Kopplin, a physician assistant who works with seniors, low-income people, and mental health patients in the rural Black Hills, shared her thoughts at a meeting hosted by state officials.

South Dakota’s leaders did a “good job of diving in” and asking questions to get “deeper at the root of the problem,” she said.

Kopplin later told KFF Health News how one of her rural patients recently missed two appointments because of a broken-down car and no access to public transportation.

Nationwide, health care workers like Kopplin and thousands of others — from patient advocates to technology executives — flocked to town halls or online portals during the seven weeks state leaders had to craft and submit their applications for the Rural Health Transformation Program to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That deadline was Nov. 5.

“We will give $50 billion away by the end of the year,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said Nov. 6 at a Milken Institute event in Washington. He said all 50 states had submitted applications.

The program will “allow us to right-size the health care system,” Oz said, adding that innovations from the rural work “will spill over to suburban and urban America as well.”

Among applications and summaries publicly shared by states, themes include workforce development, telehealth, and access to healthy food. In Kansas, leaders want to build a “Food is Medicine” program. Wyoming officials propose a new program called “BearCare,” a state-sponsored health insurance plan that patients could use only after medical emergencies.

But many health policy experts and Democrats are raising alarms that the Republican-backed program will become a “slush fund.” Critics worry it will fail to reach the small-town patients they say need it most, especially as states face nearly a trillion dollars in Medicaid spending reductions over the next decade. Medicaid, a joint federal-state program, serves nearly 1 in 4 rural Americans.

“The status quo is tremendous distress in rural communities,” said Heather Howard, a professor of the practice at Princeton University and director of the university’s State Health and Value Strategies program, which is tracking the rural health fund. The new funding won’t be enough to offset the Medicaid losses, she said.

Congressional Republicans added the five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program as a last-minute sweetener to President Donald Trump’s massive tax-and-spending legislation. The move helped win support for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act from conservative holdouts who worried that the Medicaid cuts in the bill would harm rural hospitals in their states.

In Montana, which hosted an online public forum before submitting its application, a nonprofit director pitched youth peer support as a way of battling high suicide rates. A registered nurse asked state leaders to “think maybe even bigger” and consider statewide universal health care.

And in Georgia, a technology-focused chain of primary care clinics that serves seniors proposed expanding its operations into that state in its online public comment. A rural grant writer asked for “safe and stable housing.”

The law says half of the $50 billion will be divided equally among all states with an approved application. The rest will be doled out according to a points-based system. Of the second half, $12.5 billion will be allotted based on each state’s rurality. The remaining $12.5 billion will go to states that score well on initiatives and policies that, in part, mirror the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” objectives.

Top Senate Democrats have raised alarms about the rural health program. They include Ron Wyden of Oregon and Tina Smith of Minnesota, who called on a federal watchdog agency to investigate the fairness and implementation of the fund. Taylor Harvey, a Wyden aide, said the Government Accountability Office has confirmed it will investigate.

According to the federal statute, no less than a quarter of states with an approved application may share the second half of the funding each fiscal year, CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden said. The agency plans to publish summaries of approved state projects, according to CMS guidance.

A handful of conservative-leaning states — including Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma — have already instituted regulatory and legislative initiatives, such as prohibiting “non-nutritious” foods in benefit programs, that garner additional points in the program application process.

Michael Chameides, a county supervisor in rural New York, said he fears the money could “be used in ways that would hurt certain states or reward certain states.” Chameides is also the communications and policy director with the Rural Democracy Initiative, a national advocacy organization that released a rural action report last month.

Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said federal lawmakers gave Oz and his agency “really excessive discretion” when awarding the money.

Federal administrators have added rules that aren’t within the statute that created the program, Park said. For example, its application guidelines say states cannot use more than 15% of their funding to pay providers for patient care — payments that are expected to take a hit due to the Medicaid cuts.

Georgetown’s health policy experts and Democrats aren’t the only ones with concerns. Some Republicans and small hospitals in Ohio worry the money will go to large health systems instead of smaller, independent hospitals that serve people within their rural communities.

CMS’ Oz repeated the idea of getting “big hospitals to adopt smaller institutions” at the Washington gathering after applications were filed. He used similar language at a rural health summit hosted by South Dakota-based Sanford Health. “How do we get big hospitals to adopt smaller hospitals? Not to take them over, but to keep them viable by giving them good telehealth services, specialty support, radiology support,” he said at the October event.

Sanford owns or manages dozens of hospitals and hundreds of clinics and long-term care centers, as well as a health insurance company. The system reported about $81 million in operating income during the first six months of fiscal year 2025, according to a recent bond rating report.

Last year, Sanford opened a “command center” for its systemwide telehealth initiative. It launched a telehealth expansion in 2021 and offers virtual care for 78 medical specialties, Sanford President and CEO Bill Gassen said.

“We’ve tried to imagine, what if that number doubles?” Gassen said. The startup costs for telehealth are high, he said, and the rural fund could be a unique opportunity “for us to make virtual care available to more patients, to more communities, to more hospitals and health systems across the country.”

Gassen, who is set to chair the American Hospital Association in 2027, said Sanford leaders have met with state and federal officials, including Oz, whom he’s known for years, and Chris Klomp, a top deputy at CMS and a senior adviser to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The word “telehealth” appears 36 times in the rural health program’s 124-page application guidelines. But Don Robbins Jr., chief executive of a small hospital on the Illinois-Kentucky border, chuckled at the idea of using the funding for that purpose.

Robbins, whose 25-bed Massac Memorial Hospital averages five to seven patients in its beds each day, said his hospital does not regularly offer telehealth. Even if it did, he said, patients living more than a mile outside of town couldn’t use it because they don’t have a good internet connection.

The small hospital reported a $31,314 loss in September, Robbins said. “I think if we get anything out of it,” Robbins said of the rural health program, “we’ll be lucky.”

Kopplin, the physician assistant who attended the South Dakota meeting, is cautiously optimistic about the rural health fund. She views it as a wonderful chance for states to test out ideas and learn from what works and what doesn’t.

But “in a lot of ways this bill is going to be a band-aid approach” for rural health, she said. “It’s not really going to fix the problem.”

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).

He hasn’t forgotten the pile of hospital bills that awaited him after he had a seizure while tending to customers in his Austin, Texas, barbershop four years ago. Once doctors hurriedly removed the dangerous tumor growing on his brain, a weeklong hospital stay, months of therapy, and nearly $250,000 worth of medical expenses followed.

The coverage he has purchased for years through the Affordable Care Act marketplace covered most of those bills.

“That saved my ass,” said Cleveland, who owns three barbershops across the city.

Even with Cleveland’s monthly premiums expected to soar next year — from $560 to about $682 — he will still sign up for a plan that requires him to shell out $70 if he sees a doctor and 50% of the cost for any emergency room visits. Still, Cleveland is most worried about some of his employees, who might risk going without insurance once they see the high prices.

Small-business owners are among those who stand to lose the most should Congress let the additional, generous federal subsidies put in place during the covid-19 pandemic lapse. The looming change threatens not only their own coverage but also that of their employees, who often depend on marketplace coverage.

Whether to extend the enhanced ACA subsidies that cost taxpayers billions of dollars yearly poses a serious political conundrum for Republicans. After years of unified opposition to Obamacare, the party now faces pressure from one of its most loyal constituencies, small-business owners, who will bear the brunt of rising premiums if the subsidies disappear.

Most of the roughly 20 employees who work on Justin Miller’s 113-year-old family fruit farm in rural Northern California purchase coverage through the Obamacare marketplace.

He’s agonizing over what it could mean if health insurance through the marketplace becomes unaffordable for his employees. He fears they might consider leaving his farm for a job that comes with health coverage.

“Being a small-business owner, especially in a field like ours, where it is tough work and we really understand how hard everybody works, we have to look everybody in the eyes every day,” Miller said. “Knowing that they’re going to have to pay $4,000 or $5,000 more a year to stay on their insurance is a tough pill to swallow.”

Miller says he already pays a minimum wage of $22.50 and provides sick leave, vacation, retirement, and employee housing benefits.

Adding health insurance for his employees, he said, would be too costly to keep his farm in business.

GOP Pollsters Issue ACA Caution

About half of the 24 million people enrolled in Obamacare coverage are, or are employed by, small-business owners — a group that is more likely to vote Republican and overwhelmingly backed President Donald Trump in last year’s election. Farmers, dentists, real estate agents, and chiropractors are among the professions most represented among enrollees.

Even Trump’s own pollsters have found deep support for the Obamacare subsidies, warning that failing to extend them could cost Republicans in next year’s midterms.

A poll conducted last month by Republican pollster John McLaughlin found that a majority of independent voters would be less likely to vote for politicians who voted to let the enhanced tax credits expire.

Given that “approximately 4 million” people would lose coverage and premiums would “skyrocket by an average of 75%,” the poll also concluded that: “A candidate for congress who let the healthcare tax cuts expire would also be vulnerable to more pointed messages.”

Red States Benefited From the Subsidies

Some red states have seen Obamacare enrollment balloon since the federal government began offering extra help paying premiums in the form of more generous subsidies.

Texas and Florida have added 2.8 million enrollees each since 2020, far outpacing growth in most other states. Together, the two states now account for more than a third of marketplace enrollment nationally.

A small chorus of Republican lawmakers — up for reelection next year, mostly in competitive races — have proposed an extension of the subsidies, urging Democrats to vote to reopen the government while simultaneously pleading with House Speaker Mike Johnson to work out a bipartisan deal that doesn’t allow them to simply lapse.

At Cleveland’s barbershops in Austin, about a third of his 18 employees rely on Obamacare coverage. He’s talked to them about their health insurance options for next year but said many hadn’t started thinking about open enrollment, which began Nov. 1.

He’s worried they’ll be baffled once they see the new prices, which currently reflect what customers will pay next year without an extension of the extra subsidies.

“There’s a couple of my barbers that are going to go without, because they’re healthy and young, but I thought I was too when everything happened to me,” said Cleveland, now 47.

Republicans, meanwhile, remain wary of voting to extend the additional Obamacare subsidies, said Rodney Whitlock, a vice president at the McDermott+ consultancy who was a longtime congressional staffer and advises on health care policy.

No Republican voted for the extra subsidies when they were introduced in 2021 or continued in 2022. Approving them now, he said, is viewed by many as a band-aid that would temporarily help a program GOP leaders have long lambasted as problematic and too costly.

But, Whitlock noted, many in the party are coming to terms with how the subsidies might affect their changing constituencies. Nearly 6 in 10 Obamacare enrollees live in a Republican-held congressional district.

“Republicans are slowly starting to grasp that the lower third of income earners are their voters,” he said. “For the first time, I think they’re getting there. That battleship turns slowly.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican who has firmly backed Trump, broke with her party last month, calling on the GOP to extend the subsidies. Greene said in an interview that rising health care costs are the “No. 1 issue” she hears about from people living in her district.

“I know a lot of small-business owners, like a family of four, and they’re paying $2,000 a month,” Greene said during the television interview, adding that rising deductibles make the insurance hardly functional for anything other than catastrophes.

She warned in another TV interview that “ignoring” the issue could be “very bad for midterms” next year.

Miller, the farmer who lives in a conservative district in Northern California, expects monthly health insurance premiums for himself, his wife, and two of his children to jump from $264 to $600. His deductibles and copayments are going up, too. He expects all these new expenses will still be on his mind when he goes to vote in the midterm elections next year, he said. Describing himself as an independent, Miller said he is frustrated that few American politicians talk about the type of universal health care coverage that’s available in other countries.

“I’m definitely voting for those that will protect the working American, regardless of party,” he said.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Bre Dolan, a 35-year-old resident of Hardy County, West Virginia, understands why. Throughout her childhood, when her dad had addiction and mental health crises, police officers were often the first ones to respond. Dolan calls them “good men and women” who “care about seeing their community recover.”

But she’s skeptical that they can mitigate the root causes of an addiction epidemic that has racked her home state for decades.

“Most of the busts that go down are addicts,” she said — people who need treatment, not prison.

Dolan’s father was one of them. And so was she.

Now 14 years into recovery, she’s been surprised to see many local officials spending opioid settlement money — an influx of cash from companies accused of fueling the overdose crisis — on police Tasers, cruisers, night vision gear, and more.

“How is that really tackling an issue?” Dolan said. “How will it help families battling addiction?”

Nationwide, more than $61 million in opioid settlement funds were spent on law enforcement-related efforts in 2024, according to a yearlong investigation by KFF Health News and researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Shatterproof, a national nonprofit focused on addiction. That included initiatives that public health experts largely support, such as hiring social workers to accompany officers on overdose calls, as well as actions they’re more skeptical of, such as beefing up police arsenals.

Over nearly two decades, state and local governments are set to receive more than $50 billion in opioid settlement money, which is intended to be used to fight addiction. The settlement agreements even outlined suggested uses and established other guardrails to limit unrelated uses of the funds — as happened with the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of the 1990s.

But there’s still significant flexibility with these dollars, and what constitutes a good use to one person can be deemed waste by another.

To Stephen Loyd, an addiction medicine doctor who was once addicted to opioids and has served as an expert in several opioid lawsuits, some law enforcement expenses fall into that second category.

Drones and police officer salaries are not “in the spirit of what we wanted to use the money for when we were fighting for it,” Loyd said.

“People died for this money. Families were torn apart for this money. And to not spend it to try to make our system better, so that people don’t have to experience those losses going forward, to me, is unconscionable,” he said.

As part of this investigation, KFF Health News and its partners compiled the most comprehensive national database of opioid settlement spending to date, featuring more than 10,500 examples of how the money was used (or not) last year. The team filed public records requests, scoured government websites, and extracted expenditures, which were then sorted into categories, such as treatment or prevention. The findings include:

• Nearly $2.7 billion — that’s the amount states and localities spent or committed in 2024, according to public records. The lion’s share went to investments addiction experts consider crucial, including about $615 million to treatment, $279 million to overdose reversal medications and related training, and $227 million to housing-related programs for people with substance use disorders.
• Smaller, though notable, amounts funded law enforcement initiatives — such as creating a shooting range and tinting patrol car windows — and prevention programs that experts called questionable, such as putting on a fishing tournament.
• Some jurisdictions paid for basic government services, such as firefighter salaries.
• The money is controlled by different entities in each state, and about 20% of it is untrackable through public records.

This year’s database, including the expenditures and untrackable percentages, should not be compared with the one KFF Health News and its partners compiled last year, due to methodology changes and state budget quirks. The database cannot present a full picture because some jurisdictions don’t publish reports or delineate spending by year. What’s shown is a snapshot of 2024 and does not account for decisions in 2025.

Still, the database helps counteract the secrecy among some of those in charge of settlement money and confusion among those tracking it.

‘How My Population Would Like Me To Vote’

Dolan has seen intergenerational addiction up close. When her father was high, he sometimes kicked teenage Dolan out of the house with her toddler siblings. She started drinking early and progressed to other drugs, eventually landing in prison.

Although she managed to find recovery on her own, even landing a job as an EMT, she wants to make the path easier for others.

If settlement money were used to hire social workers or build family recovery programs, it could change the course of a kid’s life, she said.

“Maybe people could have helped my dad get into recovery and gave him therapy,” she said. “Anything could have happened.”

But many local officials say law enforcement is one of the few tools they have, especially in rural areas. And their constituents believe it’s effective.

“If the goal was treatment and prevention, it would have been better to throw [the money] into a big grant system and give it to treatment centers,” said Cris Meadows, city manager of Oak Hill, West Virginia, which paid more than $67,000 for a drone and surveillance cameras for its police department. “Unfortunately, local governments are really not set up to do that.”

Clarkdale, Arizona, Town Manager Susan Guthrie said her town bought nearly $15,000 worth of drones because they help with enforcement — such as recording crime scenes and conducting search-and-rescue operations — as well as education, when officers interact with kids at community events.

Similar perspectives nationwide have led to spending that includes:

• About $12,000 for rifle suppressors (also known as silencers) in Alexandria, Indiana.
• About $21,000 for Tasers in Mooresville, Indiana.
• About $49,000 to replace outdated body cameras and Tasers in Hardy County, West Virginia.
• Nearly $70,000 in Lewisburg, West Virginia, to add a police officer to the county’s drug task force, replace that officer locally, buy guns and vehicles, and tint car windows.

Several elected officials said their choices reflect local politics.

That’s “how my population would like me to vote,” Hardy County Commissioner Steven Schetrom said of his commission’s goal to spend about a quarter of its settlement money on law enforcement.

Mooresville Town Council President Tom Warthen told KFF Health News, “People have petitioned our government for less taxes but have never petitioned for less services” from the local police force. With federal and state budget cuts looming, the town must be resourceful, he said, adding that the Tasers were bought with a portion of settlement funds that have no restrictions.

After these purchases, an Indiana commission issued a list of law enforcement equipment that it cautioned against buying with restricted settlement dollars. California, Kansas, and Virginia have released similar lists.

Research backs those restrictions. Studies have shown that drug busts and arrests can exacerbate the overdose crisis. Officers responding to overdoses often arrest people, making people who use drugs fearful of calling 911 or seeking treatment through police.

In contrast, equipping police officers with overdose reversal medications has been shown to save lives. That’s a key component of an $18 million effort in Texas, the state with the highest percentage of reported law enforcement spending.

Police and Firefighter Salaries

Some places used settlement funds to maintain basic first responder services.

For example, Mantua Township, New Jersey, used about $79,000 to “offset police salary and wages” and, according to its public spending report, plans to do so annually. Township officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Los Angeles County allocated $1 million to cover a portion of firefighter salaries and benefits last year and estimates it will use another $1 million this year.

County fire department spokesperson Heidi Oliva said opioid funds were used to fill a budget gap until revenue kicked in from a new tax voters approved last November.

The use of funds was “appropriate,” she said in an email, because “the opioid crisis presents a significant burden to EMS response, from dispatch through arrival at hospitals, clinician mental health/burnout, and a variety of other factors.”

Using opioid money to replace other revenue is legal in most places. But it’s considered bad practice.

“I don’t want to see this money used to make up for stuff that would be paid for anyway,” said Daniel Busch, chair of the FED UP! Coalition, a national advocacy organization representing many parents who’ve lost children to addiction.

Settlement dollars are “the only financial representation from the governments and from the drug companies” of families’ losses, Busch said. To see that money used to maintain the status quo is “painful” and “distressing.”

Busch fears this practice will become more common as states grapple with federal budget cuts.

Already in New Jersey, lawmakers allocated $45 million in settlement funds to health systems to cushion against anticipated Medicaid losses — a move opposed by the state’s attorney general, opioid settlement advisory council, and advocates.

However, some states are taking proactive steps.

Colorado released guidance this year against such actions.

“These dollars can’t be part of budget games where we simply backfill existing programs,” state Attorney General Phil Weiser told KFF Health News. “We have to build on whatever we’re doing because it hasn’t been enough.”

Other states, such as Maine, Maryland, and Kentucky, are newly requiring local governments to report how they spend the money, which may make it easier to spot disputed practices. Officials in Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Missouri said they expect to revamp their public reporting systems to increase transparency by early 2026.

In Mississippi, which produced no substantive public reports last year, the attorney general’s office has set up a website that will host spending information after Dec. 1.

Jennifer Twyman is anxious to see some positive changes.

“We have people literally dying on our sidewalks,” said the Louisville, Kentucky, advocate.

Twyman struggled with opioid misuse for 20 years and now works with Vocal-KY to end homelessness and the war on drugs. To her, any spending that doesn’t directly help people with addiction betrays the settlement’s purpose.

“It is the blood from many of my friends, people that I care deeply about,” she said. “That money could have been me, could have been my life.”

Read the methodology behind this project.

KFF Health News’ Henry Larweh; Shatterproof’s Kristen Pendergrass and Lillian Williams; and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Abigail Winiker, Samantha Harris, Isha Desai, Katibeth Blalock, Erin Wang, Olivia Allran, Connor Gunn, Justin Xu, Ruhao Pang, Jirka Taylor, and Valerie Ganetsky contributed to the database featured in this article.

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has taken a leading role in providing guidance to state and local governments on the use of opioid settlement funds. Faculty from the school collaborated with other experts in the field to create principles for using the money, which have been endorsed by over 60 organizations.

Shatterproof is a national nonprofit that addresses substance use disorder through distinct initiatives, including advocating for state and federal policies, ending addiction stigma, and educating communities about the treatment system.

Shatterproof is partnering with some states on projects funded by opioid settlements. KFF Health News, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Shatterproof team that worked on this report are not involved in those efforts.

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).

“People don’t realize how much these clinics hold together the local health system until they’re gone,” said George Hill, the group’s president and CEO. “For thousands of patients, that was their doctor, their lab, and their lifeline.”

Maine Family Planning’s closures are among the first visible signs of what health leaders call the biggest setback to reproductive care in half a century. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs, which administers the Title X family planning program, has been effectively shut down. At the same time, Medicaid cuts, the potential lapse of Affordable Care Act subsidies, as well as cuts across programs in the Health Resources and Services Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are eroding the broader safety net.

“When you cut OPA, HRSA, and Medicaid together, you’re removing every backup we have,” said Clare Coleman, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. “It’s like taking EMTs off the road while closing the emergency rooms.”

Asked about the cutbacks, HHS press secretary Emily G. Hilliard said, “HHS will continue to carry out all of OPA’s statutory functions.”

How the Safety Net Frays

For more than 50 years, Title X has underwritten a national network of clinics, now numbering over 4,000, that provide contraception, pregnancy testing, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and other primary and preventive care to nearly 3 million low-income or uninsured patients annually. OPA managed nearly $400 million in grants, issued clinical guidance, and ensured compliance.

In mid-October, OPA’s operations went dark amid federal layoffs that also affected hundreds of CDC staffers. “Under the Biden administration, HHS became a bloated bureaucracy — expanding its budget by 38% and its workforce by 17%,” a spokesperson for the department said at the time, adding, “HHS continues to eliminate wasteful and duplicative entities, including those inconsistent with the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda.”

According to Jessica Marcella, who led OPA under the Biden administration, the office was previously staffed by 40 to 50 people. Now, she says, only one U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps officer remains.

“The structure to run the nation’s family planning program disappeared overnight,” said Liz Romer, OPA’s former chief clinical adviser.

“This isn’t just about government jobs,” Coleman said. “It’s a patient care crisis. Every safety net program that touches reproductive health is being weakened.”

A Policy Linking Health, Autonomy, and Opportunity

Created in 1970 under President Richard Nixon and rooted in President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, Title X was designed as a cornerstone of preventive public health, not a partisan cause. Nixon called family planning assistance key to a “national commitment to provide a healthful and stimulating environment for all children,” and Congress agreed overwhelmingly across party lines.

Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law at George Washington University, said the program reflected a pivotal shift in how policymakers understood health itself.

“By the late 1960s, there was a deep appreciation that the ability to time and space pregnancies was absolutely essential to women’s and children’s health,” she said. “Title X represented the idea that reproductive care wasn’t a privilege or a moral issue. It was basic health care.”

UCLA economist Martha Bailey later found that children born after the first federally funded family planning programs were 7% less likely to live in poverty, and had household incomes 3% higher, than those born before. Research by Bailey just published by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that when low-income women can access free birth control, unintended pregnancies drop by 16% and abortions drop by 12% within two years.

Those findings underscore what Rosenbaum calls “one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century — a program that linked economic opportunity to health and autonomy.”

That bipartisan foundation and evidence-based mission, Rosenbaum said, make today’s unraveling especially striking.

“What was once common sense, that access to family planning is essential to a functioning health system, has become politically fragile,” she noted. “Title X was built for continuity, but it’s being undone by neglect.”

The Hidden Health Risks Behind Unplanned Pregnancies

Family planning is central to maternal and infant health because it gives women the time to optimize medical conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease before pregnancy, and allows them to safely space out their births.

“Pregnancy is the ultimate stress test,” said Andra James, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who advised the CDC on its contraceptive guidelines. “It increases the heart’s workload by up to 50%. For people with heart disease, diabetes, or hypertension, that stress can be dangerous.”

Brianna Henderson, a Texas mother, learned this firsthand. Weeks after delivery, she developed peripartum cardiomyopathy, a form of heart failure that can occur during or after pregnancy. She survived. Her sister, who had the same undiagnosed condition, died three months after giving birth to her second child. Those kids are now 12 and 16, and they’re growing up without a mom. Their dad and his mother look after the kids now.

“Contraception has been a lifesaving option for me,” Henderson said.

James and other specialists warn that without CDC-informed guidance on contraceptive safety for complex conditions, clinicians and patients are left without clear, current standards.

What History and the Data Predict Happens Next

Title X clinics provide millions of STI tests each year and are often the only cancer screening sites for uninsured women. Cuts to Medicaid and ACA subsidies will make it even harder for people to afford preventive visits.

“If these clinics close, we’ll see more infections, more unplanned pregnancies, and more maternal deaths, especially among Black, Indigenous, and rural communities,” said Whitney Rice, an expert on reproductive health at Emory University.

And the geographic gaps are large already. Power to Decide, a nonprofit reproductive rights group, counts more than 19 million women living in “contraceptive deserts,” where there’s no reasonable access to publicly supported birth control. 

“These are places where the nearest clinic might be 60 or 100 miles away,” said Power to Decide interim co-CEO Rachel Fey. “For many families, that distance might as well be impossible.”

The High Price of Short-Term Savings

Each pregnancy averted through Title X saves about $15,000 in public spending on medical and social services, according to an analysis by Power to Decide. And an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute shows that every $1 invested in publicly funded family planning programs saves roughly $7 in Medicaid costs.

Cutting federal funding for reproductive health services “isn’t saving money. It’s wasting it,” said Brittni Frederiksen, an associate director with KFF’s Women’s Health Policy program and a former OPA health scientist. “We’ll spend far more fixing the problems these cuts create.” KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Supporters of cuts argue federal spending must be reduced and states should set their own priorities.

Strain on the Ground

Affirm, Arizona’s Title X grantee, oversees a statewide network of clinics that provide family planning services to more than 33,000 patients each year.

Affirm CEO Bré Thomas said the state could lose $6.1 million in Title X funding if federal appropriations expire after March 31. It’s a cut that would reduce access to care across the network. “That’s $6.1 million for Arizona,” she said. “That means over 33,000 patients in our state could lose access to services.”

Thomas noted that two consecutive funding reductions, combined with 11 years of flat federal support and rising health care costs, have already strained operations. Without new funding, she warned, clinics may be forced to limit contraceptive options to cheaper methods, reduce preventive care, and lay off staff, especially in rural communities. “We’re talking about impacts to people’s jobs and their ability to access the care they need,” she said.

Megan Kavanaugh, a scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, underscored those limits.

“Federally Qualified Health Centers do not have the capacity to absorb the number of patients who will lose care,” she said, referring to federally funded community-based clinics for underserved populations. “Some people may find another clinic, but a large share simply won’t, and we’ll see that reflected in higher rates of unintended pregnancy, untreated infections, and later-stage disease.”

Hospitals are beginning to absorb the spillover.

“The safety net is shrinking, and hospitals can’t absorb everyone,” said Sonya Borrero, a reproductive health expert at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and a former chief medical and scientific adviser at OPA. “Wait times will get longer, and preventable problems will rise.”

Funding Frozen, Oversight Halted

With OPA offline, Title X dollars already awarded can be spent, but no new funds are moving.

“Most programs can hang on for a few months,” Romer said. “By spring, many won’t have enough money to stay open.”

The halt also suspends compliance reviews and technical assistance tied to CDC-aligned guidelines.

Marcella, the former OPA leader, warned of a “backdoor dismantling.”

“If there aren’t people to administer the grants, then the administration can later argue the program isn’t working and redirect the funds elsewhere,” she said. “This is a functional elimination, done quietly.”

Kavanaugh called the moment “one more step toward dismantling the public health infrastructure that has supported people’s reproductive health for decades.”

Without staff to move money and guidance, she said, “that’s how a system collapses.”

What Can Still Be Done

According to the National Association of Community Health Centers, Federally Qualified Health Centers can still use HRSA money that was already approved, even during the government shutdown. But no new funding is being released, similar to the freeze on Title X funds. At the same time, HRSA has stopped first-quarter payments for its Title V Maternal and Child Health program, which limits how states can provide preventive care and services for children and young people with special health needs.

Some states — California, New Mexico, Washington — are plugging holes with state dollars, and health systems are expanding telehealth, but most jurisdictions cannot replace federal support at scale.

“Private donors can’t replace the federal government,” said Hill, of Maine Family Planning. “You can’t crowdfund your way to a working health system.”

Congress could restore Title X and rebuild OPA’s staffing, but without administrators in place, money can’t reach clinics quickly. States have a short window to bridge care by stabilizing Medicaid coverage, shoring up community health centers, and protecting contraceptive access.

“This isn’t a political debate,” Romer said. “It’s women showing up for care and finding the doors locked.”

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).

And, they warn, the economic burden will steer many medical students to lucrative specialties in more affluent, urban areas rather than lower-paying primary care jobs in underserved and rural communities, where doctors are in shortest supply.

“The growing financial barriers may deter some individuals from pursuing a career in medicine, particularly those from low-income backgrounds,” said Deena McRae, a psychiatrist and associate vice president for academic health sciences at University of California Health.

The new federal loan limits, which are enshrined in the GOP legislation signed by Trump on July 4, cap the amount professional degree students can borrow at $50,000 a year, up to a maximum of $200,000 — well below the average cost of a four-year medical school education.

For students who graduated this year with an MD degree from a four-year medical school in the United States, the median cost of attendance was $318,825, according to Kristen Earle, director of student financial services at the Association of American Medical Colleges. And for those who entered a U.S. medical school in the 2024-25 academic year, the median first-year cost was $83,700.

Health care experts and politicians on both sides of the aisle agree that medical schools must find ways to lower their costs, but critics of the loan caps say limiting federal lending isn’t the answer. Congressional Republicans, who voted for the caps, say they are intended to stem a sharp rise in federal student lending over the past two decades that has driven the cost of attendance higher.

“Uncapped loan limits gave no incentives for schools to reduce any of their costs, recognizing that taxpayers, students, or students’ families would eventually foot the bill,” said Sara Robertson, a spokesperson for the GOP-controlled House Committee on Education and Workforce. “Our reforms and loan limits will put downward pressure on costs to provide better outcomes and lower debt for all students.”

The budget law brings back caps for graduate and professional education that Congress eliminated in 2006. Since then, students have been able to get federal loans that cover the total cost of their degree programs. Reimposing the caps, along with other changes to federal student loans, is expected to save the federal government $349 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Whether the new federal loan policy will push down tuition costs remains to be seen.

Robertson pointed to a 2023 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research showing that the more generous federal lending policy since 2006 has led to “significantly higher program prices” in graduate education. The study also found that the additional federal support failed to increase enrollment in graduate programs, including for underrepresented students.

However, data provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges shows that cost-of-living increases, not tuition, drove up the expense of studying medicine in recent years.

Students already in medical school who have taken out federal loans before the new rules take effect on July 1 will be exempted from the cap. But students whose loans are capped under the new law will need to make up the difference, in many cases by taking out private sector loans, which typically have less flexible repayment terms and require a strong credit rating — a heavy lift for students from low-income communities.

Robertson cited a 2017 analysis showing that nearly 60% of graduate students could have obtained a private loan at a lower interest rate than any available federal loan. Federal loans, however, come with advantages that private loans don’t. For instance, federal loans can include monthly repayments calibrated to income, and they offer two debt forgiveness paths, including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which erases the balance for those who work in a government or nonprofit organization and make their monthly payments for 10 years.

Critics and proponents agree on at least one thing: Now is the time for medical schools to think creatively about lowering costs for students. This might include reduced tuition, more chances for debt forgiveness, and accelerated programs that allow students to graduate in three years rather than four, reducing costs by 25% and getting them more quickly into paid jobs.

“I hope that coming out of this, medical schools and others find a way to seize the moment and help us figure out how to reduce the total cost of medical school,” said Martha Santana-Chin, CEO of L.A. Care. “Maybe this is an opportunity for us to rethink how the system is working.”

Roughly a fifth of medical schools offering an MD degree have accelerated programs, including the University of California-Davis, according to the Consortium of Accelerated Medical Pathway Programs.

A data analysis of eight medical schools led by the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, whose core MD curriculum is three years, shows that students in three-year programs derive a lifetime financial gain totaling over $240,000 due to the cost savings of less time in medical school, interest not paid on the corresponding amount not borrowed, and faster progression to a salaried position.

In addition to lowering costs, accelerated medical programs seek to address health care workforce shortages by training physicians more quickly. And with the new loan caps about to make it more difficult for many students to finance their medical education, these programs suddenly have a new timeliness.

Students who spend three years in medical school instead of four have lower debt and get to a higher salary sooner, said Caroline Roberts, a family physician and director of rural education at the University of North Carolina’s School of Medicine. UNC offers a three-year track for students who want to be primary care doctors and work in rural areas of the state, where doctor shortages are a major problem.

Zoe Priddy, who is in her second year of UNC’s three-year program, said that if the federal loan limits had been in place at the time she was making plans to attend medical school, she would have needed a job that paid better than the research lab where she worked after completing her undergraduate degree.

“I would have had to change my trajectory if I still wanted to pursue medicine, and I don’t know if it would have been possible for me,” Priddy said. However, the lower debt associated with the three-year track “eased my decision” to go into pediatrics, a lower-paying specialty, 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).

WASHINGTON — Nationwide, states are racing to win their share of a new $50 billion rural health fund. But helping rural hospitals, as originally envisioned, is quickly becoming a quaint idea.

Rather, states should submit applications that “rebuild and reshape” how health care is delivered in rural communities, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services official Abe Sutton said late last month during a daylong meeting at Washington, D.C.’s Watergate Hotel. Simply changing the way government pays hospitals has been tried and has failed, Sutton told the audience of more than 40 governors’ office staffers and state health agency leaders — some from as far away as Hawaii.

“This isn’t a backfill of operating budgets,” said Sutton, CMS’ innovation director. “We’ve been really clear on that.”

Rural hospitals and clinics nationwide face a looming financial catastrophe, with President Donald Trump’s massive tax-and-spending law expected to slash federal Medicaid spending on health care in rural areas by $137 billion over 10 years. Congressional Republicans added the one-time, five-year Rural Health Transformation Program as a last-minute sweetener to win the support of conservative holdouts who worried about the bill’s financial fallout for rural hospitals.

Yet, the words used by CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz and his agency’s leaders to describe the new pot of cash are generating tension between legacy hospital and clinic providers and new technology-focused companies stepping in to offer new ways to deliver health care.

It’s “what I would call incumbents versus insurgents in the rural space,” said Kody Kinsley, a senior policy adviser at the Institute for Policy Solutions at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing.

Applications are due Nov. 5. The money will be awarded to states by the end of the year and distributed over five years.

Half of the $50 billion will be divided equally among all states with an approved application; the other half will go to states that win points. Of the second half, $12.5 billion will be allotted based on a formula that calculates each state’s rurality. The remaining $12.5 billion will go to states that score well on initiatives and policies that mirror the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” objectives.

The application identifies specific policy goals such as implementing the Presidential Fitness Test and restrictions to food assistance, as well as broader investment strategies around remote care services, data infrastructure, and consumer-facing technology tools, which CMS identified as “symptom checkers and AI chatbots.”

In September, after CMS officials released the application, Republican members of Congress from states with Democratic governors called for fairness, concerned their states might direct the money to urban areas. In a letter to Oz and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., they said the money “will serve as a lifeline for rural and at-risk hospitals in our communities that are already struggling to keep their doors open.”

Smaller hospitals fear they will get “a tiny little slice” of each state’s share, said Emily Felder, who leads the health care practice at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a law firm whose clients include rural hospital systems.

“There’s a lot of frustration,” Felder said.

But Kinsley, who was previously North Carolina’s secretary of health and human services, said using this money only to shore up a balance sheet “is really just throwing good money after bad.” In contrast, he said, insurgents such as technology-driven startups can offer new strategies.

One of those companies vying for funding is Homeward Health, a Silicon Valley-based company that contracts with Medicare managed care insurers. Using artificial intelligence analytics, Homeward helps patients get care in their home and with local providers.

The company manages the health of 100,000 rural Michigan patients enrolled in insurance, said Homeward co-founder and chief executive Jennifer Schneider. The company was a sponsor for the Watergate summit. It also has ongoing meetings with Oz and his team, Schneider said.

“They’re doing their job, and they’re talking to a lot of people in the ecosystem and really eager to learn from those of us that have been in the system,” Schneider said. “We’re one of many in that position.”

KFF Health News requested an interview with Alina Czekai, director of the newly created Office of Rural Health Transformation. CMS spokesperson Alexx Pons said the agency was “unable to accommodate facilitation of any interview.”

Instead, CMS provided an emailed statement from Oz saying the program “will help states and communities reimagine what’s possible for rural healthcare.”

Brock Slabach, chief operations officer of the National Rural Health Association, the largest organization representing rural hospitals and clinics, said the money would best be used to help pay for transformation that isn’t “sexy” or “revolutionary.”

“If what we end up with is we have a wearable for every rural patient, I don’t think that’s transformational,” Slabach said, referring to digital health monitors such as fitness-tracking watches.

Slabach, a onetime small-hospital chief executive and an unofficial adviser to hundreds of rural facilities nationwide, named a few ideas for the money — including paying for capital improvements such as electronic health records or equipment, loan repayment programs to aid workforce development, and creating “SWAT” teams that rescue rural hospitals on the brink of closure.

More than 150 rural hospitals have closed nationwide since 2010 — a statistic cited by CMS’ Sutton that is well known among industry watchers. The Sheps Center at the University of North Carolina, which compiles the closure data, also released a guide to help states calculate how rural they are for their applications.

State applications will be reviewed by a panel, with some reviewers from within the government but others outside it, said Kate Sapra, acting deputy director of the Office of Rural Health Transformation, speaking at the Watergate.

“We will train them in the scoring criteria,” Sapra said, adding that the panelists will not be coming from “your state” and will need to fill out conflict-of-interest forms. A portion of money each state gets will be reevaluated annually based on the progress it makes on its goals and priorities, according to CMS.

States are creating stakeholder groups, asking for public comment, and working with their health agencies. Some, such as Mississippi and New Mexico, are hiring consultants.

In Montana, a collection of health providers and associations proposed a list of ideas for the cash, including creating a loan repayment fund for rural clinicians to try to ease worker shortages.

“It’s one-time money, and it’s a little bit of money,” said David Mark, a doctor who is the CEO of One Health, which has clinics dotted across eastern Montana and Wyoming. A state could receive a minimum of $100 million a year for five years if all 50 states have applications approved.

“How do you accomplish goals of a health care system transformation with an infusion of money like that?” Mark said.

Neither Montana nor Wyoming — vast, rural states — sent leaders to the Watergate summit, according to a copy of the attendees list. In the afternoon, attendees could rotate among planning tables and meet with corporate sponsors such as the electronic health records behemoth Epic and the emergency services company Global Medical Response.

Wyoming Department of Health Deputy Director Franz Fuchs confirmed his state did not send representatives to the event, because they were “stretched with other commitments.” Montana, Wyoming, and other states submitted an optional letter of intent signaling they will apply for the funds. CMS did not respond to questions about how many and which states have submitted letters.

During the Watergate event, hints of brewing competition among states began to surface.

“I think Arkansas’ application is going to be better than yours,” seasoned political adviser Jack Sisson said with a smile during a morning panel.

The audience laughed. Sisson, who recently left his job as health adviser for Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders, had interrupted Michael Hendrix, policy adviser to another Republican governor, Tennessee’s Bill Lee.

“See, this is the kind of friendly competition that CMS is hoping for,” Hendrix said. He grinned, thanked Sisson, and added, “I look forward to us both winning.”

KFF Health News Montana correspondent Katheryn Houghton 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).

He shared his concern with reporters, acknowledging it sounded a little like “The X Files,” a science fiction television show.

Academics cite Wallace’s story as one of the catalysts behind a fringe concept that has spread among adherents to the Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, movement and is gaining traction at the highest levels of the federal government. Its treatment as a serious issue underscores that under President Donald Trump, unscientific ideas have unusual power to take hold and shape public health policy.

The concept posits that airplane vapor trails, or contrails, are really “chemtrails” containing toxic substances that poison people and the terrain. Another version alleges planes or devices are being deployed by the federal government, private companies, or researchers to trigger big weather changes, such as hurricanes, or to alter the Earth’s climate, emitting hazardous chemicals in the process.

Several GOP lawmakers and leaders in the Trump administration remain convinced the concepts are legitimate, though scientists have sought to discredit such claims.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is planning to investigate climate and weather control, and is expected to create a task force that will recommend possible federal action, according to a former agency official, an internal agency memo obtained by KFF Health News, and a consultant who helped with the memo.

The plans, along with comments by top GOP lawmakers, show how rumors and conspiracy theories can gain an air of legitimacy due to social media and a political climate infused with falsehoods, some political scientists and researchers say.

“When we have low access to information or low trust in our sources of information, a lot of times we turn to our peer groups, the groups we are members of and we define ourselves by,” said Timothy Tangherlini, a folklorist and professor of information at the University of California-Berkeley. He added that the government’s investigation of conspiracy theories “gives the impression of having some authoritative element.”

HHS is expected to appoint a special government employee to investigate climate and weather control, according to Gray Delany, former head of the agency’s MAHA agenda, who said he drafted the memo. The agency has interviewed applicants to lead a “chemtrails” task force, said Jim Lee, a blogger focused on weather and climate who Delany said helped edit the memo, which Lee confirmed.

“HHS does not comment on future or potential policy decisions and task forces,” agency spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email.

The memo alleges that “aerosolized heavy metals such as Aluminum, Barium, and Strontium, as well as other materials such as sulfuric acid precursors, are sprayed into the atmosphere under the auspices of combatting global warming,” through a process of stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI.

“There are serious concerns SAI spraying is leading to increased heavy metal content in the atmosphere,” the memo states.

The memo claims, without providing evidence, that the substances cause elevated heavy-metal content in the atmosphere, soil, and waterways, and that aluminum is a toxic product used in SAI linked to dementia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, asthma-like illnesses, and other chronic illnesses. The July 14 memo was addressed to White House health adviser Calley Means, who didn’t respond to a voicemail left by a reporter seeking comment.

High-level federal government officials are presenting false claims as facts without evidence and referring to events that not only haven’t occurred but, in many cases, are physically impossible, said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California.

“That is a pretty shocking memo,” he said. “It doesn’t get more tinfoil hat. They really believe toxins are being sprayed.”

Kennedy has previously promoted debunked chemtrail theories. This spring, he was asked on “Dr. Phil Primetime” about chemicals being sprayed into the stratosphere to change the Earth’s climate.

“It’s done, we think, by DARPA,” Kennedy said, referring to a Department of Defense agency that develops emerging technology for the military’s use. “And a lot of it now is coming out of the jet fuel. Those materials are put in jet fuel. I’m going to do everything in my power to stop it. We’re bringing on somebody who’s going to think only about that.”

DARPA officials didn’t return a message seeking comment.

Federal Messaging

Deploying chemtrails to poison people is just one of many baseless conspiracy theories that have found traction among Trump administration health policy officials led by Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist before entering politics. He continues to promote a supposed link between vaccines and autism, as well as make statements connecting fluoride in drinking water to arthritis, bone fractures, thyroid disease, and cancer. The World Health Organization says fluoride is safe when used as recommended.

Delany, who was ousted in August from HHS, said Kennedy has expressed strong interest in chemtrails.

“This is an issue that really matters to MAHA,” said Delany, referring to the informal movement associated with Kennedy that is composed of people who are skeptical of evidence-based medicine.

The memo also alleges that “suspicious weather events have been occurring and have increased awareness of the issue to the public, some of which have been acknowledged to have been caused by geoengineering activities, such as the flooding in Dubai in 2024.” Geoengineering refers to intentional large-scale efforts to change the climate to counteract global warming.

“It is unconscionable that anyone should be allowed to spray known neurotoxins and environmental toxins over our nation’s citizens, their land, food and water supplies,” Delany’s memo states.

Scientists, meteorologists, and other branches of the federal government say these assertions are largely incorrect. Some points in the memo are accurate, including concerns that commercial aircraft contribute to acid rain.

But critics say the memo builds on kernels of truth before veering into unscientific fringe theories. Efforts to control the weather are being made, largely by states and local governments seeking to combat droughts, but the results are modest and highly localized. It isn’t possible to manipulate large-scale weather events, scientists say.

Severe flooding in the United Arab Emirates in 2024 couldn’t have been caused by weather manipulation because no technology could create that kind of rainfall event, Maarten Ambaum, a meteorologist at the University of Reading who studies Gulf region rainfall patterns, said in a statement on the floods. Similar debunked claims emerged this year after central Texas experienced devastating floods.

The Government Accountability Office concluded in a 2024 report that questions remain as to the effectiveness of weather modification.

Research into changing the climate has been conducted, including work by one private company that engaged in field tests. Still, federal agencies say no ongoing or large-scale projects are underway. Study of the concept remains in the research phase. The Environmental Protection Agency says there are no large-scale or government efforts to affect the Earth’s climate.

“Solar geoengineering is not occurring via direct delivery by commercial aircraft and is not associated with aviation contrails,” the agency says on its website.

Widespread Misinformation

Misperceptions about weather, climate control, and airplane contrails extend beyond the Trump administration, scientists said.

In September, a congressional House committee hearing titled “Playing God With the Weather — A Disastrous Forecast” involved two hours of debate on the once-fringe idea. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who chaired the hearing, has introduced legislation to ban weather and climate control, with a fine of up to $100,000 and up to five years in prison.

Some Democrats objected to the nature of the discussion. Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) accused Greene of using “the platform of Congress to proffer anti-science theories, to platform climate denialism.”

Frequently citing chemtrails, GOP lawmakers have introduced legislation in about two dozen states to ban weather modification or geoengineering. Florida passed a bill to establish an online portal so residents can report alleged violations.

“The Free State of Florida means freedom from governments or private actors unilaterally applying chemicals or geoengineering to people or public spaces,” GOP Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in a press statement this spring.

Meanwhile, the chemtrail conspiracy has permeated popular culture. The title track on singer Lana Del Ray’s seventh studio album is entitled “Chemtrails Over the Country Club.” Bill Maher dove into the chemtrail myth on his podcast “Club Random,” saying, “This is nuts. It’s just nuts.” And “Chemtrails,” a psychological thriller, wrapped filming in July.

Social media has given wing to the chemtrails concept and other fringe ideas involving public health. They include an outlandish belief that Anthony Fauci, who advised both Trump and President Joe Biden on the government response to the covid-19 pandemic, created the AIDS epidemic. There is no evidence of such a link, public health leaders say.

Researchers say another false belief by those on the far right holds that people who received covid vaccines could shed the virus, causing infertility in the unvaccinated. There is no evidence of such a connection, scientists and researchers say.

More severe weather events due to global warming may be driving some of the baseless theories, scientists say. And risks occur when such ideas take hold among the general population or policymakers, some public health leaders say. Climate researchers, including Swain, say they’ve received death threats.

Lee, the blogger, said he disagrees with some of the more far-fetched beliefs and is aware of the harm they can cause.

“There are people wanting to shoot down planes because they think they are chemtrails,” said Lee, adding that some believers are afraid to venture outside when plane vapor trails are visible overhead.

There is also no evidence that plane contrails cause health problems or are related to intentional efforts to control the climate, according to the EPA and other scientists.

The memo and focus at HHS on climate and weather control are alarming because they perpetuate conspiracies, said David Keith, a professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago.

“It’s unmoored to reality,” he said. “I expected there were documents like this, but seeing it in print is nevertheless shocking. Our government is being driven by nonsensical dreck from dark corners of social media.”

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).

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Sept. 4, 2025, in a Senate hearing

At a September Senate hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. boasted about a rural health initiative within  President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

“It’s going to be the biggest infusion of federal dollars into rural health care in American history,” Kennedy said, responding to criticism from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sanders said the law would harm patients and rural hospitals.

Kennedy was referring to the law’s five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said. GOP lawmakers have made similar claims about the program.

The fund was added to the bill at the last minute to secure support from Republican lawmakers who represent rural states. Some were concerned about how the bill’s Medicaid cuts would harm rural America, where more than 150 hospitals have stopped offering inpatient services or been shuttered completely since 2010, according to the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina.

“The transformation fund was really talked about in the context of saving rural hospitals that would be facing these significant Medicaid cuts,” said Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer at the National Rural Health Association. Medicaid is the joint state-federal health insurance program that primarily covers low-income people and those with disabilities.

So is Kennedy right in his description of the rural health fund as a historic cash infusion, or does it fail to acknowledge critical context?

The Rural Health Transformation Program

Trump’s tax and spending law is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending in rural areas by at least $137 billion by 2034, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. The Congressional Budget Office predicts the law will increase the overall number of uninsured patients by 10 million by 2034.

Rural health facilities disproportionately rely on Medicaid reimbursement to stay afloat. In 2023, 40.6% of children and 18.3% of adults under age 65 from rural areas and small towns were enrolled in Medicaid, according to the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. In metro areas, the rates were 38.2% and 16.3%, respectively.

The Trump administration argues that rural hospitals cannot rely on “legacy” funding sources like Medicaid and Medicare due to the programs’ reimbursement structure, which ties payments to the number of services provided, a model that’s not financially sustainable for rural facilities with typically low patient volumes.

“Distinct from these other programs, the Rural Health Transformation Program is designed to provide a flexible source of investment” to promote innovation, efficiency, and sustainability, the White House wrote in a memo.

Here’s how it works. States can propose projects spearheaded by state agencies, health care providers, consultants, and vendors aimed at various purposes, such as improving technology, access to care, and workforce recruitment.

States can use only 15% of their transformation program funding for provider payments and can direct money to non-rural areas, according to KFF.

Half of the $50 billion will be evenly divided among states whose applications are approved — regardless of their rural and overall populations — according to the “Notice of Funding Opportunity” for the program.

The other half will be awarded based on “the transformative possibilities” of states’ grant proposals; how much they’ve committed to aligning their health policies with the Trump administration’s; and data on their rural population, rural health facilities, uncompensated care, and other measurements.

The application deadline is Nov. 5.

The Big Picture

Michael Meit, director of the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University, said the rural health community is excited about the innovations the new program might foster, but he’d “love for it to happen in the absence of these cuts that are going to devastate our rural health system.”

“It’s not going to fill the hole,” Meit said.

KFF estimates that the rural health fund’s five-year, $50 billion investment is a little over a third of the expected loss of federal funding in rural areas that will be spread over 10 years. According to that analysis, Medicaid cuts over that period would tally at least $137 billion in rural areas.

That number doesn’t account for other reductions stemming from the same law, such as cuts to the ACA Marketplaces or the health system revenue loss expected from an increase in the number of people without insurance. 

These factors are important to note because the rural health program is a temporary initiative, while reductions in federal spending are long-term.  

Another issue is the difference in the program’s spirit. The rural health fund is focused on transforming the rural health care system — not providing continued funding to keep facilities open or making up for lost Medicaid funds. Even if the money triggers successful innovations, there are doubts that those will happen in time to prevent rural health facilities from closing.

“There’s a real misperception that somehow these funds are going to be able to save rural America or save rural hospitals,” Cochran-McClain said.

Joseph Antos, a health policy expert and senior fellow emeritus at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said Kennedy’s comment is something “politicians say when they want to ignore the rest of the policies.”

“What they wanted was to say that they were creating a new program,” Antos said. “Well, this is a very inefficient way to distribute a relatively very small amount of money to hospitals that will incur much larger bad debt over the coming years, thanks to the cuts in Medicaid.”

One Caveat

Experts said that when viewed outside of mandatory programs like Medicare and Medicaid, the $50 billion rural health fund does appear to be unrivaled, especially for a limited, five-year program.

Several mentioned the Hill-Burton Act as another program that significantly boosted rural health care. The law provided loans and grants that modernized or built 6,800 health facilities, many of which were in rural areas, from 1946 to 1997, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration.

Incomplete funding data makes it difficult to account for inflation, said Kelsey Moran, an assistant professor and health economist at the University of Miami.

But she estimated that, during the life of the program, it spent $47 billion in 2024 dollars when using the Consumer Price Index, or $109 billion when using the CPI’s medical care index. The medical index has a higher inflation rate because health prices have risen more than overall prices.

Our Ruling 

Kennedy said the rural health fund is “going to be the biggest infusion of federal dollars into rural health care in American history.”

The statement contains an element of truth because the new program could be the most significant one-time investment in rural health funding.

But it ignores critical facts and context that create a different impression.

Federal contributions to rural areas from Medicaid and Medicare easily dwarf this program’s $50 billion mark. The new fund offers states flexibility in how they can allocate resources, meaning there’s no guarantee that all the new funding will go to rural Americans’ health care. The program comes at the same time rural areas are expected to lose far more from Medicaid cuts and an increase in uninsured patients than what the rural health fund infusion can backfill.

Experts say the rural health fund’s cash infusion is canceled out by other parts of Trump’s tax and spending law that call for cuts and policy changes.

We rate this statement Mostly False.

Our Sources

“Watch: Sanders, RFK Jr. Get Into Testy Exchange Over COVID Vaccine, CDC Director’s Firing,” CBS News, Sept. 4, 2025.

“$50B Rural Health ‘Slush Fund’ Faces Questions, Skepticism,” KFF Health News, July 21, 2025.

“Rural Hospital Closures,” Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, accessed Sept. 15, 2025.

“Senate GOP Mulls Shielding Rural Hospitals From Medicaid Cuts,” Roll Call, June 20, 2025.

“Key Takeaways From CMS’s Rural Health Funding Announcement,” KFF, Sept. 23, 2025.

“Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, To Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline,” Congressional Budget Office, July 21, 2025.

“Medicaid’s Role in Small Towns and Rural Areas,” Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, Jan. 15, 2025.

“MEMORANDUM Re: The One Big Beautiful Bill is a Historic Investment in Rural Healthcare,” The White House, undated.

Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Rural Health Transformation Program, government document published on Sept. 15, 2025.

“The Federal Budget in Fiscal Year 2023: An Infographic,” Congressional Budget Office, March 5, 2024.

“The Federal Budget in Fiscal Year 2024: An Infographic,” Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2025.

“Hill-Burton Facilities Compliance,” HRSA, accessed Sept. 16, 2025.

“Hospital Charity Care & The Hill-Burton Act,” working paper by Kelsey Moran updated on Sept. 15, 2025.

Phone interview with Matthew Fiedler, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Center on Health Policy at The Brookings Institution, Sept. 24, 2025.

Phone interview with Gbenga Ajilore, chief economist, and Allison Orris, director of Medicaid policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Sept. 24, 2025.

Phone interview with Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, Sept. 24, 2025.

Phone interview with Joseph Antos, a health policy expert and senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute, Sept. 23, 2025.

Phone interview with Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer at the National Rural Health Association, Sept. 17, 2025.

Phone interview with Kelsey Moran, assistant professor in the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Miami, Sept. 15, 2025.

Phone interview with Alana Knudson, director of the NORC Walsh Center for Rural Health Analysis at the University of Chicago, Sept. 12, 2025.

Phone interview with Michael Meit, director of the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University, Sept. 11, 2025.

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).

• Click here to watch Rovner on “Quest Means Business.”
• Click here to hear Rovner on “Morning Edition.”

KFF Health News South Carolina correspondent Lauren Sausser discussed a Trump administration pilot program to have AI approve and deny care for Medicare patients on Apple News’ “Apple News Today” on Oct. 7.

• Click here to hear Sausser on “Apple News Today.”
• Read Sausser and Darius Tahir’s “AI Will Soon Have a Say in Approving or Denying Medicare Treatments.”

KFF Health News Midwest correspondent Bram Sable-Smith appeared on NPR’s “Weekend Edition Sunday” on Oct. 5 to discuss states’ cutting of Medicaid provider payments to close budget gaps.

• Click here to hear Sable-Smith on “Weekend Edition Sunday.”
• Read Sable-Smith and Sarah Jane Tribble’s “States Are Cutting Medicaid Provider Payments Long Before Trump Cuts Hit.”

KFF Health News senior correspondent Bernard J. Wolfson appeared on The Daily Yonder’s “The Yonder Report” newscast on Oct. 8 to discuss local solutions to rural doctor shortages in California.

• Click here to hear Wolfson on “The Yonder Report.”
• Read Wolfson’s “Health Care Cuts Threaten Homegrown Solutions to Rural Doctor Shortages.”

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).