worries about the future of her community as physician shortages worsen, potentially leaving few providers to treat uninsured people.

“It’s heartbreaking,” she said, sitting in a small back room in her office in a suburban strip mall, wedged between a Kohl’s and a Shoe Carnival. “These are hardworking people,” she said. “They try their best to take care of themselves.”

Casso said her own sister, who worked as a medical biller in a physician’s office, couldn’t afford health insurance. She delayed care and died at age 45 of complications from diabetes and heart disease. Casso worries the future will find more people in similar situations.

“Our population is going to suffer,” she said. “It’s going to be devastating.”

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).

“Vamos a atender primero a los pacientes más graves”, dijo Margo, que es médica de familia.

De todas formas, esa tarde de junio no quedaba espacio disponible. Un pequeño monitor en la pared mostraba los signos vitales de los pacientes que ya llenaban la sala de emergencias. Y afuera, bajo el calor del sur de Texas, una ambulancia esperaba a que se liberara una cama para el paciente que había traído.

“Aquí viene todo el mundo”, dijo Margo. “Pero cuando estás abrumado y sobrepasado, hay un límite a lo que puedes hacer”.

El condado de Starr, una comunidad rural y mayoritariamente hispana en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos, fue noticia en 2024 al votar, por primera vez en más de un siglo, por un candidato republicano en una elección presidencial.

La inmigración y la economía fueron los temas que impulsaron el cambio político en esta comunidad, donde aproximadamente un tercio de la población vive bajo la línea de la pobreza.

Ahora, las medidas que adoptaron recientemente la administración Trump y el Congreso controlado por el Partido Republicano han despertado una nueva preocupación: la creciente dificultad para que médicos, hospitales y otros proveedores de salud puedan seguir atendiendo a personas sin seguro médico.

Este es un temor que va más allá del condado de Starr, una localidad que tiene una de las tasas más altas de población sin seguro del país. Comunidades de todo Estados Unidos que tienen números similares de personas sin seguro podrían verse en serios problemas a medida que más residentes pierden su cobertura médica.

Se calcula que, en 10 años, 14 millones de personas se quedarán sin seguro médico en Estados Unidos como consecuencia de la ley fiscal y de presupuesto del presidente Donald Trump, a la que los republicanos llaman One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

A esto se agrega la eliminación de los subsidios extraordinarios que redujeron el costo de los planes a partir de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA).

La nueva ley también limita programas que otorgan miles de millones de dólares a los hospitales y clínicas que atienden a personas sin seguro, lo que complica aún más su supervivencia.

“No se puede dejar sin cobertura a tanta gente sin que, en muchas comunidades, el sistema de salud colapse”, afirmó Sara Rosenbaum, presidenta y fundadora del Department of Health Policy and Management de la George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health.

“El futuro es el sur de Texas”, pronosticó.

KFF Health News está examinando el impacto de los cambios en la política nacional de salud en las personas sin seguro y sus comunidades.

Aunque la administración Trump respondió a KFF Health News que está haciendo “una inversión histórica en la atención médica rural”, quienes tratan a pacientes de bajos ingresos, así como investigadores y defensores de los consumidores, aseguran que las recientes decisiones políticas harán más difícil que las personas permanezcan saludables.

Algunos médicos, hospitales y clínicas que conforman la red de seguridad sanitaria han advertido que podrían perder tanto dinero que se verían obligados a cerrar.

“Porque la factura del paciente no se va a pagar”, dijo Joseph Alpert, editor en jefe de The American Journal of Medicine y profesor de Medicina en la Universidad de Arizona. “Los pacientes sin seguro saturan el sistema de salud”, añadió.

El condado de Starr es un ejemplo de esta situación.

Los médicos de atención primaria del condado reciben algo menos de 3.900 personas cada uno, casi tres veces el promedio nacional.

Margo, la médica de familia, explicó que como hay tantas personas sin seguro y son tan pocos los lugares donde los atienden, cuando se sienten mal muchas van directamente a la sala de emergencias.

Además, muchos de esos pacientes han descuidado su salud y por eso llegan más enfermos y necesitan tratamientos más costosos. La ley federal exige que las salas de emergencia de los hospitales que participan en Medicare atiendan o transfieran a los pacientes, sin tomar en cuenta si pueden pagar o no.

Esto obliga a Margo y a su equipo a practicar lo que describió como “medicina de desastre”.

“Llegan con dolor en el pecho o no pueden respirar. Se desmayan. Nunca han visto a un médico”, dijo. “Están literalmente muriendo”.

Sistemas de salud en “modo de supervivencia”

Cuando alguien no tiene seguro o depende de Medicaid, suele recurrir a una red de seguridad sanitaria: médicos, hospitales, clínicas y centros comunitarios que ofrecen servicios gratuitos o reciben reembolsos muy bajos si se los compara con los seguros comerciales.

Estas instituciones muchas veces funcionan con un financiamiento muy precario y dependen de innumerables ayudas federales. Los recortes impulsados por la administración Trump, con el argumento de eliminar el “desperdicio, fraude y abuso”, generaron dudas respecto de si estos proveedores podrán soportar todavía mayor presión financiera.

La nueva ley de Trump financia las prioridades del gobierno. Entre ellas están la ampliación de los recortes fiscales que benefician principalmente a los estadounidenses de mayores ingresos y el refuerzo de los controles a los inmigrantes.

Esos costos se cubren en parte con una reducción de casi $1.000 millones en el gasto federal en salud para Medicaid durante la próxima década. Y, también, con cambios en los mercados de seguros establecidos por ACA, como la exigencia de trámites adicionales y la reducción de los plazos para inscribirse.

Muchos republicanos argumentan que Medicaid ha crecido demasiado y se ha desviado de su misión original de cubrir a personas de bajos recursos y con discapacidades. El Partido Republicano ha tratado de revertir ACA desde que se aprobó.

Kush Desai, vocero de la Casa Blanca, dijo que las proyecciones sobre cuántas personas podrían perder el seguro médico de la no partidista Congressional Budget Office son “exageradas”. No ofreció una cifra que la administración considere más precisa.

Los que apoyan la One Big Beautiful Bill aseguran que quienes necesitan cobertura médica pueden obtenerla si cumplen con los nuevos requisitos, como trabajar para recibir Medicaid.

Michael Cannon, director de estudios de políticas de salud del Cato Institute, un centro de pensamiento libertario, sostuvo que incluso con esta ley el gasto en Medicaid seguirá creciendo, aunque más lentamente.

“Los proveedores ineficientes deberían cerrar”, dijo Cannon. “La ley no provocará un colapso”, aseguró.

Una encuesta reciente de la AMGA, una asociación que representa a los sistemas de salud de todo el país y antes era conocida como American Medical Group Association, reveló que casi la mitad de los centros de salud rurales podrían cerrar o reestructurarse por los recortes de Medicaid.

Casi tres cuartas partes de los encuestados afirmaron que preveían despidos o licencias, incluso de profesionales de salud de primera línea.

Los departamentos de salud pública, que a menudo cubren las carencias en la atención médica, también se enfrentan a recortes en el financiamiento federal que redujeron su capacidad operativa.

En el condado de Cameron, al sur de Texas, el Departamento de Salud ha eliminado casi una docena de puestos, según afirmó su directora, Esmer Guajardo.

En el condado vecino de Hidalgo han despedido a más de 30 empleados, según Iván Meléndez, que colabora en la supervisión de la administración.

En julio, el Departamento de Servicios de Salud de Texas canceló  Operation Border Health, un multitudinario evento anual que el año anterior había brindado servicios de salud gratuitos a casi 6.000 residentes en el sur de Texas.

El Gateway Community Health Center, un centro de salud comunitario de Laredo, una ciudad fronteriza al norte del Valle del Río Grande, está en “modo de supervivencia”, según David Vásquez, su director de comunicaciones.

Aproximadamente un tercio de sus pacientes ya no tienen seguro médico, y muchos más tendrán dificultades para pagar la atención sanitaria si no se renuevan las subvenciones de ACA.

El centro está buscando otras formas de financiamiento para evitar despidos o recortes en los servicios, y ha suspendido todos los planes de expansión y contratación, agregó Vásquez.

Este achicamiento ocurre justo cuando más personas pierden su seguro y necesitan atención médica gratuita o a bajo costo.

Esther Rodríguez, de 39 años, residente de McAllen, lleva dos años sin empleo y su esposo gana $600 por semana trabajando en la construcción. Ninguno de los dos tiene seguro médico.

Medicaid cubrió los gastos del parto de sus cinco hijos. Ahora depende de una clínica móvil gestionada por una facultad de medicina local, donde debe pagar de su bolsillo las revisiones rutinarias y los medicamentos para controlar su diabetes tipo 2. Si necesitara más atención, dijo Rodríguez, iría a una sala de emergencias.

“Hay que saber adaptarse”, dijo.

Muerte por mil recortes

Que muchas personas no estén en condiciones de pagar genera una atención médica no remunerada, es decir, servicios por los que los hospitales, los médicos y las clínicas no reciben ningún pago. Estaba previsto, según una versión anterior del megaproyecto de ley, que esto aumentara en $204.000 millones durante la próxima década. La estimación es del Urban Institute, un grupo de expertos sin fines de lucro.

Pero la administración Trump también está recortando otras formas de ayuda que contribuían a compensar el costo de la atención médica de las personas que no pueden pagarla.

La nueva ley impone límites a programas federales que muchos prestadores de salud para personas de bajos ingresos han utilizado para equilibrar sus presupuestos, especialmente en áreas rurales.

Entre ellos se incluyen los impuestos a los hospitales, los planes de salud y otros proveedores que los estados utilizan para ayudar a financiar sus programas de Medicaid. Estos impuestos a los proveedores son un “truco financiero”, afirmó Desai.

Si bien la ley crea un fondo temporario de $50.000 millones para apoyar a médicos y hospitales rurales, esa cifra representa poco más de un tercio de las pérdidas estimadas en fondos de Medicaid en estas zonas, según la organización sin fines de lucro KFF.

Desai calificó el análisis como “defectuoso”.

Cualquier pérdida de ingresos podría suponer la ruina financiera, especialmente para los pequeños hospitales rurales, afirmó Quang Ngo, presidente de la Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals Foundation.

“Es como si te fueran matando de a poquito con tantos recortes”, dijo. “Algunos probablemente no lo resistan”.

Todo indica que los golpes podrían continuar. La propuesta presupuestaria de la administración Trump para el próximo año fiscal contempla recortes a múltiples programas de salud rural ejecutados por la Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).

Desai aseguró que la inversión de la nueva ley en salud rural “supera por mucho” esos recortes.

En febrero, la administración Trump anunció un recorte del 90% al programa de navegadores de ACA, que ayuda a las personas a encontrar seguro médico.

Desai afirmó que ese programa ha sido “históricamente ineficiente”.

En diciembre de 2023, en Texas, casi tres millones de personas sin seguro médico reunían los requisitos para recibir subsidios de ACA, Medicaid o el Programa de Seguro Médico Infantil (CHIP), según Texas 2036, un grupo de expertos en políticas públicas.

María Salgado es una trabajadora de salud comunitaria, o promotora de salud, que pasa sus días laborales en eventos comunitarios, repartiendo volantes en consultorios médicos y reuniéndose con personas para ayudarlas a inscribirse en Medicaid o en planes de ACA a través de MHP Salud, una organización sin fines de lucro.

Salgado tiene miedo de que los recortes de fondos realmente frenen los esfuerzos de la organización: “Muchos miembros de nuestra comunidad van a quedar rezagados”, dijo.

Chris Casso, una médica de atención primaria que creció y ahora ejerce en McAllen, contuvo las lágrimas mientras hablaba de los pacientes que habían dejado de ir al médico porque no lo podían pagar, y eso había hecho que sus enfermedades prevenibles se volvieran más graves.

A Casso le preocupa el futuro de su comunidad, ya que se acentúa la escasez de médicos y podrían quedar pocos profesionales de salud para tratar a quienes han quedado sin cobertura.

“Parte el alma”, dijo, sentada en un pequeño cuarto detrás de su consultorio, ubicado en un centro comercial suburbano, entre una tienda Kohl’s y una Shoe Carnival. “Son personas muy trabajadoras”, afirmó. “Hacen todo lo posible para cuidarse”.

Casso contó que su propia hermana, que trabajaba como facturadora médica en un consultorio, no tenía seguro. Postergó la atención y murió a los 45 años por complicaciones de la diabetes y una enfermedad cardíaca. Casso teme que ese sea el destino de muchas otras personas en el futuro.

“Nuestra comunidad la va a pasar mal”, aseguró. “Va a ser un desastre”.

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).

Hasta este año.

El plan de la administración Trump de retirar más de $550 millones en fondos federales para salud pública y pandemias en Texas hizo que se cancelara el evento, justo antes de su inicio programado para el 21 de julio.

“Hay personas que vienen todos los años y dependen de este evento”, dijo Dairen Sarmiento Rangel, directora del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos del condado de Hidalgo. “Algunas personas incluso acampan afuera de Operación Salud Fronteriza para ser las primeras en recibir servicios. Este evento es muy importante para nuestra comunidad”.

Los gobiernos estatales y locales ya han tenido que hacer dolorosos recortes a sus programas, luego de importantes reducciones en la financiación federal para salud que ya han entrado en vigor. Ahora, se preparan para enfrentar los golpes financieros que están por venir —algunos no ocurrirán hasta finales del próximo año o incluso después— como resultado de la ley fiscal y de gasto aprobada por los republicanos en el Congreso en julio, conocida como la One Big Beautiful Bill, que pone en marcha gran parte de la agenda nacional del presidente Donald Trump.

Texas, por ejemplo, anticipa una reducción de hasta $39.000 millones en fondos federales para Medicaid durante los próximos 10 años debido a nuevas barreras para la inscripción, como revisiones de elegibilidad más frecuentes, según un análisis publicado en julio por KFF.

En conjunto, estas reducciones representan un cambio radical en la forma en que se financian y se ofrecen los programas estatales de salud. En la práctica, la administración está trasladando una parte importante de los costos de salud a los estados. Esto obligará a sus líderes a tomar decisiones difíciles, ya que muchos presupuestos estatales ya están presionados por la disminución en la recaudación de impuestos, la desaceleración del gasto federal por covid y la incertidumbre económica.

Más de una docena de estados han bajado sus proyecciones de ingresos para el año próximo, según un informe publicado en junio por Pew.

“Es casi inevitable que los estados recorten varios servicios de salud debido a la presión fiscal”, dijo Wesley Tharpe, asesor principal en política fiscal estatal del Centro para Prioridades Presupuestarias y Políticas (CBPP), una organización de tendencia progresista.

Algunos estados tratan de suavizar el impacto de forma proactiva.

En Hawaii, los legisladores se han propuesto ayudar a organizaciones sin fines de lucro que ya enfrentan disminución en fondos federales. Repartirán $50 millones en subvenciones a organizaciones de salud, servicios sociales y otras que hayan sufrido recortes. Para acceder a los fondos, deben demostrar que su financiación fue eliminada, reducida o afectada por los recortes.

“No es justo que organizaciones dedicadas a ayudar al pueblo de Hawaii se vean obligadas a reducir sus servicios por los recortes federales”, declaró el gobernador demócrata Josh Green en un comunicado.

Otros estados recortan proyectos para enfrentar la situación.

El gobernador de Delaware, Matt Meyer, demócrata, supo en marzo que la administración Trump retiraría $38 millones en fondos de salud pública al estado. Como consecuencia, un mes después, los líderes legislativos estatales frenaron un proyecto para renovar y ampliar el complejo del Capitolio estatal.

“Reconocimos que los recortes federales irresponsables a la red de protección social de miles de habitantes de Delaware nos obligaban a ahorrar recursos para proteger a los más vulnerables”, dijo David Sokola, presidente temporal del Senado estatal.

En Nuevo México, el estado con el mayor porcentaje de residentes inscritos en Medicaid, un grupo bipartidista de legisladores votó a favor de crear un fondo fiduciario para reforzar el financiamiento del programa. Según algunas estimaciones, aproximadamente el 10% de los más de 800.000 residentes que están cubiertos por Medicaid y el Programa de Seguro Médico para Niños (CHIP, en inglés) podrían perder su cobertura bajo esta nueva ley federal.

Algunos líderes estatales advierten a sus comunidades que lo peor está por venir.

En un evento realizado el 18 de agosto en un hospital del sur del Bronx, en la ciudad de Nueva York, la gobernadora demócrata Kathy Hochul subió al escenario junto a trabajadores de salud para criticar la nueva ley de Trump.

“Lo que los republicanos en Washington han hecho con la ‘Ley Más Horrible’ que he visto es, literalmente, perjudicar a los neoyorquinos”, dijo. El sistema de salud del estado se prepara para enfrentar recortes cercanos a los $13.000 millones al año.

En California, los legisladores analizaron el impacto de los recortes en una audiencia del comité de la Asamblea General el 20 de agosto, donde algunos legisladores demócratas señalaron que programas estatales como los de salud reproductiva estaban en peligro.

“Nos hemos preparado para esta realidad: la llamada ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ del presidente Trump ahora es ley”, dijo el legislador demócrata Gregg Hart durante la audiencia, calificándola como “un ataque directo a los programas fundamentales de California y a nuestros valores”.

“Lamentablemente, la realidad es que el estado no tiene la capacidad para compensar todos estos recortes federales draconianos con el presupuesto actual”, agregó. “No podemos simplemente firmar un cheque y hacer que esto desaparezca”.

La radical ley presupuestaria, que fue aprobada sin apoyo demócrata, reducirá el gasto federal en Medicaid en aproximadamen $1.000 millones durante la próxima década, según estimaciones de la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO). Las reducciones en el gasto vienen en gran medida de la imposición de un requisito laboral para las personas que obtuvieron Medicaid con la expansión promovida por la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA), además de otras nuevas barreras para acceder a la cobertura.

Según la CBO, más de 7,5 millones de personas perderán la cobertura de Medicaid y quedarán sin seguro, mientras se extienden recortes fiscales para personas ricas que, según los demócratas, no los necesitan.

Por su parte, los republicanos y el presidente Trump afirman que el paquete fiscal y los recortes en los programas son necesarios para evitar el fraude y el despilfarro, y para garantizar la sostenibilidad de Medicaid, un programa federal-estatal que brinda cobertura a personas con discapacidades y de bajos ingresos.

“La One Big Beautiful Bill elimina a los inmigrantes ilegales, aplica requisitos laborales y protege a Medicaid para los verdaderamente vulnerables”, anunció la Casa Blanca en un comunicado del 29 de junio.

Los recortes a Medicaid no comenzarán hasta después de las elecciones legislativas de mitad de mandato en noviembre de 2026, pero ya se han aplicado otros recortes.

La administración Trump ha intentado recuperar $11.000 millones en fondos federales de salud pública destinados a los estados durante la pandemia, lo que provocó una batalla legal con una coalición de estados gobernados por demócratas. También recortó unos $1.000 millones en subvenciones federales para servicios de salud mental en las escuelas y detuvo los fondos de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud (NIH) que financiaban a más de 90 universidades públicas.

Un análisis de KFF Health News demuestra que las cancelaciones han afectado a todo el país, sin importar la afiliación política o la ubicación geográfica. De las organizaciones que sufrieron recortes en el primer mes, aproximadamente el 40% se encuentran en estados que Trump ganó en noviembre.

La secretaria de prensa del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), Emily Hilliard, dijo que la agencia prioriza las inversiones que respalden el mandato de Trump de enfrentar las enfermedades crónicas. Defendió algunos de los recortes y afirmó, erróneamente, que la nueva ley no reduce Medicaid.

“La pandemia de covid-19 ya terminó, y el HHS no seguirá desperdiciando miles de millones de dólares de los contribuyentes en una crisis que los estadounidenses superaron hace años”, dijo.

Líderes estatales señalan que los fondos federales por la pandemia, que la administración busca recuperar, se habían destinado a otras medidas de salud pública, como la vigilancia de enfermedades emergentes, la respuesta ante brotes y la contratación de personal. En mayo, fiscales estatales ganaron una orden de restricción temporal contra la administración.

“Lo que estamos viendo ahora es que los estados anticipan grandes recortes a Medicaid, pero también enfrentan una serie de recortes federales más pequeños, pero significativos, en programas de salud pública”, dijo Larry Levitt, vicepresidente ejecutivo de políticas de salud en KFF. (KFF Health News es uno de los programas de KFF)

Parte del desafío para los estados es simplemente entender los cambios.

“Creo que es justo decir que hay preocupación, confusión e incertidumbre”, afirmó Kathryn Costanza, experta en Medicaid en la Conferencia Nacional de Legislaturas Estatales.

Los estados intentan entenderlo todo, creando grupos asesores para seguir los cambios federales, presentando demandas para intentar bloquear los recortes y reasignando fondos.

En Colorado, los legisladores aprobaron una ley que permite que fondos estatales de Medicaid se usen para servicios de salud —excluyendo abortos— en clínicas de Planned Parenthood of America, después de que la nueva ley de Trump prohibiera la financiación federal para este tipo de atención. Aún está por verse si esa prohibición se mantiene en los tribunales.

La legislatura de Louisiana asignó $7,5 millones a universidades estatales para compensar los recortes en financiación federal para la investigación, gran parte de ella relacionada con temas de salud.

Y en Dakota del Sur, el banco de alimentos más grande del estado pidió a los legisladores que destinen $3 millones para compensar recortes en fondos del Departamento de Agricultura de Estados Unidos.

Los estados deben equilibrar sus presupuestos cada año, por lo que los recortes ponen en riesgo muchos servicios si los legisladores no están dispuestos a aumentar impuestos. El trabajo comenzará en serio en enero, cuando muchos estados inicien sus nuevas sesiones legislativas.

Y es probable que las decisiones difíciles continúen. Los republicanos en la Cámara de Representantes del Congreso consideran nuevas leyes que podrían traer más recortes, como la reducción al generoso financiamiento federal que actualmente reciben 20 millones de adultos inscritos en Medicaid gracias a la expansión de ACA.

Como resultado, algunos estados revertirán sus expansiones de Medicaid y recortarán aún más programas de salud.

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).

Until this year. The Trump administration’s plan to strip more than $550 million in federal public health and pandemic funds from Texas helped prompt cancellation of the event just before its scheduled July 21 start.

“Some people come every year and rely on it,” said Hidalgo County Health and Human Services Director Dairen Sarmiento Rangel. “Some people even camp out outside of Border Health so they can be the first in line to receive services. This event is very important to our community.”

States and local governments have made painful program cuts in the wake of major reductions in federal health funding that have already taken effect. Now, they’re sizing up the financial hits to come — some not until late next year or beyond — from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the tax and spending law congressional Republicans passed in July that enacts much of President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda.

Texas, for instance, expects to see its federal Medicaid funds reduced by as much as $39 billion over 10 years due to new barriers for enrollment, such as more frequent eligibility checks, according to a July analysis by KFF.

Taken together, the reductions amount to a seismic shift in how state health programs are provided and paid for. The administration is, in effect, pushing a significant amount of health costs to states. That will force their leaders to make difficult choices, as many state budgets are already strained by declining tax revenues, a slowdown in federal pandemic spending, and economic uncertainty.

Revenue forecasters in more than a dozen states have lowered expectations for the coming year, according to a June report by Pew.

“It’s almost inevitable that states will enact a number of cuts to health services because of the fiscal pressure,” said Wesley Tharpe, senior adviser for state tax policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Some are proactively trying to stanch the impact.

Hawaii lawmakers are looking to aid nonprofits that are already contending with federal funding cuts. They’re doling out $50 million in grants to health, social service, and other nonprofits hit by federal funding cuts. To get the money, nonprofits must show a termination or drop in funding, or that they have otherwise been harmed by the cuts.

“It is not fair that organizations dedicated to supporting the people of Hawaii are being forced to scale back due to federal funding cuts,” Democratic Gov. Josh Green said in a statement.

Other states are scaling back projects to contend with cuts. Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer, a Democrat, received notice in March that the Trump administration was cutting $38 million in public health funding from the state. The next month, state legislative leaders halted a planned project to upgrade and expand the Capitol complex as a result.

“We recognized that the reckless federal cuts to the social safety nets of thousands of Delawareans called for us to hold back resources to protect our most vulnerable,” said David Sokola, president pro tempore of the Delaware Senate.

In New Mexico, the state with the highest percentage of residents enrolled in Medicaid, a bipartisan group of lawmakers voted to create a trust fund to boost funding for the program. About 10% of the more than 800,000 state residents covered by Medicaid and the related Children’s Health Insurance Program could lose their health coverage under the federal spending law, based on some estimates.

Some state leaders are warning constituents that the worst may be yet to come.

At an Aug. 18 event at a hospital in the South Bronx section of New York City, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, stood on stage among health care workers in white coats to skewer Trump’s new law.

“What Republicans in Washington have done through the ‘Big Ugliest Bill’ I’ve ever seen is literally screwing New Yorkers,” she said. The state’s health system is bracing for nearly $13 billion in annual cuts.

And in California, lawmakers weighed the impact of the coming cuts from the federal law at a general assembly committee hearing on Aug. 20, where some Democratic legislators said state efforts to protect reproductive health services and other programs were in jeopardy.

“We’ve been bracing for this reality: President Trump’s so-called ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ is now law,” Democratic lawmaker Gregg Hart said at the hearing, calling it a “direct assault on California’s core programs and our values.”

“Sadly, the reality is, the state does not have the capacity to backfill all of these draconian federal funding cuts in the current budget,” Hart said. “We cannot simply write a check and make this go away.”

The sweeping budget law, which passed without any Democratic support, will reduce federal spending on Medicaid by about $1 trillion over the next decade, based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The spending reductions largely come from the imposition of a work requirement on people who’ve obtained Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act’s expansion, as well as other new barriers to coverage.

The law will mean more than 7.5 million people will lose Medicaid coverage and become uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while extending tax cuts for wealthy people who, Democrats say, don’t need them. Republicans and Trump have said the spending package and its accompanying program cuts were necessary to prevent fraud and waste, and to sustain Medicaid, a state-federal program for people with disabilities and lower incomes.

“The One Big Beautiful Bill removes illegal aliens, enforces work requirements, and protects Medicaid for the truly vulnerable,” the White House said in a June 29 statement.

The Medicaid cuts won’t begin until after the midterm elections in November 2026, but other cuts have already hit.

The Trump administration has sought to claw back $11 billion in federal public health funds earmarked to states because of the pandemic, spurring a legal fight with a coalition of Democratic-led states. It also cut about $1 billion in federal grants for mental health services in schools, and halted grants from the National Institutes of Health that provided money to more than 90 public universities.

HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard said the agency is prioritizing investments that advance Trump’s mandate to confront chronic disease. She defended some of the cuts and said, erroneously, that the spending law doesn’t cut Medicaid.

“The covid-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a crisis that Americans moved on from years ago,” she said.

State leaders say the pandemic funding the administration wants returned was earmarked for other public health measures, such as tracking emerging diseases, outbreak responses, and staffing. State attorneys general in May won a temporary restraining order against the administration.

“What we’re seeing now is states anticipating big cuts in Medicaid coming, but they’re also dealing with a whole variety of federal cutbacks in public health programs that are smaller but still quite meaningful,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Part of the challenge for states is simply understanding the changes.

“I think it’s fair to say there is concern, confusion, and uncertainty,” said Kathryn Costanza, a Medicaid expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

States are struggling to sort it all out, forming advisory groups that are tracking federal changes, suing to try to block the cuts, and reallocating funding.

In Colorado, lawmakers passed a bill to let state Medicaid dollars pay for non-abortion care at Planned Parenthood of America clinics after Trump’s law banned federal funding for such care. Whether the ban holds up in court remains to be seen.

The Louisiana Legislature sent $7.5 million to state universities to make up for cuts to federal research funding, much of which goes to health-related research.

And in South Dakota, the state’s largest food bank has asked lawmakers to spend $3 million to make up for funding cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

States must balance their budgets every year, so cuts put many services at risk if state lawmakers are unwilling to raise taxes. The work will begin in earnest in January, when many states begin new legislative sessions.

And the tough choices are likely to continue. Congressional House Republicans are considering legislation that could bring more cuts, including by slashing the generous cost sharing the federal government provides for 20 million adults who enrolled in Medicaid under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

Some states will roll back their Medicaid expansions and cut more health programs as a result.

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).

MIAMI — GOP lawmakers in the 10 states that refused the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion for over a decade have argued their conservative approach to growing government programs would pay off in the long run.

Instead, the Republican-passed budget law that includes many of President Donald Trump’s priorities will pose at least as big a burden on patients and hospitals in the expansion holdout states as in the 40 states that have extended Medicaid coverage to more low-income adults, hospital executives and other officials warn.

For instance, Georgia, with a population of just over 11 million, will see as many people lose insurance coverage sold through ACA marketplaces as will California, with more than triple the population, according to estimates by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

The new law imposes additional paperwork requirements on Obamacare enrollees, slashes the time they have each year to sign up, and cuts funding for navigators who help them shop for plans. Those changes, all of which will erode enrollment, are expected to have far more impact in states like Florida and Texas than in California because a higher proportion of residents in non-expansion states are enrolled in ACA plans.

The budget law, which Republicans called the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” will cause sweeping changes to health care across the country as it trims federal spending on Medicaid by more than $1 trillion over the next decade. The program covers more than 71 million people with low incomes and disabilities. Ten million people will lose coverage over the next decade due to the law, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Many of its provisions are focused on the 40 states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, which added millions more low-income adults to the rolls. But the consequences are not confined to those states. A proposal from conservatives to cut more generous federal payments for people added to Medicaid by the ACA expansion didn’t make it into the law.

“Politicians in non-expansion states should be furious about that,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

The number of people losing coverage could accelerate in non-expansion states if enhanced federal subsidies for Obamacare plans expire at the end of the year, driving up premiums as early as January and adding to the rolls of uninsured. KFF estimates as many as 2.2 million people could become uninsured just in Florida, a state where lawmakers refused to expand Medicaid and, partly as a result, now leads the nation in ACA enrollment.

For people like Francoise Cham of Miami, who has Obamacare coverage, the Republican policy changes could be life-altering.

Before she had insurance, the 62-year-old single mom said she would donate blood just to get her cholesterol checked. Once a year, she’d splurge for a wellness exam at Planned Parenthood. She expects to make about $28,000 this year and currently pays about $100 a month for an ACA plan to cover herself and her daughter, and even that strains her budget.

Cham choked up describing the “safety net” that health insurance has afforded her — and at the prospect of being unable to afford coverage if premiums spike at the end of the year.

“Obamacare has been my lifesaver,” she said.

If the enhanced ACA subsidies aren’t extended, “everyone will be hit hard,” said Cindy Mann, a health policy expert with Manatt Health, a consulting and legal firm, and a former deputy administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“But a state that hasn’t expanded Medicaid will have marketplace people enrolling at lower income levels,” she said. “So, a greater share of residents are reliant on the marketplace.”

Though GOP lawmakers may try to cut Medicaid even more this year, for now the states that expanded Medicaid largely appear to have made a smart decision, while states that haven’t are facing similar financial pressures without any upside, said health policy experts and hospital industry observers.

KFF Health News reached out to the governors of the 10 states that have not fully expanded Medicaid to see if the budget legislation made them regret that decision or made them more open to expansion. Spokespeople for Republican Gov. Henry McMaster of South Carolina and Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia did not indicate whether their states are considering Medicaid expansion.

Brandon Charochak, a spokesperson for McMaster’s office, said South Carolina’s Medicaid program focuses on “low-income children and families and disabled individuals,” adding, “The state’s Medicaid program does not anticipate a large impact on the agency’s Medicaid population.”

Enrollment in ACA marketplace plans nationwide has more than doubled since 2020 to 24.3 million. If enhanced subsidies expire, premiums for Obamacare coverage would rise by more than 75% on average, according to an analysis by KFF. Some insurers are already signaling they plan to charge more.

The CBO estimates that allowing enhanced subsidies to expire will increase the number of people without health insurance by 4.2 million by 2034, compared with a permanent extension. That would come on top of the coverage losses caused by Trump’s budget law.

“That is problematic and scary for us,” said Eric Boley, president of the Wyoming Hospital Association.

He said his state, which did not expand Medicaid, has a relatively small population and hasn’t been the most attractive for insurance providers — few companies currently offer plans on the ACA exchange — and he worried any increase in the uninsured rate would “collapse the insurance market.”

As the uninsured rate rises in non-expansion states and the budget law’s Medicaid cuts loom, lawmakers say state funds will not backfill the loss of federal dollars, including in states that have refused to expand Medicaid.

Those states got slightly favorable treatment under the law, but it’s not enough, said Grace Hoge, press secretary for Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat who favors Medicaid expansion but who has been rebuffed by GOP state legislators.

“Kansans’ ability to access affordable healthcare will be harmed,” Hoge said in an email. “Kansas, nor our rural hospitals, will not be able to make up for these cuts.”

For hospital leaders in other states that have refused full Medicaid expansion, the budget law poses another test by limiting financing arrangements states leveraged to make higher Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals.

Beginning in 2028, the law will reduce those payments by 10 percentage points each year until they are closer to what Medicare pays.

Richard Roberson, president of the Mississippi Hospital Association, said the state’s use of what’s called directed payments in 2023 helped raise its Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and other health institutions from $500 million a year to $1.5 billion a year. He said higher rates helped Mississippi’s rural hospitals stay open.

“That payment program has just been a lifeline,” Roberson said.

The budget law includes a $50 billion fund intended to insulate rural hospitals and clinics from its changes to Medicaid and the ACA. But a KFF analysis found it would offset only about one-third of the cuts to Medicaid in rural areas.

Trump encouraged Florida, Tennessee, and Texas to continue refusing Medicaid expansion in his first term, when his administration gave them an unusual 10-year extension for financing programs known as uncompensated care pools, which generate billions of dollars to pay hospitals for treating the uninsured, said Allison Orris, director of Medicaid policy for the left-leaning think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“Those were very clearly a decision from the first Trump administration to say, ‘You get a lot of money for an uncompensated care pool instead of expanding Medicaid,’” she said.

Those funds are not affected by Trump’s new tax-and-spending law. But they do not help patients the way insurance coverage would, Orris said. “This is paying hospitals, but it’s not giving people health care,” she said. “It’s not giving people prevention.”

States such as Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi have not only turned down the additional federal funding that Medicaid expansion brings, but most of the remaining non-expansion states spend less than the national average per Medicaid enrollee, provide fewer or less generous benefits, and cover fewer categories of low-income Americans.

Mary Mayhew, president of the Florida Hospital Association, said the state’s Medicaid program does not adequately cover children, older people, and people with disabilities because reimbursement rates are too low.

“Children don’t have timely access to dentists,” she said. “Expectant moms don’t have access nearby to an OB-GYN. We’ve had labor and delivery units close in Florida.”

She said the law will cost states more in the long run.

“The health care outcomes for the individuals we serve will deteriorate,” Mayhew said. “That’s going to lead to higher cost, more spending, more dependency on the emergency department.”

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).