Many lawfully present immigrants will be among the first people to lose Medicaid coverage under congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is expected to cut spending by more than $900 billion through 2034 for the state-federal health program for people with low incomes or disabilities. The law will strip many more immigrants of their Affordable Care Act plan subsidies and Medicare coverage next year.

Those losing their health benefits who were previously eligible include refugees of war, asylees who fled persecution, victims of sex trafficking, and interpreters who risked their lives assisting U.S. service members in Afghanistan — all of whom are in the country with the federal government’s permission. The law does not affect coverage for a few groups, including those who hold green cards.

The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, estimated the law’s changes eliminating Medicaid eligibility for many noncitizen adults with legal status would lead to about 100,000 more immigrants being .

51ÊÓƵ Health News asked several states how many Medicaid enrollees they had identified as being at risk of losing coverage under the provision. More than 281,000 immigrants from nine states and the District of Columbia are expected to lose Medicaid in October.

While some may be able to obtain coverage elsewhere, the state numbers suggest hundreds of thousands of immigrants nationally are at imminent risk of becoming uninsured.

The CBO declined to comment.

Florida alone identified nearly 177,000 immigrants who would no longer qualify for the state’s Medicaid program starting in October, said Anna Holaday, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Children and Families. The agency verified the enrollees’ immigration status through government databases and sent notices to people to give them an opportunity to provide more information proving they remain eligible, Holaday said.

Arizona predicts nearly 28,000 could lose eligibility. New Jersey expects 15,000 to 25,000 of its noncitizen residents to lose their Medicaid coverage. In North Carolina, it’s about 29,000, and in Washington state it’s 11,000. Final numbers from states on how many Medicaid enrollees have been terminated from the program won’t be available until later this fall.

Lawmakers rely on the CBO to understand the budgetary and economic impacts of proposed legislation. Yet the federal agency did not publish estimates on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s impact on noncitizens enrolled in Medicaid until a month after Congress passed the bill and Trump signed it into law.

Much of the attention around Medicaid changes in the law has centered on implementation of work requirements as a new condition of eligibility for many enrollees starting in January. The CBO estimates the requirements will increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 5 million by 2034.

Without health coverage, immigrants are likely to lose access to doctors, prescription drugs, and most other medical services. They still could qualify for coverage of emergency care under a separate program known as Emergency Medicaid.

“I came here to live a better life,” said Ahin, a refugee who left war-torn Syria for Turkey in 2011 and came to the U.S. in October 2024. She spoke with 51ÊÓƵ Health News on the condition that she be identified by only her first name, out of concern for her privacy and security.

Soon after arriving in the U.S., she developed severe abdominal pain that required intestinal surgery. Those costs, along with ongoing visits to specialists, were covered by Medicaid.

“I’m really worried about this,” she said. “It’s truly a terrible situation.”

Ahin, 25, said she doesn’t know what she will do if she needs to go to the hospital — she wouldn’t be able to pay the bill. She lives in a small apartment in New Jersey with her mother. Medicaid has also been vital to her mother, who has asthma.

Health Benefits Wane for Immigrants

The federal government required states to notify immigrants who will soon lose coverage, but immigrant rights advocates say some states did not begin sending letters until September. That’s given enrollees little time to react, including to respond if the state was mistakenly ending their coverage.

Cutting off Medicaid coverage is just the first move to drop government health benefits provided to many lawfully present immigrants. Under a change starting in January, the CBO estimates, about 1 million will lose eligibility for government subsidies to buy individual health coverage on Affordable Care Act marketplaces by 2034. And they will also lose access to Medicare, a change expected to affect about 100,000 immigrants, the agency forecasts.

Trump has argued that taxpayer-funded programs should be reserved for American citizens. As Congress debated the legislation in May 2025, the White House with the misleading claim that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would remove Medicaid coverage for people who are in the country without authorization.

Under long-standing law, people who are in the country without authorization do not qualify for the general Medicaid program that is funded by state and federal dollars.

The health coverage cuts are part of a broader Trump strategy to send a message that immigrants are not welcome in the United States, said Ben D’Avanzo, senior strategist for federal advocacy at the National Immigration Law Center. The Trump administration has also moved to kick people with legal status off the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and tried to do the same with the children’s program Head Start until a federal judge intervened. 

In addition to green card holders, people under age 19 and immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, or certain Pacific Island countries their Medicaid coverage affected by the law.

A Few States Try To Fill in the Gaps

Some states are staving off the coverage loss using their own money. California expects about 148,000 immigrants to lose Medicaid coverage. But the state is spending $365 million for a separate program to keep them covered until July 2027, according to Tony Cava, a spokesperson for the California Department of Health Care Services.

New York and Pennsylvania also have state-funded health coverage for many of the immigrants who are affected.

Carlos Alarcón, health and public benefits policy manager with the California Immigrant Policy Center, an advocacy group, said taking away health coverage for immigrants will affect the health of the state as a whole. The fewer people who have access to healthcare, the easier it will be for contagious diseases to spread, as happened during the covid pandemic, he said.

Alarcón said he hopes the state-funded coverage will be extended under California’s next governor. Polling released in September showed Democrat Xavier Becerra, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, leading Republican Steve Hilton in the gubernatorial race. Becerra to issue an executive order to maintain health coverage for every Californian affected by federal cuts.

In California Governor’s Race, Voters Face Stark Choice on Immigrant Healthcare

California’s next governor will face tough decisions on a highly controversial piece of healthcare policy: what to do about health coverage for the more than 1.4 million low-income residents without legal status. Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton present starkly different choices as public opinion wavers.

By Christine Mai-Duc July 6, 2026

“I believe there’s folks in the legislature that will really want to fight to make sure that we restore things as much as we can,” Alarcón said.

Refugee assistance groups say they have been trying to educate people in their communities and direct them to health clinics that are government-funded or free.

“We’ve just been scrambling trying to find free medical care,” said , co-founder of the . “To not be a welcoming place is the most un-American thing I’ve ever experienced.”  

Andrea Mendez Perez, director at Interfaith-RISE, a refugee resettlement organization in southern New Jersey, said the Trump administration has elongated the process for people to get green cards and is now taking away coverage from those without them. Before 2025, it typically took about six months to qualify for a green card, documentation that allows a foreign national to live and work permanently in the United States, she said. Today, it’s well over a year.

For many of these immigrants on Medicaid, losing their ability to get their prescribed medications “is a life-or-death situation,” Mendez Perez said.

Ahin, the Syrian refugee, applied for permanent residency soon after arriving in the U.S. two years ago. Mendez Perez said she should have her green card by now, which would have spared her from being dropped under the GOP law. “She is stuck in the middle and has no control.”

Colleen McCauley, policy and advocacy director at the Camden Coalition, a nonprofit that helps connect people to healthcare in southern New Jersey, said the loss of coverage is devastating.

“None of them did anything wrong,” McCauley said, “and they are losing coverage.”

This article first appeared on 51ÊÓƵ Health News and is republished here under a .

Transparency “is really important to help protect the integrity of the program, ensure funds are reaching the communities they’re meant to serve,” said Maya Sandalow, director of health policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center, a nonprofit think tank.

The federal government and states are compelled by public records laws to share documents when requested. But those requests can take months to fulfill, making their release too late for meaningful oversight as states rush to spend their allotments under tight federal deadlines.

In the meantime, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services — which oversees the Rural Health Transformation Program — and some states aren’t proactively sharing information about where the funding is going and how it will be used.

CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said the agency “will publish an annual report on state progress.”

States’ individual reports to CMS are “intended to be” shared upon request, but the agency won’t be proactively publishing the individual state reports, according to a CMS document.

Foster didn’t respond to questions about whether the agency will share examples of projects that are and aren’t working or create a tracker of funding recipients, award amounts, and what organizations plan to do with their funding — ideas that health and government transparency advocates have requested.

Instead, much of the program’s transparency thus far has been up to state governments, and “the level of details that states have publicized really varies,” said Sandalow, who co-wrote a on how the federal government can strengthen the rural health program, including through transparency.

Some states are sharing information with lawmakers, holding public meetings, and explaining where organizations plan to invest their money.

Others are more secretive, with multiple states declining to release public records in response to 51ÊÓƵ Health News’ requests. Mississippi’s governor , West Virginia holds closed-door advisory meetings, and a South Dakota official wrote that he hoped CMS would keep its application from public view.

“I just don’t believe in all this secrecy,” said Mississippi state Sen. Hob Bryan, who chairs his chamber’s public health committee. “If they’re not up to something nefarious, why do they have to do it all in secret?”

Bryan, a Democrat, said there’s about the lack of transparency in his state.

Reaching Rural Patients

Congressional Republicans created the five-year Rural Health Transformation Program last summer as an eleventh-hour sweetener to President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The money was intended to offset concerns about the anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to by more than $900 billion over a decade.

Sandalow said some states may be struggling to share information since they’re busy rushing to hire staff and meet the program’s tight deadlines, including an annual report due Aug. 31.

In the meantime, a slew of media outlets, nonprofits, and businesses are stepping in to make it easier for the public to track the rural health program.

51ÊÓƵ Health News is collecting states’ applications and approved plans and budgets, not all of which have been posted on state websites.

Rural Health Payout

Tracking Applications for Rural Health Transformation Funds

51ÊÓƵ Health News is working to collect and post complete application materials, by state, here and will update this repository as new materials, released in response to public records requests, arrive.

Dec. 4, 2025

Rural Health Payout

Tracking State Rural Health Transformation Plans

51ÊÓƵ Health News is working to collect and post approved plans as more states respond to emails and public records requests for their documents.

July 27, 2026

And several and have created trackers that , post funding opportunities, or list award recipients. But some resources are available only through paid services, aimed at helping businesses interested in applying for money.

Sandalow said previous federal programs “tend to draw attention for gaps in transparency and oversight rather than for doing it well.”

As an example, she pointed to the lack of oversight and transparency with the CARES Act and other covid relief programs, which saw .

In March, CMS published proposed quarterly and annual state reporting requirements for the rural health program, and a . At least three groups replied with letters expressing concerns about transparency.

CMS should share states’ progress reports, funding recipients, and what organizations plan to do with their awards, , the Bipartisan Policy Center’s vice president for health policy.

Sharing this information would make it easier to track progress, identify successful programs that other states may want to replicate, and “ensure funds reach the rural communities they are intended to serve,” he wrote.

Molly Smith, group vice president for public policy at the American Hospital Association, “to be as detailed as possible” about the “final destinations of these funds, given the complexity of the grant funding process.”

In , Charlene MacDonald, who leads the Federation of American Hospitals, noted that some funding recipients, such as large health systems and academic medical centers, will be distributing their awards to other entities.

CMS should collect those “downstream subrecipients,” wrote MacDonald, whose group represents for-profit hospitals and healthcare systems.

Without this information, she said, it will be difficult to know if “funding is reaching the rural hospitals, providers, and communities primarily intended to benefit from the program.”

It can also be difficult to know which for-profit companies are being paid with rural health money.

For example, and have listed hospitals and other health facilities that received funding to purchase telehealth, scanning devices, and other health technology. But the states list only some of the companies from which recipients will buy those products.

States won’t have to report “downstream” funding in their August reports to CMS but will have to do so for all future reports, according to the agency’s recently finalized .

The CMS documents say states must list subrecipients that receive subawards as well as vendors or contractors paid by an organization using rural health funding. Although states must report how much money these downstream recipients receive, they don’t have to describe which specific services or products the recipient is providing.

DIY Dashboards

As groups ask CMS to share more information, some states have created their own rural health spending dashboards or recipient lists, with varying levels of detail.

Alaska, , and other states list which organizations receive funding, their award amounts, and detailed descriptions of how recipients will spend the money.

and , however, are among the states that don’t share what awardees plan to do with their funding.

New Hampshire is that detail projects and their budgets on its Rural Health Transformation Program website. Some other states have uploaded contracts and grants on general procurement or award databases, which can be difficult to navigate.

, , and have used press releases to announce awards. But the announcements aren’t posted on their Rural Health Transformation Program websites, which could make it difficult to find this information.

Many states created advisory groups to provide transparency and accountability for their programs. Most committees host public meetings and upload minutes, recordings, or other materials from the discussions.

But the West Virginia Department of Health won’t share what’s discussed in its rural health advisory panel’s closed-door meetings, according to spokesperson Gailyn Markham.

“The panel is intended to serve as an informal forum for discussion and feedback among invited participants and program staff,” Markham said.

South Dakota, North Dakota, and Mississippi are among the states without advisory committees.

In response to public records requests, South Dakota released a nearly completely redacted version of its budget for the rural health program while Mississippi declined to release its budget.

Mississippi’s he vetoed a because it would “create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy” that would have slowed the award process, which could cause the state to lose out on future funds. Mississippi is “ in all this secrecy,” Bryan, the state lawmaker, told 51ÊÓƵ Health News.

Sandalow said it’s important for states to publish the impact of their rural health projects, adding that CMS should share which rural health projects are and aren’t working.

She said national and state health organizations are creating networks and holding conferences to help spread this information. States should “be able to learn from each other, get a sense of lessons learned and best practices, and then be able to pivot their initiatives accordingly,” Sandalow said.

Michael Cannon, who oversees health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said people should know how their $50 billion in taxes is being spent on the rural health program, and whether state projects are making rural patients healthier.

If investors put that much money into a project, there is “no way” they “would let the recipients of those funds get away with the shoddy approach to transparency and accountability that the states are taking,” he said.

This article first appeared on 51ÊÓƵ Health News and is republished here under a .

Then Medicare launched an 18-month pilot program that offers GLP-1 medications to some enrollees for only $50 a month. La Marca thought he might finally be able to afford the drug.

“I thought, ‘Thank God, there’s a path,’” said La Marca, who lives in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, and has tried numerous diets and exercise regimes.

But the 68-year-old’s celebration was short-lived.

His application to the pilot program was denied.

La Marca has severe obstructive sleep apnea, one of several diagnoses that exclude patients from the Bridge program’s $50 monthly price. The notification didn’t say why he was rejected. He thinks that if he didn’t have that diagnosis, he would qualify due to his weight.

“I’m obese, morbidly obese, BMI 42. I had quadruple heart bypass surgery. I’m at risk for stroke. I’m prediabetic. And yet I can’t get it. I’m livid,” he said.

A Temporary Patch for a Long-Standing Gap

About 1 in 5 American adults have taken a GLP-1 medication, and most of them, including those with health insurance, say the drugs are . Federal law has long barred Medicare from covering drugs prescribed solely for weight loss, which is why the Medicare GLP-1 Bridge program made a big splash when it launched in July.

It’s a short-term pilot program in which Medicare is offering coverage of three GLP-1s for weight loss and management, to see if that would save Medicare money later. Eligible patients must be enrolled in Medicare Part D, a prescription drug coverage add-on to Medicare. Even though people must have Part D insurance to qualify, the preauthorization request doesn’t go through the insurer; it’s instead submitted to a separate system run by a contractor for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The pilot includes Wegovy, the KwikPen 51ÊÓƵtion of Zepbound, and the oral medication Foundayo.

Under the pilot, many Medicare beneficiaries with a body mass index of 35 or higher — the — qualify for coverage of one of those drugs, if prescribed. Those otherwise eligible who have a BMI of 27 to 34 can qualify if they also have certain health conditions, such as prediabetes or cardiovascular disease.

But buried in the fine print is a distinction that’s tripping up patients like La Marca: The $50 price under Bridge applies only to people using the drug solely for weight loss. Anyone who has a qualifying medical condition that the Food and Drug Administration has approved GLP-1s to treat, such as Type 2 diabetes or moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea, is instead routed back to their Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, which can require copays of hundreds of dollars a month for GLP-1s.

“The Bridge program was designed to target those people who can’t get GLP-1 coverage through Part D but would benefit from taking one for weight loss,” said Juliette Cubanski, who directs the Program on Medicare Policy at 51ÊÓƵ, a health information nonprofit that includes 51ÊÓƵ Health News.

The cost to Medicare of subsidizing the drugs will depend largely on how many people use the program, and the federal government hasn’t released an estimate.

Cubanski that 3.8 million people qualify and that, if a quarter of them enroll in Bridge and remain on treatment for the program’s full 18 months, it will cost Medicare about $3.3 billion. If three-quarters enroll, costs could rise to $10 billion.

If the government expanded the program to include the additional 5.9 million people who are overweight and already eligible for GLP-1 coverage through Medicare Part D, it would add billions more to the program’s cost.

The demonstration’s initial weeks have been positive, and most prior authorization requests have been completed in under 12 hours, CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said.

“This has allowed thousands of eligible beneficiaries to access GLP-1 medications for weight loss at pharmacies nationwide,” Foster said.

GLP-1s Aren’t Covered

Patients like La Marca are left in a tough spot, qualifying for Part D coverage of a GLP-1 but facing much higher cost sharing.

“‘Coverage’ doesn’t always mean ‘affordable,’” said primary care physician , who describes herself as a “big proponent” of GLP-1s and practices at Sunflower Medical Group in Roeland Park, Kansas.

The Bridge program is leaving behind patients with the greatest medical need, she said. She noted that many Medicare patients already must navigate prior authorization and spend months trying alternate, often cheaper treatments, a process known as step therapy, before finally getting approval — only to arrive at the pharmacy counter and discover that their GLP-1 copays will run them $200 to $600 a month, if not more.

Researchers studying how Medicare insurers cover GLP-1s that recipients have faced increases in out-of-pocket costs and that almost all plans now require prior authorization, which can make getting the drugs more difficult.

Chris Bond, a spokesperson for insurance industry trade group AHIP, blamed drugmakers’ prices, “which they alone set and they alone can lower.”

La Marca’s insurer declined to answer specific questions about La Marca’s case.

Left Waiting

For now, La Marca’s GLP-1 prescription remains unfilled. The severe sleep apnea diagnosis that helps establish his medical need is also what excludes him from the discount program that would bring the cost within his reach.

As he reflected on his appeals and the dead ends, La Marca paused, his eyes filling with tears of frustration.

“This is now my quest, because it’s my only chance to improve my health,” he said. “It’s the only thing left. I’ve tried everything.”

This article first appeared on 51ÊÓƵ Health News and is republished here under a .

“I’ve seen nurses get shoved, pushed, scratched. The biggest one is bitten,” said Dhooghe, who works at in Grand Blanc, Michigan.

The in healthcare has in states such as , , , , and , where Dhooghe and many of her co-workers have been on the picket line since Labor Day last year.

“People will question me and be like, ‘Why are you still working in a place if you’re treated like this?’” said Dhooghe, who gets by on strike benefits and working extra shifts at another hospital. The problem, she said, is that other hospitals aren’t any better. “It’s the same everywhere I go.”

In a statement, spokesperson Dana Jay acknowledged violence against healthcare workers is a “national epidemic” and said the health system’s efforts to address the problem include metal detectors, armed security officers trained to make “misdemeanor arrests,” and de-escalation training.

“We have zero tolerance for violence of any kind,” said Jay, asserting the strike is not about safety but is instead “simply an economic strike.”

Nationwide, hospital workers are seven times as likely to be injured on the job due to violent acts as members of the general working population, according to the available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The outcry over workplace violence in healthcare is pitting workers’ demands for better compensation and staffing against hospital operators pressured to cut costs.

‘A Powder Keg’

Violent outbursts are so common that they’ve been dramatized on the popular medical TV series . “Emergency rooms right now are like a powder keg,” said Rachel Odes, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing.

In hospitals, a combative or violent patient is known as a “.” Outbursts can be spontaneous and unpredictable, making some almost impossible to prevent. But research shows the increases when hospitals are understaffed or employees are insufficiently trained or experienced.

Mental health worker Andrew Kimball-Mirzaie said he got hurt in February 2024 at Butler Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island.

He’d been working at the private psychiatric hospital for about six weeks and said he hadn’t yet worked in the ER. He said he was sent there to “monitor” a man in his 20s who was waiting for an inpatient bed.

The patient was alone in a back room watching a Knicks basketball game on TV, he recalled. Kimball-Mirzaie said he got the patient a drink and a snack. They were watching the game when, suddenly, he said, the patient stood up and punched him in the face. He said the assault left him with a concussion and broken nose. His injuries were documented in the hospital’s.

“I understand that there is an inherent danger with the job,” Kimball-Mirzaie said. He doesn’t blame the patient, who was very ill at the time. “We should have had at least another staff member with us,” he said, “and I should have been adequately trained on the unit.”

The attack emboldened Kimball-Mirzaie to join some 700 other unionized Butler workers last spring and summer in a months-long strike, which forced the hospital to close . Service Employees International Union 1199 New England declared the strike a win.

Employees received wage increases that union leaders said would enable the hospital to attract and retain more staff. The hospital also agreed to provide financial support for workers violently injured on the job. And the hospital and union agreed to jointly fund a “time bank” to supplement workers’ compensation for injured workers who need more time to recover.

But five months later, a nurse supervisor at Butler had to call 911 because an unarmed patient in the hospital’s ER was assaulting staff. According to the police report, by the time police arrested the patient, he’d injured two nurses, a security guard, and a police officer.

“Butler recognizes the importance of being proactive in protecting those who provide care,” Mary Marran, Butler’s president and chief operating officer, said in a statement. She added that hospital leadership meets regularly with staff to review safety measures and “identify opportunities to strengthen protection for everyone.”

The patient was charged with four counts of , including against the two nurses.

The American Hospital Association has said punishment is key to preventing violence. It has been to make assaulting healthcare workers a that would carry in prison. At least , including and , have enacted similar laws. But workplace safety experts say there is no evidence that such laws have reduced the incidence of violence against healthcare workers.

Calls for ‘Safe Staffing’

Striking healthcare workers around the country often have demanded “safe staffing” instead of stronger punishments for patients who cause injuries.

The against healthcare workers has caught the attention of the , the accreditation organization for more than 80% of U.S. hospitals and health systems. The commission released national performance goals that and require hospitals to be and that staff be trained “to provide safe, quality care.”

But no federal law limits the number of patients in a nurse’s care across healthcare settings, despite the nation’s largest nurses union, National Nurses United, having pressed for a national standard . Hospitals must “safely staff all units” to enable nurses to “provide the care that patients need before they get agitated or disoriented,” said , lead industrial hygienist for .

Some states have passed their own staffing laws. Only has enacted broad mandatory nurse staffing ratios, which were associated with lower mortality rates and likely higher retention. Oregon enacted a staffing law, . Legislators in and have introduced similar bills, but they have failed to advance to floor votes.

The American Hospital Association opposes mandatory minimum nurse staffing ratios in hospitals, saying they would “remove real-time clinical judgment and flexibility,” , and potentially force some hospitals to turn away patients or delay care, spokesperson Colleen Kincaid said. And she pointed to California, whose for psychiatric hospitals reportedly in at least four counties.

“There are a lot of other things you can do to prevent workplace violence than just increasing staffing levels,” said , who was a deputy assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration during the Obama administration and helped develop OSHA’s for healthcare and social service workers.

Barab said hospitals can, for example, train employees in de-escalation, install metal detectors, or have specially trained security guards on-site so staff don’t have to wait for police to arrive when an incident happens.

, a worker safety and health policy expert at Georgetown University, said the in congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act will in the next few years.

When funding dries up, she said, “protecting workers is going to be the first thing that gets cut.”

This article is from a partnership that includes and 51ÊÓƵ Health News.

This article first appeared on 51ÊÓƵ Health News and is republished here under a .

Carter’s specialty is reeling in grants to support students in the Omaha Nation school district, where she is a finance manager. One paid for the garden that sits next to the district’s campus. Another allowed the school system, in one of Nebraska’s lowest-income counties, to pay students to maintain it.

“They’re out in the sun. They’re watering plants,” she said. “It’s the first time they get a paycheck in their life.”

Carter, 41, is paralyzed from the chest down, an injury she’s lived with since a fall in her early 20s. It didn’t slow her down as she built her accounting career and got a master’s degree in human resource management.

But in November 2023, Carter — who lives in Sioux City, Iowa — got a letter from Iowa’s Department of Health and Human Services. It said that her income was too high for her to stay on Medicaid and that she might lose her benefits in two weeks if she didn’t take action.

States are scrambling to get ready for a new federal requirement to double-check that many people on Medicaid qualify for the benefit, by showing they are working, volunteering, or studying at least 80 hours per month. Politicians’ focus on requiring work has angered many people with disabilities who have Medicaid and say current policies that apply to them have the opposite effect — making them choose between working or receiving benefits.

‘I Have No Options’

When Carter got the letter, she was making $110,000 a year, well above Iowa’s 2023 income limit for working people with disabilities: $36,450 for a household of one.

“I had no time at all to prepare,” she said. “I had a decision to make.”

At the time, Carter got her health coverage through Iowa’s , a buy-in program that allows working disabled Iowans to pay part of their income to the state to maintain access to Medicaid benefits. Forty-seven states offer , but eligibility through limits on income and assets.

For years, disability rights advocates have pushed state legislatures to change the limits, arguing they prevent people like Carter from accepting raises or building savings, for fear of losing crucial medical benefits. Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have eliminated such limits over the past five years.

To keep her Medicaid coverage, Carter would’ve had to find a job paying her far less than she was making. Or she could drop her Medicaid coverage and enroll in the school district’s health plan. But that plan didn’t cover many of the disability-related expenses that Medicaid did.

Carter decided to keep her job and leave the Medicaid buy-in program. In the end, the decision felt like a no-brainer, she said.

“I like getting up and going to work every day, and I really like what I do,” she said. “Why would I throw that away?”

But it’s been hard on her finances. Carter said she now spends about $35,000 a year out-of-pocket for expenses her old plan covered, such as the nurse who visits her three times a week, modifications to her car, and wheelchair repairs.

“I had the motors go out on my wheelchair,” she said. “So that was like $4,000 to fix.”

Over the next year, Carter picked up extra jobs and cashed in some of her retirement savings.

“I want to pay my own way. I don’t mind paying taxes,” she said. She doesn’t want to hide her income, either. “I just want an option,” she said. “I have no options right now.”

A Program Intended To Encourage Work

Congress to create Medicaid buy-in programs in the 1990s, intending to incentivize more people with disabilities to work. Iowa was one of the first states to adopt the program.

According to state data, 11,640 Iowans were participating in the buy-in program as of late January, or 1.7% of all Medicaid recipients in Iowa.

The income caps have inched up since Carter got her letter. , set at 250% of the federal poverty level, is $39,900 for a household of one this year.

The rules also restrict recipients from accumulating too much in assets. The is $12,000 for an individual or $24,000 for a married couple, excluding some assets, such as a primary home or vehicle.

Carlyn Crowe, the public policy manager at the , said the limits can prevent disabled Iowans from reaching their goals. “Work full-time and be able to buy a house, live in the community, buy a car,” she said. “Those limits placed on what they can earn and save are keeping them from doing that.”

Crowe’s organization, which has counterparts in every state, is and advocates for people with disabilities. In Iowa, such advocates have asked legislators to drop the hard limits on income and assets. Instead, they suggest that disabled Iowans pay 6% of their income to buy into the Medicaid program, an approach modeled after a 2024 that created a Medicaid buy-in program with no income and asset limits. (Tennessee is waiting on federal approval before starting its program.)

In recent years, these efforts have built bipartisan support and gained traction. An Iowa House committee unanimously in 2025 to remove the income and asset caps, but the bill died after failing to move forward during this spring’s legislative session.

State legislatures now in Medicaid spending estimated at more than $900 billion over 10 years, as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

, an associate director of 51ÊÓƵ’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the specific worry is that buy-in programs, though they’re a small part of the larger Medicaid system, could increase overall Medicaid spending if eligibility changes.

“The premiums charged in buy-in programs are nowhere near close to the expected costs of covering people,” Burns said. (51ÊÓƵ is a health policy research, polling, and news organization that includes 51ÊÓƵ Health News.)

Focusing on initial cost increases is myopic, said , the director of disability policy at at Iowa’s Drake University. More workers mean additional income tax revenue for states. It also enables some people with disabilities to earn enough to transition off other government assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

“Three, five, seven years from now, you may be recouping those expenses by having people be able to work their way off,” Van Sant said.

Falling Through the Cracks

Iowa lawmakers tried a more modest adjustment during this year’s legislative session. Instead of removing the income limit entirely, they introduced legislation that would raise the cap to 300% of the federal poverty level and exempt pension accounts and a spouse’s income, among other things, from the asset cap.

In the end, the provision was stripped from a wide-ranging public assistance bill. If it had passed, the new income limit would have been one of the for a buy-in program, according to 51ÊÓƵ.

, a former City Council member in Sioux City who was paralyzed from the chest down after a diving accident, told state lawmakers during a hearing in February that the proposal was a step in the right direction, but not enough.

“I fear that we’re going to lose people to other states,” said Watters, who added that he was considering moving to Minnesota, which never had an income cap and eliminated asset caps for its in 2024.

Even if Iowa had raised its income limit, Carter would still have been ineligible.

Carter remains committed to her primary job at the school district. She plans to keep working there and taking on additional jobs, seven days a week, so she can pay for her medical needs and continue helping students.

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and .

This article first appeared on 51ÊÓƵ Health News and is republished here under a .

The majority of California’s roughly 300,000 teachers don’t have access to the state-funded paid leave program that most new parents in the private sector do. Instead, many local school districts deduct the cost of a substitute teacher from educators’ pay during parental leave.

Because her daughter arrived before the school year ended, Blustein used 10 of her accrued sick days — paid time off she wanted to bank for later to bond with her baby or to care for her if she got sick.

Now, California lawmakers have given public school and community college employees up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy leave in the education bill accompanying the , after Gov. Gavin Newsom this year.

It’s a reversal for Newsom in his final year in office. In 2019, the governor that would have given school employees at least six weeks of paid leave, and a similar Assembly bill that died on the Senate floor in 2024. Several analysts said the issue appeals to voters on both sides of the aisle, ahead of Newsom’s potential 2028 presidential run.

State Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer said in an email that “educator workforce recruitment and retention has been a priority for the administration since the governor’s first day in office” but that the funding was not previously available.

Paid leave policies for educators and other state workers have garnered bipartisan support in recent years, including in conservative-led states such as Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia, and blue states such as , said Vicki Shabo, a senior fellow specializing in gender equity and paid leave at the think tank New America.

After the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision overturned the constitutional right to abortion, some conservative lawmakers in states that banned abortion embraced paid leave for public employees to signal support for babies after they were born, Shabo said. Many limited the benefit to state employees and framed it as a tool to recruit and retain them.

Elizabeth Gedmark, a vice president at A Better Balance, a nonprofit that advocates for workplace equality, said paid leave “polls incredibly well across all political lines, because everyone agrees that you shouldn’t have to go back to work a day after you had a baby.”

In 2019, President Donald Trump signed into law a bill that of paid leave. But Shabo said the current administration hasn’t made any moves to expand paid leave.

Palmer, of the Department of Finance, said the state can now afford the roughly $218 million leave program because of billions of dollars in unexpected tax revenue, largely tied to tech workers’ stock options. Much of that revenue is constitutionally guaranteed to schools, so it can’t cover other public workers who are also shut out of California’s paid leave system.

Many school district administrators have largely opposed paid leave in the past because of the cost. The state’s plan calls for districts to pay for the leave out of their annual cost-of-living raise, which this year is bigger than the law requires.

David Roth, superintendent of Buckeye Union School District in El Dorado County, said the math still isn’t great for some schools, and that “the real value reaching the classroom is smaller than the headline number suggests.”

The California Association of School Business Officials had opposed previous related legislation, saying it would create an “unfunded mandate,” but largely supports the new plan now that the start date has been pushed from July 1 to January 2027. The organization’s chief governmental relations officer, Sara Pietrowski, said concerns remain but that the group would work with the state to avoid additional fiscal challenges.

The proposal would close a gap that many Californians don’t realize exists. The state was one of the first to offer — under its current program, eligible workers get of their pay for up to 20 weeks of combined leave and disability benefits.

But most California teachers, , are shut out. The program is funded through a payroll deduction for state disability insurance, and public agencies are . Districts can opt in, but the move must be bargained collectively, as in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Most educators must use up their accrued sick days before receiving a fraction of their pay for the remainder of their leave, under a provision of the .

Because of that, it’s not uncommon for teachers to plan their pregnancy leave for summer breaks to try to avoid burning up their sick leave. But that can be challenging for those who have pregnancy complications or early deliveries, like Blustein, or those who experience challenges getting pregnant.

Erika Jones, an elementary school teacher in Los Angeles and the secretary-treasurer of the California Teachers Association, said her colleagues routinely teach until they go into labor, which can be disruptive.

It took one colleague around seven years to bank 77 sick days to use for a single pregnancy.

“Women go back sooner than they should have, because they don’t have the days,” Jones said. “You end up in this deficit zone.”

This article first appeared on 51ÊÓƵ Health News and is republished here under a .

Source: <a href=”; target=_”blank”>Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services</a>

---

51ÊÓƵ Health News will update this database as more states respond to emails and public records requests for their documents.

Note: Data collected as of Sept. 11, 2026. 51ÊÓƵ Health News reporters searched state websites, requested documents, and filed public records requests. 51ÊÓƵ Health News continues to collect documents.

Sources: Documents publicly posted online or released in response to 51ÊÓƵ Health News requests; <a href=”; target=_”blank”>Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services</a>

This article first appeared on 51ÊÓƵ Health News and is republished here under a .

Nearly half of that money is , to be distributed by county commissioners and city councilors. The idea is that local leaders know their communities best and can do justice to these payouts, often described as “blood money” by people who’ve lost loved ones to an overdose.

But many local leaders have little to no training in addiction policy and may lack robust local health departments and policy guardrails to assist them.

That has resulted in spending decisions that many clinicians, researchers, and addiction recovery advocates say are unlikely to save lives or treat substance use disorders.

In New York, where is directly controlled by local governments, counties have spent tens of thousands of dollars on surveillance cameras, technology to help police access data on locked cellphones, and goggles that simulate being drunk, according to public records obtained by the nonprofit advocacy group and shared exclusively with 51ÊÓƵ Health News. Though the purchases were likely legal, many people consider them a slap in the face because they don’t directly help people struggling with addiction or their families.

Without oversight, counties have the chance “to go rogue” with this money, said , director of drug policy at VOCAL-NY, an advocacy organization that is tracking settlement money as part of its mission to serve people affected by the war on drugs.

When advocates and families of overdose victims raise concerns to the various state agencies that could hold localities accountable, those agencies often punt to one another, Budnella and other local advocates said.

It feels “like the where it’s like everybody’s pointing at each other,” Budnella said. “Somebody needs to be able to have the stick and slam their hand on the table and be like, ‘You’re doing this wrong and this is the consequence.’”

The experience in New York provides a microcosm of regulators evading oversight responsibility nationwide while varied interests vie for the financial windfall.

Years of data collected by 51ÊÓƵ Health News, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the addiction nonprofit Shatterproof have found that settlement money was spent on law enforcement gear, such as night-vision goggles and bulletproof vests; unproven prevention initiatives, such as a drug-awareness magician for kids; and budget stopgaps.

It’s unclear who should — or will — take action on such expenditures that many people harmed by the crisis consider questionable.

In each state, control of the money is split among various entities, creating a leadership vacuum. The federal government . Advocates and families who’ve lost loved ones have pushed for accountability but have limited power. A few states have passed new laws, but change is slow and uneven.

The require the majority of the money to be spent on “opioid remediation,” with . But the list is broad and open to interpretation. Further complicating the issue, many states — including New York — designate some portion of the settlement dollars as unrestricted, which allows for general spending.

Meanwhile, federal budget cuts have threatened addiction-related services and created more demand for funding. And though overdose deaths have decreased since , they still claim about 186 lives per day.

“We really are wasting this opportunity to use these funds to turn the epidemic around,” said , a Binghamton, New York, resident, whose 28-year-old son, Jeff Dugon, died of a heroin overdose in 2014.

He was a chef who loved to rib Pleus about her bad knife skills. She thinks of him and smiles every time she peels garlic the way he taught her. If the money could spare other families such heartache, that would give her solace.

“We need oversight,” said Pleus, who runs a nonprofit that is receiving opioid settlement cash from her county to serve people who use drugs and provide support groups for families.

In New York, there are three prime watchdog contenders: the Office of Addiction Services and Supports, the attorney general, and the comptroller.

The Lead State Agency

New York’s opioid settlement documents designate the as the “.”

It distributes a portion of settlement dollars via grants, according to recommendations from the state’s . It also has the power to “engage in oversight and audits of projects and programs” funded by settlement cash and “may withhold future funds” from local governments that do not comply with certain requirements, according to the agreement.

Agency spokesperson Jerry Gretzinger told 51ÊÓƵ Health News the office has not yet exercised its power to withhold funds but understands its oversight role.

“OASAS has a duty to ensure these funds are used responsibly and strategically to build programs that will have a lasting impact in reversing this crisis,” Gretzinger wrote in a statement.

The office is currently auditing 19 local governments’ use of the money to ensure compliance with “reporting and recordkeeping requirements,” he said. However, that may not encompass the broader question of whether money was spent on appropriate uses, which many advocates want addressed.

Some people are frustrated with the narrow role OASAS has carved out.

For example, required local governments for the first time to publicly report how they spent settlement money. OASAS on its site. But it does not review the accuracy or detail of that data, instead relying on “the information as it is provided” by localities, Gretzinger said.

“That doesn’t feel like oversight,” said , a deputy director at the Legal Action Center, which obtained public records about local spending in New York.

Members of the state’s Opioid Settlement Fund Advisory Board have also to provide more data and evaluation of how dollars are being used. But at a , OASAS Commissioner Chinazo Cunningham deflected.

“OASAS has no oversight over these portions of dollars,” she said of the 46% of settlement money that goes directly to counties and cities. “In terms of what kind of data each county collects,” she added, “we cannot dictate exactly what that information is.”

Click for Examples of spending decisions Local Spending That’s Fueling Calls for Oversight in New York

To uncover how opioid settlement cash is being spent, the nonprofit advocacy group filed public records requests with 56 New York counties and New York City, all of which are to disburse as they see fit.

Many of the responses showed spending on addiction treatment, recovery, and prevention initiatives that researchers and clinicians agree are a good use of money. Others surfaced questionable expenditures.

, for example, showed $150,000 in settlement cash directed to “Sheriff Jail” with no further description. The county did not respond to repeated inquiries for more details.

Sullivan County spent more than $30,000 on Cellebrite technology, used to extract data from cellphones, and more than $37,000 on Tasers. Though county officials didn’t respond to requests for comment, explained that those purchases came from unrestricted funds.

Such justifications rankle some families affected by the crisis, who say even if there aren’t legal restrictions on those dollars, there should be moral ones.

“Anything that is not directly tied to people who are struggling with opioid addiction or the loss of someone is a poor use of funds,” said , who lost a son to an overdose and now runs a nonprofit aimed at helping families dealing with addiction. Her organization has received settlement funds from Broome County, New York.

Records also revealed that many jurisdictions have yet to spend a significant portion of their money — a other .

Local officials say thoughtful planning takes time. But some advocates suspect ulterior motives. Millions of settlement dollars in bank accounts can generate sizable interest.

In March, it came to light that Nassau County had in interest accrued from unused opioid settlement funds to the county’s general fund, where it could be used for any purpose. County officials didn’t respond to requests for comment. The money was following public backlash.

Advocates suspect such attempts are happening elsewhere but are difficult to identify within complex budgeting documents.

It feels like “it’s up to us all — the organizers, the advocates, the service providers” — to be constantly watching, said , director of drug policy at the advocacy organization VOCAL-NY. “It’s frustrating.”

That’s why state agencies are being called on to step into an oversight role.

The Top Law Enforcement Officer

New York has been one of the leading national voices on prosecuting pharmaceutical companies that fueled the overdose crisis. Her office has issued on the topic, touting her role in securing billions of opioid settlement dollars for the state.

But when asked about the attorney general’s role in ensuring this windfall is spent appropriately, her office passed the buck to other agencies.

“While our partners in state and local governments distribute and oversee these funds, we will continue our work to hold accountable the companies responsible for fueling the spread of addictions and overdoses,” spokesperson Grant Fox wrote in a statement.

That stance contrasts starkly with many people’s views of the office’s responsibility.

A state senator, a member of the opioid settlement advisory board, and several advocates named the attorney general’s office as a key enforcement entity.

“The money is here because of their efforts,” said Democratic state , who chairs the committee on alcoholism and substance use disorders and has introduced of related to settlement funds. “I believe it is under the Office of the Attorney General to enforce.”

Budnella, the advocate with VOCAL-NY, agreed, saying, “It would be a shame for all of their work that they have done to secure all this funding for it to be misspent.”

Attorneys general in and have taken more active roles, issuing lists of ways opioid settlement money cannot be spent. The lists include many law enforcement expenditures that have raised concerns for advocates in New York.

James’ office did not respond to a specific question about whether she’d consider creating a similar list.

The Fiscal Watchdog

Some people have suggested that the state comptroller, as a steward of New York’s finances, could play an oversight role, perhaps by conducting or requiring audits.

Early this year, the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, that would create audit requirements for organizations receiving settlement cash. The blueprint suggests recipients of more than $1 million in opioid settlements be required to undergo an independent review of financial statements and transaction testing to determine whether funds were used for their intended purpose. Smaller grantees, receiving less than $1 million, could simply provide an unaudited accounting of the funds.

It’s “not telling states what is and what isn’t an appropriate use,” said , a co-author of the Reason Foundation plan. “We’re simply trying to ensure recipients follow through with their promises.”

No state has adopted the model law yet. But the office of New York told 51ÊÓƵ Health News it is already conducting an audit.

The process, which began in February, “is looking at OASAS’ oversight” of the opioid settlement money, said spokesperson Mary Mueller. It includes settlement money controlled by the state and local governments.

Mueller said any future enforcement action “will depend on the results of our current work and our ongoing monitoring.”

The office is following in the footsteps of comptrollers and auditors in , , and , Tennessee, who have taken action on settlement cash.

These initial steps have given some advocates and researchers hope for the future of opioid settlement dollars, which are expected to flow for more than a decade.

“We’re already years in and we’ve seen the craziest stories” of this money and a , said , a co-author of the Reason Foundation’s model law. “If we can prevent that at least a little and have these funds be a bit more focused, I don’t think it’s too late.”

This article first appeared on 51ÊÓƵ Health News and is republished here under a .

Now she worries the cost of those drugs could rise — not because of price increases, but because of a tax system revamp put on the ballot by the state’s Republican-dominated legislature and backed by the Republican governor.

Prescription drugs and doctor visits are currently exempt from taxes in the state. But in August, Missouri voters will weigh in on a proposed constitutional amendment to give the legislature the power to replace the state’s income tax with expanded sales taxes, including on goods and services currently exempt.

“Politicians want Missourians to trust them when they say not to worry about our medications and healthcare being up for grabs,” Ortbals said at a June press event organized by Progress MO, a progressive advocacy group.

“I have spent enough time in Jefferson City to know better,” said Ortbals, who works for a Democratic state legislator but was speaking in her personal capacity. “I have watched them speak about protecting life while making lifesaving healthcare less accessible.”

Taxes on healthcare are unusual in the United States but not unprecedented. Most states over-the-counter drugs. Illinois, Missouri’s neighbor, prescription drugs. Delaware, Hawai‘i, New Mexico, and Washington all on services by physicians, dentists, out-of-hospital nursing providers, and medical laboratories.

Critics of the amendment to eliminate income tax in Missouri say it’d be difficult to make up the lost revenue without also imposing taxes on healthcare. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s general revenue budget comes from income taxes, about $8.7 billion in 2026. Failing to make up that revenue could lead to steep cuts in state services.

The proposed tax cut comes at an already precarious time for the state budget. Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe in spending in this year’s budget over concerns of lagging revenues. The state legislature has passed a since 2022, including . Federal covid aid has propped up the budget in recent years, but the that the surplus is dwindling. And the state is projected to in federal Medicaid funding over 10 years due to cuts from President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Proponents of the Missouri income tax proposal, such as of the Show-Me Institute, a conservative think tank, say the cut would in the state, both of which have been flat in recent years. He doubts healthcare would be among the things subject to sales tax. But even if it were, he said, it could be done in ways that wouldn’t target lower-income residents. New Jersey, for example, (excluding reconstructive surgeries), which tend to be performed on wealthier people.

In a statement to 51ÊÓƵ Health News, Kehoe spokesperson Gabby Picard said the governor “will never support extending sales taxes on agriculture, healthcare, or real estate,” noting that the legislature would have to decide what to exempt if the ballot measure passes.

Federal law already prohibits states from imposing taxes on many healthcare services covered by government programs such as Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors, and Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, Picard wrote. More than were insured through those two programs in 2024.

But Jay Hardenbrook, advocacy director for AARP Missouri, argued that raising taxes on healthcare, real estate, and agriculture is the for the amendment, considering the legislature doesn’t need special permission to cut income taxes. He cautioned that because the amendment opens the door to new taxes on anything, it could unleash a “weird feeding frenzy” with special-interest groups lobbying for exemptions.

“Let’s say we do protect prescription drugs from a tax increase; does that mean that the cost of food goes up?” Hardenbrook said.

And if the Missouri measure passes and the legislature exempts healthcare and real estate from new taxes, Hardenbrook worries about cuts to state-funded services like home and community-based care.

“When I talk about taxes going up, and the price of every good and services going up, that’s the best-case scenario,” Hardenbrook said. “The worst-case scenario is that the income tax just goes away, and we just don’t have the money to do the things that we need to do.”

have no income tax, and Washington taxes only capital gains, but of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a progressive think tank, said the way Missouri is going about its elimination is nearly unprecedented. Only Alaska has repealed a broad-based personal income tax that had previously accounted for a significant portion of the state budget, Davis said.

“The situation in Alaska was they struck oil, and they had this gusher of economic activity and tax revenue that resulted from that,” Davis said. “Missouri has not struck oil.”

A 2012 tax cut in Kansas that reduced income taxes for individuals and eliminated them for some types of businesses created a large budget hole, prompting lawmakers there to the cuts five years later.

Tsapelas of the Show-Me Institute said Missouri’s income tax elimination wouldn’t happen overnight but would instead be more akin to in the state: phased in and tied to revenue targets that would shield the state from massive budget gaps.

“It’s not as doom and gloom as some people are worried about,” Tsapelas said.

But Ortbals, the healthcare advocate, said too many Missourians are already delaying medical care because of costs.

“I want a Missouri where young people can afford to stay, where families can afford to grow, where chronic illness does not become financial ruin,” Ortbals said.

This article first appeared on 51ÊÓƵ Health News and is republished here under a .

California lawmakers an expired law that would require the state to identify companies that employ 100 or more people and have employees enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. Nevada has had a similar law in place since 2017, though a proposal for one in Oregon stalled when its legislative session ended in March.

The California bill author, Democratic state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, said she is deeply troubled by what is going to happen when work requirements kick in. According to the state, out of more than on Medi-Cal will be subject to the rule.

“We think this is a bill that’s about fairness,” Smallwood-Cuevas said. “It’s a basic principle that taxpayers deserve transparency about which large employers are shifting their healthcare costs onto the public.”

Large employers that regularly top Nevada’s list, such as Walmart and Amazon, have said that the state included part-time and seasonal workers in their counts and that their full-time hourly employees to qualify for Medicaid.

Walmart spokesperson Katrina Proffitt said that the company offers affordable medical coverage to most employees, including eligible part-time workers, and that most of its plans include no-cost virtual care options.

“Healthcare affordability and access to quality care remain real barriers for many Americans, and Walmart continues to be committed to being part of the solution,” Proffitt said.

The push to name and shame companies reflects dueling narratives about the biggest abusers of the joint state-federal Medicaid program, which reached nearly in government spending in 2024. The Trump administration, led by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, has called out blue states for not doing enough to fight insurer fraud and abuse. State Democratic leaders, meanwhile, are pushing back by calling attention to big employers that don’t offer affordable health benefits, which leaves taxpayers subsidizing healthcare costs for the low-wage workforce.

Some states have considered financial penalties. Democratic New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a bill in June that have at least 50 Medicaid-enrolled employees. Companies with 50 to 249 workers on Medicaid per person, and those with at least 500 will pay $725.

Bills that would have penalized companies with workers enrolled in Medicaid failed in this year.

In Sacramento, California, Democrats want to figure out a way to make large businesses pay for their employees’ health coverage. State lawmakers struck a deal with Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is contemplating a presidential bid as he wraps up his final year in the governor’s office, to explore tax options. Any tax hike would be up to the new governor.

States face of dollars under HR 1, the GOP tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, notably through that requires nondisabled Medicaid enrollees ages 19 to 64 in most states to prove they are working, volunteering, or going to school at least 80 hours a month to keep their coverage.

Yet federal work requirements are projected to increase the number of uninsured people nationwide by more than 5 million by 2034, according to the . Nebraska and Montana have begun enforcing the rule.

One health policy researcher said employer Medicaid reports highlight the lack of affordable healthcare options available to low-wage workers. More than half of adults enrolled in Medicaid who don’t have dependent children already meet the 80-hour-a-month requirement or face challenges that would likely qualify them for an exemption, .

“There’s a whole set of people who are working — they may not satisfy the work requirement provisions, they may not get the exemption that they’re qualified for, and they don’t have access to that employer-sponsored insurance either,” said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University.

Employers Push Back

While employer lists haven’t succeeded in bringing down Medicaid costs, supporters say measuring the burden can be the first step and help lawmakers make the case for further action.

In Nevada, Amazon has employed more Medicaid enrollees than any other company since 2020, according to the state’s report . For state fiscal year 2025, Walmart, the Clark County School District, the state government, and Tesla rounded out the top five.

Employers that the reports are misleading because they have included part-time and seasonal employees. The state’s includes only full-time employees, plus those who could not be confirmed as either full- or part-time employees.

That came to 4,914 Amazon employees and 3,503 Walmart workers in Nevada on Medicaid in 2025.

There are no penalties for companies on the list.

Amazon said it pays its workers more than double the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage and noted that Medicaid eligibility is based on household income and size rather than an individual’s wage. That means two employees who earn the same pay may have different eligibility depending on whether they have children or live with parents.

“Pointing fingers at Amazon over Medicaid is a red herring,” said spokesperson Alisa Carroll. “What really needs to happen is a significant and large increase in the federal minimum wage — that would be a big boost for American families.”

Nevada Medicaid spent nearly $950 million on healthcare for more than 133,000 full-time employees and more than 140,000 of their dependents. While the total amount spent dipped in fiscal year 2025, the average cost per member per year increased by nearly 17%.

Yvanna Cancela, a former Nevada lawmaker who sponsored the legislation on Medicaid work reports, said the annual reports force an important conversation “about whether or not this is the kind of economy we want and whether or not it is right or just that people who work full-time don’t make enough to have health insurance.”

A Fraying Safety Net

Health researchers say that uninsured people delay or skip and that their children may end up losing coverage, too.

One analysis found that more than were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program this April than in January 2025. California is among the states with the among children.

The loss in healthcare coverage among residents will be compounded by the loss of public food assistance benefits, Smallwood-Cuevas said. is pending in the legislature.

She compared Medi-Cal to a trampoline that has become a “very tattered kind of fishnet” overwhelmed by people falling into it. President Donald Trump’s spending-and-tax law pulls and rips at the safety net, she said.

When people lose food assistance and health benefits, they must choose between paying for medicine and paying for rent, Smallwood-Cuevas said.

“We’re going to see more people in their cars, more people on the street, and a lot more people in the emergency room,” she said. “That is dangerous for all of California.”

This article first appeared on 51ÊÓƵ Health News and is republished here under a .