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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will the changes lead to more healthy eating?

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. How will SNAP cuts affect health?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

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

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

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

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

Then the bill came.

The Medical Procedure

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

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

The Final Bill

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

The Problem: Surprise Complications, Surprising Charges 

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

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

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

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

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

About two months later, she fell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Takeaway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No sabemos exactamente qué cubrirá”, declaró Hinton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

James asked that only his middle name be used to tell his story so that he wouldn’t lose health coverage or be accused of Medicaid fraud. He found his food service gig a few weeks into an addiction treatment program. The man in his late 30s said his boss “hasn’t been disappointed.”

“I’m a good worker,” he said with a grin.

James can get the prescription drugs that help him stabilize his life and hold down that job through Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program that covers people with low incomes or disabilities. Those drugs curb his desire for alcohol and treat long-standing conditions that exacerbate his addiction, including bipolar and insomnia disorders.

But he hasn’t qualified for the program in months, ever since his work hours increased and he received a raise of about $1 an hour. He exceeds his income eligibility limit of about $21,000 per year by roughly $50 a week.

James said that despite his raise, he’s struggling to cover routine expenses, such as keeping his car running and paying his phone bill. He said he can’t afford the care he needs even on the cheapest insurance plan available to him through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace or through his job’s health insurance plan. Even paying $60 a month for his sleep medications — one of six prescriptions he takes daily — is too expensive.

“I only saw one option,” James said. “Fudge the numbers.”

James hasn’t reported his new income to the state. That puts him at odds with congressional Republicans who justified adding hurdles to Medicaid by claiming the system is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. But James isn’t someone sitting on his couch playing video games, the type of person House Speaker Mike Johnson and other people said they would target as they sought work requirements.

Medicaid provides health coverage and long-term care to more than 70 million people in the United States. Those who study safety-net systems say it’s extremely rare for enrollees to commit fraud to tap into that coverage. In fact, research shows swaths of eligible people aren’t enrolled in Medicaid, likely because the system is so confusing. And nearly two-thirds of people on Medicaid in 2023 had jobs, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Those transitioning off Medicaid may qualify for other subsidized or low-priced health plans through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace. But, as in James’ case, such plans can have gaps in what care is covered, and more comprehensive private plans may be too expensive. So James and an unknown number of other people find themselves caught between working too much to qualify for Medicaid but earning too little to pay for their own health care.

James considers himself to be a patriot and said that people shouldn’t “use government funding to just be lazy.” He agrees with the Republican argument that, if able, people should work if they receive Medicaid. Hiding his hours on the job from the government bothers him, especially since he feels he must lie to access the medical care that enables him to work.

“I don’t want to be a fraud. I don’t want to die,” James said. “Those shouldn’t be the only two options.”

On July 4, Trump signed into law the major tax and spending bill that makes it harder for low-income workers to get Medicaid. That includes requiring beneficiaries to work or go to school and adding paperwork to prove every six months they meet a minimum number of hours on the job.

“It’s going to hurt people, whether they’re playing by the rules or not,” said Ben Sommers, a health economist at Harvard University. “We see this vilification of mostly very hard-working people who are really struggling and are benefiting from a program that helps them stay alive.”

James said he initially declined his raise because he worried about losing Medicaid. He had previously been kicked off the coverage about a month into his rehab program after finding work. To stay in the sober-living program he otherwise couldn’t afford, James said, he dropped just enough hours at work to requalify for Medicaid and then soon picked up hours again. If he didn’t earn more, he said, he had no chance of saving enough money to find housing after graduating from the treatment program.

“They’ll give you a bone if you stay in the mud,” James said. “But you have to stay there.”

That problem — becoming just successful enough to suddenly lose Medicaid — is common. It’s called a benefit cliff, said Pamela Herd, who researches government aid at the University of Michigan.

“It just doesn’t make any sense that someone gets a dollar pay raise and all of a sudden they lose all access to their health insurance,” Herd said.

She said a partial fix exists called continuous eligibility, which guarantees an individual’s Medicaid coverage for a specific period, such as a year or longer. The goal is to give people time to adjust when they do earn more money. Continuous eligibility also helps maintain coverage for low-income workers with unpredictable hours and whose pay changes month to month.

But Congress has moved in the other direction. Under the new law, policymakers limited windows of eligibility for able-bodied adults to every six months. That will put more people on the program’s eligibility cliff, Herd said, in which they must decide between losing access to coverage or dropping hours at work.

“It is going to be a nightmare,” Herd said.

Those federal changes will be especially difficult for people with chronic conditions, such as James in Montana.

Not that long ago, James wouldn’t have been breaking the rules to access Medicaid because his state had 12-month continuous eligibility. But in 2023, Montana began requiring enrollees to report any change in their income within 10 days.

James is proud of how far he’s come. About a year ago, his body was breaking down. He couldn’t hold a spoon to eat breakfast without whiskey — his hands shook too hard. He had alcohol-induced seizures. He said his memories from his unhealthiest times come in flashes: being put on a stretcher, the face of a worried landlord, ambulance lights in the background.

James recently graduated from his treatment program. He’s staying with a relative to save money as he and his girlfriend try to find an affordable place to rent — though even with Medicaid, finding housing feels like a stretch to him. He’s taking classes part-time to become a licensed addiction counselor. His dream is to help others survive addiction, and he also sees that career as a way out of poverty.

To James, all his progress rides on keeping Medicaid a bit longer.

“Every time I get a piece of mail, I am terrified that I’m gonna open it up and it’s gonna say I don’t have Medicaid anymore,” he said. “I’m constantly in fear that it’s gonna go away.”

As of mid-July, officials hadn’t noticed the extra $50 he makes each week.

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).

During a typical shift, she shows up at her clients’ home at 10 p.m. She answers questions they may have about basic infant care and keeps an eye out for signs of postpartum depression.

After bedtime, she may feed the baby a bottle or wake the mother to breastfeed. She soothes the infant back to sleep. Sometimes, she prepares meals for the family in a Crock-Pot or empties the dishwasher.

She leaves the following morning and returns, often nightly, for two or three weeks in a row.

“I’m certified to do all of it,” said Oliver, of Hardeeville, South Carolina, who runs Compassionate Care Doula Services. It takes a village to raise a child, as the adage goes, but “the village is not what it used to be,” Oliver said.

Doulas are trained to offer critical support for families — before delivery, during childbirth, and in those daunting early days when parents are desperate for sleep and infants still wake up around the clock. While doulas typically don’t hold a medical or nursing degree, research shows they can improve health outcomes and reduce racial health disparities.

Yet their services remain out of reach for many families. Oliver charges $45 an hour overnight, and health insurance plans often don’t cover her fees. That’s partly why business “ebbs and flows,” Oliver said. Sometimes, she’s fully booked for months. Other times, she goes several weeks without a client.

That may soon change.

Two bipartisan bills, introduced in separate chambers of the South Carolina General Assembly, would require both Medicaid, which pays for more than half of all births in the state, and private insurers to cover the cost of doula services for patients who choose to use one.

South Carolina isn’t an outlier. Even as states brace for significant reductions in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade, legislatures across the country continue to pass laws that grant doula access to Medicaid beneficiaries. Some state laws already require private health insurers to do the same. Since the start of 2025, Vermont lawmakers, alongside Republican-controlled legislatures in Arkansas, Utah, Louisiana, and Montana, have passed laws to facilitate Medicaid coverage of doula services.

All told, more than 30 states are reimbursing doulas through Medicaid or are implementing laws to do so.

Notably, these coverage requirements align with one of the goals of Project 2025, whose “Mandate for Leadership” report, published in 2023 by the conservative Heritage Foundation, offered a blueprint for President Donald Trump’s second term. The document calls for increasing access to doulas “for all women whether they are giving birth in a traditional hospital, through midwifery, or at home,” citing concerns about maternal mortality and postpartum depression, which may be “worsened by poor birth experiences.” The report also recommends that federal money not be used to train doctors, nurses, or doulas to perform abortions.

The Heritage Foundation did not respond to an interview request.

Meanwhile, the idea that doulas can benefit babies, parents, and state Medicaid budgets by reducing costly cesarean sections and preterm birth complications is supported by a growing body of research and is gaining traction among conservatives.

A study published last year in the American Journal of Public Health found that women enrolled in Medicaid who used a doula faced a 47% lower risk of delivering by C-section and a 29% lower risk of preterm birth. They were also 46% more likely to attend a postpartum checkup.

“Why wouldn’t you want somebody to avail themselves of that type of care?” said Republican state Rep. Tommy Pope, who co-sponsored the doula reimbursement bill in the South Carolina House of Representatives. “I don’t see any reason we shouldn’t be doing that.”

Pope said his daughter-in-law gave birth with the assistance of a doula. “It opened my eyes to the positive aspects,” he said.

Amy Chen, a senior attorney with the National Health Law Program, which tracks doula reimbursement legislation around the country as part of its Doula Medicaid Project, said lawmakers tend to support these efforts when they have a personal connection to the issue.

“It’s something that a lot of people resonate with,” Chen said, “even if they, themselves, have never been pregnant.”

Conservative lawmakers who endorse state-level abortion bans, she said, often vote in favor of measures that support pregnancy, motherhood, and infant health, all of which these doula reimbursement bills are intended to do.

Some Republicans feel as if “they have to come out in favor of that,” Chen said.

Health care research also suggests that Black patients, who suffer significantly higher maternal and infant mortality rates than white patients, may particularly benefit from doula care. In 2022, Black infants in South Carolina were more than twice as likely to die from all causes before their 1st birthday as white infants.

That holds true for women in rural parts of the country where labor and delivery services have either closed or never existed.

That’s why Montana lawmakers passed a doula reimbursement bill this year — to narrow health care gaps for rural and Indigenous communities. To that end, in 2023, the state enacted a bill that requires Medicaid to reimburse midwives for home births.

Montana state Sen. Mike Yakawich, a Republican who backed the Democratic-sponsored doula reimbursement bill, said pregnant women should have someone to call outside of a hospital, where health care services can be costly and intimidating.

“What help can we provide for moms who are expecting? My feeling is, it’s never enough,” Yakawich said.

Britney WolfVoice lives on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation in southeastern Montana, about two hours from the closest birthing hospital. In early July, she was seven months pregnant with her fourth child, a son, and said she planned to have a doula by her side for the second time in the delivery room. During WolfVoice’s previous pregnancy, an Indigenous doula named Misty Pipe brought cedar oil and spray into the delivery room, rubbed WolfVoice’s back through contractions, and helped ensure WolfVoice’s husband was the first person their daughter saw.

“Being in a hospital, I felt heard for the very first time,” WolfVoice said. “I just can’t explain it any better than I felt at home. She was my safe place.”

Pipe said hospitals are still associated with the government forcibly removing children from Native American homes as a consequence of colonization. Her goal is to help give people a voice during their pregnancy and delivery.

Most of her clients can’t afford to pay for doula services out-of-pocket, Pipe said, so she doesn’t charge anything for her birth services, balancing her role as a doula with her day job at a post office.

“If a mom is vulnerable, she could miss a prenatal appointment or go alone, or I can take time off of work and take her myself,” Pipe said. “No mom should have to birth in fear.”

The new state law will allow her to get paid for her work as a doula for the first time.

In some states that have enacted such laws, initial participation by doulas was low because Medicaid reimbursement rates weren’t high enough. Nationally, doula reimbursement rates are improving, Chen said.

For example, in Minnesota, where in 2013 lawmakers passed one of the first doula reimbursement bills, Medicaid initially paid only $411 per client for their services. Ten years later, the state had raised the reimbursement rate to a maximum of $3,200 a client.

But Chen said it is unclear how federal Medicaid cuts might affect the fate of these state laws.

Some states that haven’t passed doula reimbursement bills, including South Carolina, might be hesitant to do so in this environment, she said. “It’s just a really uncertain time.”

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).

Silva’s daughter was on Medicaid, which was supposed to cover the cost of the ambulances. But one of the three ambulance companies, Northglenn Ambulance, a public company since acquired by a private one, sent Silva’s bill to a debt collector. It was for $2,181.60, which grew to more than $3,000 with court fees and interest, court records show. The preschool teacher couldn’t pay, and the collector garnished Silva’s wages.

“It put us so behind on bills — our house payment, electric, phone bills, food for the kids,” said Silva, whose daughter recovered fully from the 2015 crash. “It took away from everything.”

Some state legislators are looking to curb bills like the one she received — surprise bills for ground ambulance rides.

When an ambulance company charges more than an insurer is willing to pay, patients can be left with a big bill they probably had no choice in.

States are trying to fill a gap left by the federal No Surprises Act, which covers air ambulances but not ground services, including ambulances that travel by road and water. This year, Utah and North Dakota joined 18 other states that have passed protections against surprise billing for such rides.

Those protections often include setting a minimum for insurers to pay out if someone they cover needs a ride. But the sticking point is where to set that bar. Legislation in Colorado and Montana stalled this year because policymakers worried that forcing insurers to pay more would lead to higher health coverage costs for everyone.

Surprise ambulance bills are one piece of a health care system that systematically saddles Americans with medical debt, straining their finances, preventing them from accessing care, and increasing racial disparities, as KFF Health News has reported.

“If people are hesitating to call the ambulance because they’re worried about putting a huge financial burden on their family, it means we’re going to get stroke victims who don’t get to the hospital on time,” said Patricia Kelmar, who directs health care campaigns at PIRG, a national consumer advocacy group. “It means that person who’s worried it might be a heart attack won’t call.”

The No Surprises Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2020, says that for most emergency services, patients can be billed for out-of-network care only for the same amount they would have been billed if it were in-network. Like doctors or hospitals, ambulance companies can contract with insurers, making them in-network. Those that don’t remain out-of-network.

But unlike when making an appointment with a doctor or planning a surgery, a patient generally can’t choose the ambulance company that will respond to their 911 call. This means they can get hit with large out-of-network bills.

Federal lawmakers punted on including ground ambulances, in part because of the variety of business models — from private companies to volunteer fire departments — and a lack of data on how much rides cost.

Instead, Congress created an advisory committee that issued recommendations last year. Its overarching conclusion — that patients shouldn’t be stuck in the crossfire between providers and payers — was not controversial or partisan. In Colorado, a measure aimed at expanding protections from surprise ambulance bills got a unanimous thumbs-up in both legislative chambers.

Colorado had previously passed a law protecting people from surprise bills from private ambulance companies. This new measure was aimed at providing similar protections against bills from public ambulance services and for transfers between hospitals.

“We knew it had bipartisan support, but there are some people that vote no on everything,” said a pleasantly surprised Karen McCormick, a Democratic state representative.

A less pleasant surprise came later, when Gov. Jared Polis, who is also a Democrat, vetoed it, citing the fear of rising premiums.

States can do only so much on this issue, because state laws apply only to state-regulated health plans. That leaves out a lot of workers. According to a 2024 national survey by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, 63% of people who work for private employers and get health insurance through their jobs have self-funded plans, which aren’t state-regulated.

“It’s why we need a federal ambulance protection law, even if we passed 50 state laws,” Kelmar said.

According to data from the Colorado secretary of state’s office, the only lobbying groups registered as “opposing” the bill were Anthem and UnitedHealth Group, plus UnitedHealth subsidiaries Optum and UnitedHealthcare.

As soon as the legislative session ended in May, Kevin McFatridge, executive director of the Colorado Association of Health Plans, a trade group representing health insurance companies in the state, sent a letter to the governor requesting a veto, with an estimate that the legislation would result in premiums rising 0.4%.

The Colorado bill said local governments — such as cities, counties, or special districts — would set rates.

“We are in a much better place by not having local entities set their own rates,” McFatridge told KFF Health News. “That’s almost like the fox managing the henhouse.”

Jack Hoadley, an emeritus research professor with Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, said it isn’t clear whether state laws approved elsewhere are raising premiums, or if so by how much. Hoadley said Washington state is expected to come out with an impact analysis of its law in a couple of years.

The national trade association for insurance companies declined to provide a comment for this article. Instead, AHIP forwarded letters that its leaders submitted to lawmakers in Ohio, West Virginia, and North Dakota this year opposing measures in each state to set base ambulance rates. AHIP leadership described the proposals as inflated, government-mandated pricing that would reduce insurers’ chance to negotiate fair prices. Ultimately, the association warned, the proposed minimums would increase health care costs.

In Montana, legislators were considering a minimum reimbursement for ground ambulances of 400% of what Medicare pays, or at a set local rate if one exists. The proposal was sponsored by two Republicans and backed by ambulance companies. Health insurers successfully lobbied against it, arguing that the price was too steep.

Sarah Clerget, a lobbyist representing AHIP, told Montana lawmakers in a legislative hearing that it’s already hard to get ambulance companies to go in-network with insurers, “because folks are going to need ambulance care regardless of whether their insurance company will cover it.” She said the state’s proposal would leave those paying for health coverage with the burden of the new price.

“None of us like our insurance rates to move,” Republican state Sen. Mark Noland said during a legislative meeting as a committee tabled the bill. He equated the proposed minimum to a mandate that could lead to people having to pay more for health coverage for an important but nonetheless niche service.

Colorado’s governor was similarly focused on premiums. Polis said in his veto letter that the legislation would have raised premiums between 73 cents and $2.15 per member per month.

“I agree that filling this gap in enforcement is crucial to saving people money on health care,” he wrote. “However, those cost savings are outweighed in my view by the premium increases.”

Isabel Cruz, policy director at the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, which supported the bill, said that even if premiums did rise, Coloradans might be OK with the change. After all, she said, they’d be trading the threat of a big ambulance bill for the price of half a cup of coffee per month.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

La hija de Silva tenía Medicaid, que supuestamente cubría el costo de las ambulancias. Pero una de las tres compañías que operaron ese día, Northglenn Ambulance, una empresa pública que había sido adquirida por una privada, envió la factura de Silva a un cobrador de deudas. Era de $2.181,60, pero con los costos judiciales y los intereses aumentó a más de $3.000, según consta en los registros judiciales.

La maestra de preescolar no pudo pagar, y el cobrador embargó el salario de Silva.

“Nos atrasó muchísimo con las facturas: la casa, la luz, el teléfono, la comida de los niños”, contó Silva, cuya hija se recuperó completamente del accidente de 2015. “Nos quitó todo”.

Algunos legisladores estatales buscan reducir facturas como la que recibió Silva: cuentas sorpresa por traslados terrestres en ambulancia.

Cuando una compañía de ambulancias cobra más de lo que una aseguradora está dispuesta a pagar, los pacientes pueden terminar con una factura enorme de la que no tienen escapatoria.

Los estados intentan cubrir el vacío dejado por la ley federal No Surprises Act, que cubre las ambulancias aéreas, pero no los servicios terrestres, incluyendo las ambulancias que viajan por carretera y agua.

Este año, Utah y Dakota del Norte se unieron a otros 18 estados que han aprobado protecciones contra las facturas sorpresa por este tipo de traslados.

Esas protecciones suelen incluir el establecimiento de un mínimo que las aseguradoras deben pagar si alguno de sus afiliados necesita transporte. Pero el punto de fricción es dónde establecer ese límite. La legislación en Colorado y Montana se estancó este año debido a la preocupación de los legisladores de que obligar a las aseguradoras a pagar más resultaría en mayores costos de cobertura médica para todos.

Las facturas sorpresa de ambulancias son un componente más de un sistema de salud que sistemáticamente endeuda a los estadounidenses, agobiando sus finanzas, impidiéndoles acceder a la atención médica y aumentando las disparidades raciales, como informó KFF Health News.

“Si las personas dudan en llamar a la ambulancia por temor a sufrir una gran carga financiera para su familia, significa que tendremos víctimas de accidentes cerebrovasculares que no llegarán al hospital a tiempo”, expresó Patricia Kelmar, directora de campañas de atención médica en PIRG, un grupo nacional de defensa del consumidor. “Significa que esa persona que teme un ataque cardíaco no llamará”.

El No Surprises Act, promulgado por el presidente Donald Trump en 2020, establece que, para la mayoría de los servicios de emergencia, a los pacientes se les puede facturar por la atención fuera de la red solo el mismo monto que se les habría facturado si estuvieran dentro de ella. Al igual que los médicos u hospitales, las compañías de ambulancias pueden tener contratos con aseguradoras, lo que las convierte en parte de la red. Las que no lo hacen, permanecen fuera de la red.

Pero a diferencia de cuando se programa una cita con un médico o se planifica una cirugía, un paciente generalmente no puede elegir la compañía de ambulancias que responderá a su llamada al 911. Esto significa que puede recibir grandes facturas fuera de la red.

Los legisladores federales postergaron la inclusión de las ambulancias terrestres, en parte debido a la variedad de modelos de negocio —desde empresas privadas hasta departamentos de bomberos voluntarios— y a la falta de datos sobre el costo de los traslados.

En cambio, el Congreso creó un comité asesor que emitió recomendaciones el año pasado. Su conclusión general —que los pacientes no deberían verse atrapados en el fuego cruzado entre proveedores y aseguradoras— no fue controvertida ni partidista. En Colorado, una medida destinada a ampliar las protecciones contra facturas sorpresa de ambulancias recibió el visto bueno unánime de ambas cámaras legislativas.

Colorado ya había aprobado una ley que protegía a las personas de facturas sorpresa de compañías privadas de ambulancias. Esta nueva medida buscaba brindar protecciones similares contra las facturas de los servicios públicos de ambulancia y para los traslados entre hospitales.

“Sabíamos que contaba con apoyo bipartidista, pero hay quienes votan en contra de todo”, dijo gratamente sorprendida Karen McCormick, representante estatal demócrata.

Una sorpresa menos agradable llegó después, cuando el gobernador Jared Polis, también demócrata, la vetó, alegando temor a que aumentaran las primas.

Los estados tienen un margen de maniobra limitado en este tema, ya que las leyes estatales solo se aplican a los planes de salud regulados por el estado.

Esto deja fuera a muchos trabajadores. Según una encuesta nacional de 2024 realizada por KFF, el 63% de las personas que trabajan para empleadores privados y obtienen seguro médico a través de sus empleos tienen planes autofinanciados, que no están regulados por el estado.

“Por eso necesitamos una ley federal de protección de ambulancias, incluso si aprobáramos 50 leyes estatales”, dijo Kelmar.

Según datos de la oficina del secretario de estado de Colorado, los únicos grupos de presión registrados como “opositores” al proyecto de ley fueron Anthem y UnitedHealth Group, además de las subsidiarias de UnitedHealth, Optum y UnitedHealthcare.

En mayo, tan pronto como finalizó la sesión legislativa, Kevin McFatridge, director ejecutivo de la Colorado Association of Health Plans, un grupo comercial que representa a las compañías de seguros médicos del estado, envió una carta al gobernador solicitando su veto, con una estimación de que la legislación provocaría un aumento del 0,4% en las primas.

El proyecto de ley de Colorado establecía que los gobiernos locales, como ciudades, condados o distritos especiales, fijarían las tarifas.

“Estamos en una situación mucho mejor al no tener entidades locales que fijen sus propias tarifas”, declaró McFatridge a KFF Health News.

Jack Hoadley, profesor emérito de investigación de la Escuela de Políticas Públicas McCourt de la Universidad de Georgetown, afirmó que no está claro si las leyes estatales aprobadas en otros estados están aumentando las primas, o en qué medida. Hoadley agregó que se espera que el estado de Washington presente un análisis del impacto de su ley en un par de años.

La asociación nacional de compañías de seguros se negó a comentar para este artículo. En su lugar, la Association of Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) remitió cartas que sus líderes presentaron a legisladores de Ohio, West Virginia y Dakota del Norte este año, oponiéndose a las medidas de cada estado para establecer tarifas base para ambulancias.

Los líderes de la AHIP describieron las propuestas como precios inflados, impuestos por el gobierno, que reducirían la posibilidad de que las aseguradoras negocien precios justos. En última instancia, advirtió la asociación, los mínimos propuestos aumentarían los costos de la atención médica.

En Montana, los legisladores estaban considerando un reembolso mínimo para ambulancias terrestres del 400% de lo que paga Medicare, o una tarifa local fija, si hay alguna. La propuesta fue patrocinada por dos republicanos y respaldada por las compañías de ambulancias. Las aseguradoras de salud presionaron con éxito en contra, argumentando que el precio era demasiado alto.

Sarah Clerget, lobista que representa a la AHIP, declaró a los legisladores de Montana en una audiencia legislativa que ya es difícil lograr que las compañías de ambulancias se integren a la red de las aseguradoras, “porque la gente va a necesitar atención de ambulancia independientemente de si su compañía de seguros la cubre”.

Agregó que la propuesta estatal dejaría a quienes pagan la cobertura médica con la carga del nuevo precio.

“A nadie le gusta que nuestras tarifas de seguro se modifiquen”, declaró el senador estatal republicano Mark Noland durante una reunión legislativa mientras un comité archivaba el proyecto de ley. Comparó el mínimo propuesto con un mandato que podría llevar a que las personas tengan que pagar más por la cobertura médica de un servicio importante, pero a la vez especializado.

El gobernador de Colorado se centró de forma similar en las primas. Polis afirmó en su carta de veto que la legislación habría aumentado las primas entre 73 centavos y $2,15 por miembro al mes.

“Estoy de acuerdo en que subsanar esta deficiencia en la aplicación de la ley es crucial para que la gente ahorre dinero en atención médica”, escribió. “Sin embargo, en mi opinión, esos ahorros van a compensarse con el aumento de las primas”.

Isabel Cruz, directora de políticas de la Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, que apoyó el proyecto de ley, afirmó que incluso si las primas aumentaran, los habitantes de Colorado podrían aceptar el cambio. Después de todo, remarcó, estarían cambiando la amenaza de una gran factura de ambulancia por el precio de media taza de café al mes.

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).