The Trump administration credits its fraud control efforts for the disappearance of millions of people from Obamacare rolls rather than a sharp rise in premiums — a claim disputed by policy experts that glosses over the reality that many more Americans now find themselves without health insurance.

Enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans fell by nearly 3 million this year to about 19.2 million, following steep premium increases by insurers and the Republican-led Congress’ unwillingness to extend more generous premium subsidies. On average, ACA customers pay $178 a month in premium payments this year, a 58% increase from 2025, according to KFF, while their deductibles — the amount consumers must pay annually before insurers pick up their share — have climbed 37% to nearly $3,800 a year.

“These are real people who are now forced to make impossible choices,” said Annalyse Keller, a spokesperson for Keep Americans Covered, a large coalition of lobby organizations for the healthcare industry, including insurers and patient advocacy groups.

But a Department of Health and Human Services report released in June, written mostly by President Donald Trump’s political appointees and allies, asserts that 5.6 million people were fraudulently enrolled in ACA plans in 2025, and that the Trump administration removed 2.9 million of them — the same number as the 2026 drop in enrollment.

There’s little dispute that the ACA suffers from some fraud, as do most government programs. The administration said it has taken actions to tighten the enrollment process to thwart brokers who fraudulently enroll people without their knowledge.

For example, the administration in August 2025 halted a Biden-era initiative that allowed low-income people to sign up for coverage year-round. Regulators also have removed 1.5 million people since 2025 for reasons such as not meeting a requirement to file their taxes over two years or being concurrently enrolled in another health program, such as Medicaid, which is not allowed.

But health policy experts say that the administration is overstating the extent of ACA fraud and that the HHS report relies on debatable assumptions, such as that all sign-ups under the year-round enrollment program for low-income people were potentially fraudulent. ACA enrollment fell off a cliff because of escalating prices for insurance plans, policy analysts say, which the administration’s done nothing to stem.

“The top-level claim” that all the decline in enrollment since 2025 is because of improper or fraudulent enrollees leaving the market “is not remotely credible,” said Matthew Fiedler, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “We know that lots of people have seen higher premiums, and there’s really good evidence that when premiums go up, people drop coverage.”

Healthcare costs are a big concern for voters ahead of November’s midterm elections, and both Democrats and Republicans are trying to spin the issue to their advantage. Democrats argue more needs to be done to make insurance less expensive for consumers, while Republicans are trying to focus on the need to save taxpayer dollars from fraud.

A recent KFF poll found that voters trust Democrats over Republicans to address healthcare costs (37% vs. 26%). The poll also found, though, that 55% of Republican voters consider it extremely important for candidates to address healthcare fraud, more than any other issue, showing that the White House’s effort to shift focus from costs has had some success with its own supporters.

But Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina, questioned whether the fraud narrative will hold up as voters continue to struggle with rising costs.

“It will be cold comfort to the very real persons who could no longer afford coverage and dropped their plans,” he said in an email to KFF Health News.

How We Got Here

Under President Joe Biden, Congress passed a law that included more generous tax subsidies for people enrolled in Obamacare, starting in 2021. Those enhanced subsidies lowered premium payments, with millions qualifying for a large enough tax credit to reduce their monthly payment to zero. The Biden-era law also allowed wealthier households to get assistance.

ACA coverage essentially doubled, from just over 11 million Americans in 2021 to more than 22 million in 2025, according to the HHS report.

Republicans and conservative groups argue that the growth wasn’t driven only by people newly enrolling because of lower premiums. Instead, they say, the enhanced subsidies, along with other Biden-era policies — including easing income verification requirements for some enrollees — invited fraud. Unscrupulous, commission-seeking insurance brokers found it easier to sign people up for coverage, often without their knowledge, while ordinary consumers could more easily fudge their income and qualify for the largest subsidy possible.

The conservative Paragon Health Institute’s president, Brian Blase, wrote in a recent webpost that the HHS report’s conclusion on the scope of improper enrollment is likely an undercount. He remains unconvinced by the arguments that rising premiums are to blame for the sharp drop in ACA enrollment, saying subsidies remain generous for many people.

The Administration’s Current Targets

The debate will continue as more enrollment data emerges from the federal marketplace and the exchanges run by states. Some policy experts — including the consulting group Wakely — expect the year to end with the number of ACA policyholders down by as much as 26% from last year.

Trump’s regulators will likely connect further drops with anti-fraud efforts. The HHS report alleges there are potentially millions more who remain improperly enrolled. The report’s authors noted that some of the administration’s anti-fraud proposals have been blocked by court rulings.

In a video HHS released June 27, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pats Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, on the back for the number of canceled ACA plans so far. Oz threatens potential ACA hucksters: “Don’t walk away from us, run! Because we are going to find you.”

In an email responding to KFF Health News’ questions, CMS spokesperson Christopher Krepich said his agency this summer will block ACA applications made by brokers that lack a Social Security number. By open enrollment this fall, CMS plans to require more identify-proofing when brokers enroll people and will limit a broker’s access to accounts until that person “has been authorized by the consumer to work on their behalf.”

How some suspicious enrollments will be removed is spelled out in emails sent in June to insurance carriers and obtained by KFF Health News.

CMS told insurers that the agency will send them files for ACA accounts it believes are potentially unauthorized. Each flagged consumer account will have used a sales broker to enroll, be in a zero-premium plan, and lack a Social Security or an immigration documentation number — which Kennedy said in the video is a glaring sign of fraud.

Insurers must try to contact the enrollees to verify that they signed up for coverage. After 60 days, insurers must report policies they were unable to verify to CMS, which will cancel them.

Krepich wrote that carriers are cooperating with efforts to investigate accounts with missing or unverified information.

Policy experts, including Fiedler, note that the absence of a Social Security number doesn’t automatically prove fraud. While it could indicate a fake enrollee, a missing Social Security number might also be a simple oversight by the consumer or their broker, for example, or a newborn added to a parent’s account at birth, before they’ve received a number.

“That the administration put it in a report and did not summarily terminate these enrollments suggests they believe there is some mix of different circumstances,” Fiedler said.

The administration report singles out another segment of enrollments as suspicious: very low-income, subsidy-eligible people who shifted to plans that carry no monthly premium, suggesting “fraudulent agents and brokers are moving them to keep gaining commissions and avoid detection.” The report also cites ACA enrollees who file no medical claims as suspicious.

Policy experts question the assumptions behind those concerns.

Younger or lower-income people use healthcare less often, for example, which can explain why they may make no claims — particularly when they must first spend thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to meet high deductibles.

And very low-income people may switch to plans with higher deductibles in exchange for making no premium payment because they struggle to come up with the $50 or $80 monthly share that other plans might require.

“People are hurting for money,” said Florida insurance agent Jason Fine. “I literally have people who can’t afford to pay $15. I would not immediately assume that a person who went from a silver plan to a bronze plan, that it’s fraud,” referring to two types of ACA plans.

Fine said the administration needs to focus on better enforcement of existing rules, saying he has reported to regulators dozens of unscrupulous agents who have switched clients without authorization, yet none were barred from selling ACA policies.

He and other agents continue to push for adding multifactor identification, as banks and other financial institutions use, to the federal ACA marketplace. Some states that run their own exchanges have two-factor authentication or other types of ID verification and have not reported problems with unauthorized switching.

CMS — under both Biden and Trump — has not added two-factor authentication to the federal marketplace, healthcare.gov.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) introduced legislation to require it in June, but its prospects are murky.

“It will help reduce fraud,” said Ronnell Nolan, who leads Health Agents for America, a lobbying group that has long urged CMS to add the feature. Grothman’s legislation, she said, might “encourage CMS to do it themselves.”

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Amanda DeSimone-Shabrack relies on a home healthcare aide to help her high-needs autistic 12-year-old son. Virginia’s Medicaid program covers the assistance, enabling her to work as both an education technology specialist and a professor, run errands, and keep Mason in the home.

That could change. In June, the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion saying federal disability rights laws don’t require states to provide services that allow people with disabilities to remain in their homes rather than institutions.

It’s a sharp reversal from 1999, when a landmark Supreme Court ruling held that unjustified institutionalization constituted discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Previous administrations have relied on that ruling to enforce civil rights for disabled people, but the Trump administration says that long-held interpretation is wrong.

Advocacy groups say legal protections for about 40 million adults and 5 million children who have disabilities could be undermined, and they worry that the new interpretation may herald a return to forced institutionalization.

The stage is also now set for a legal fight between advocates, states, and the federal government. Some states with ongoing lawsuits challenging disability rights requirements are already citing the DOJ opinion in hopes it will help them prevail.

In a case in Texas, for example, some Republican-led states are arguing that a rule instituting a 1973 civil rights law that led to community and home integration of people with disabilities is costly and infringes on states’ rights.

People like DeSimone-Shabrack are especially worried because, they say, the opinion follows a spate of White House and Republican-led initiatives that have already begun eroding hard-won protections for people with disabilities.

“I’m worried. Am I going to have to put him in an institution, and what’s that going to be like for him?” said DeSimone-Shabrack, whose personal home care help was recently reduced from 30 to 18 hours a week by the state. “As he gets older, am I going to be able to care for him without this support?”

The Department of Health and Human Services remains steadfast in enforcing federal civil rights laws, agency spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email.

“Our commitment to ensuring that individuals with disabilities are treated with dignity, afforded equal opportunity, and are able to meaningfully access community services remains unchanged,” she said.

But advocacy groups say the DOJ opinion could have sweeping repercussions. The opinion doesn’t change existing law, but advocates worry that HHS and the DOJ could begin rescinding guidance and regulations that mandate integration for people with disabilities.

They’re concerned that agencies will stop enforcing disability laws that ensure people aren’t unnecessarily institutionalized. HHS, for example, has historically investigated disability discrimination claims at hospitals and in states that get federal funding, enforcing compliance with home and community integration through voluntary agreements. Disability rights experts say those agreements could now be imperiled.

And some states facing financial pressures may roll back Medicaid services that enable people with disabilities to stay in their homes and communities — a trend that’s already happening following last year’s passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cuts a projected $900 billion-plus from the safety net program over a decade.

Democrats are seizing on the opinion, which was released in a DOJ memo, to portray President Donald Trump and Republicans as a threat to people with disabilities. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and other Senate Democrats led the introduction of a resolution calling on the DOJ to rescind the opinion.

“The Trump Administration’s memo is an outrageous attack on the rights and independence of the disability community,” Duckworth said in a statement.

The DOJ didn’t return emails seeking comment.

According to the DOJ’s interpretation, regulations that give disabled people the right to demand certain services for daily living — bathing, mental health counseling, and financial budgeting help, for instance — and that require states to extend community-based services to mentally disabled individuals are unlawful, a view the agency acknowledged “is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts.”

States may have legitimate reason to treat mentally disabled people in institutions, “including resource constraints, capacity limitations in community-based facilities, and safety concerns for both the patient and the community,” the memo reads.

The Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., has long shaped federal policy. And while it remains to be seen how courts will respond to the DOJ, some states seeking to curtail disability protections see the opinion as significant.

Consider the 2024 lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of Texas by Republican-led states arguing that an HHS rule about the integration mandate is unlawful. The lawsuit began with broader claims and 17 state plaintiffs. Following significant advocacy from the disability community, only Texas, Alaska, and Florida remain.

Following the new DOJ interpretation, the states filed documentation to inform the court about the memo as a new and relevant development. Similar documentation citing the memo has been filed in disability rights cases in Florida and New Hampshire, according to The Arc of the United States, a disability advocacy group.

Advocates for people with disabilities say the speed at which plaintiffs are citing the opinion underscores how it may be used to justify the erosion of protections.

“The administration’s attempt to dismantle decades of progress in community integration is alarming and inconsistent with federal disability rights laws and Supreme Court precedent as well as the critical enforcement work of prior administrations,” said Shira Wakschlag, senior executive officer of legal advocacy and general counsel at The Arc.

Forced institutionalization led to human rights violations, segregation, and a eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that included involuntary sterilization.

Exposure of the abuses, legal battles, and an independent living movement caused a major shift toward integration. Fewer than 1% of people with intellectual or developmental disabilities lived in state-run facilities in 2021, down from almost 30% in 1967, according to data from the University of Minnesota’s Residential Information Systems Project, which maintains metrics on such long-term services and supports.

The Trump administration has already taken steps to reverse that trend, advocates say.

Trump signed an executive order last year that addresses homelessness by expanding involuntary treatment and institutionalization, reversing a “housing first” approach championed by the Biden administration.

Much of the special education program office is moving from the Department of Education to HHS, raising concerns among advocates that the administration is reverting to a view that disabilities are a medical issue to be fixed rather than differences that can be accommodated.

And cuts in federal funding for Medicaid, a federal-state insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, also portend fewer resources and services. States have responded by reducing some optional benefits such as home health aides and support. In addition, qualifying for an exemption from the program’s work requirements, which take effect Jan. 1 in most states, will pose significant hurdles for people with disabilities.

The June DOJ opinion, advocates say, could accelerate the shift and result in court rulings that chip away at disability rights.

“While it doesn’t overnight change the law, it’s very troubling and very dangerous,” said Zoe Brennan-Krohn, director of the Disability Rights Program at the American Civil Liberties Union. “It reflects a really deeply held disrespect for disabled people from this administration and a total lack of awareness of the lived experiences of people with disabilities who are living in their homes.”

Data shows there can be benefits to involuntary institutionalization. Relative to those voluntarily admitted, people with psychiatric illness who were involuntarily admitted “experienced greater improvements in symptoms and function,” according to a September 2024 review in Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Deinstitutionalization has created new challenges. More hospitals have been forced to board people with psychiatric illness in emergency rooms because of a dearth of available beds. And moving people into home- and community-based living was supposed to be accompanied by an increase in outpatient care and treatment that never materialized, creating gaps in support.

But advocates for the disabled community say involuntary institutionalization strips people of their autonomy and poses a higher risk of neglect and abuse.

Jennifer Kucera, 57, of Cleveland, spent two years in a nursing home. She has spinal muscular atrophy, a genetic disease that kills motor neurons, leaving her able to move only part of her left arm and her head.

At the institution, she said, she felt bored and trapped and developed intense itching from scabies, which is caused by microscopic mites.

For more than a decade, however, she has lived in an apartment with the help of caregivers who come in the morning to get her dressed and ready and return to put her to bed. She works at a disability rights group, and her care is covered by Medicaid.

“The two years I lived in the nursing home, it was the most horrible time in my life,” said Kucera, who worries about the DOJ opinion on Olmstead. “My future is a shaking floor beneath me. With the stroke of a pen, they could get rid of everything I’ve built for myself.”

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The Host Julie Rovner KFF Health News @jrovner @julierovner.bsky.social Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Enrollment in the federal food stamp program — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP — is down by more than 10% nationally, according to a new report, and in some states by as much as half. Those numbers are falling as states enact changes ordered by the GOP budget bill passed in 2025. The drop is much steeper than was predicted and could portend a similar fate for those on Medicaid, as states prepare to implement many of the same changes ordered for SNAP. 

Meanwhile, amid a rise in reported cases of the gastrointestinal ailment caused by the parasite cyclospora, federal public health officials once again struggle to explain to a confused populace how to stay safe. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico @JoanneKenen @joannekenen.bsky.social Read Joanne's bio. Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico @AliceOllstein @alicemiranda.bsky.social Read Alice's stories. Margot Sanger-Katz The New York Times @sangerkatz Read Margot's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Participation in the nation’s food stamp program is down, with children representing nearly half of those losing benefits, according to a recent analysis. Some states are showing much larger drops than others. The GOP-passed budget law imposes penalties for errors, leaving states spooked about the possibility of losing funding — and suggesting problems ahead for the full rollout of Medicaid work requirements next year.
• President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown is increasing pressure on the health system, in particular on the availability of home-based and long-term care workers — including those who fill critical roles such as serving food and driving patients to medical appointments. Research has shown that the presence of immigrant workers has a protective effect on the health of their charges.
• Responding to revelations that doctors are reaping large payouts from the surprise-billing arbitration process, the Trump administration this week released information showing a spike in such payments and noted the need for changes to the law — without specifying what kind of changes. That law, the No Surprises Act, took effect in 2022 with the primary intention of shielding patients from big bills when they unknowingly receive out-of-network medical care.
• In other news, the Pentagon is imposing testosterone tests for many service members. The cyclospora outbreak continues. And the Trump administration announced plans to withhold Medicaid funding from California and Minnesota over accusations of fraud.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, as part of the “How Would You Fix It?” series.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “The Fake Influencers Selling Wellness on Your Feed,” by Arijeta Lajka, Isabelle Niu, Mark Boyer, James Surdam and Dan T. Peters.

Joanne Kenen: Stat’s “A Most-Wanted Fugitive Appears To Have Been Secretly Working as a Biotech Executive,” by Adam Feuerstein.

Margot Sanger-Katz: NPR’s “Amid Nurse Shortage, a University Rolls Out the Welcome Mat for Men,” by Andrea Hsu.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Roll Call’s “Trump Administration Puts Kibosh on HIV Prevention Funding,” by Ariel Cohen.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “Doctors ‘Cringe’ at Possibility of Documenting Which Medicaid Enrollees Too Sick To Work,” by Sam Whitehead.
• KFF Health News’ “A Deloitte-Run System Denied Medicaid Benefits for Michigan’s Disabled. Now Trump’s Law Piles On,” by Rachana Pradhan, Samantha Liss, and Kate Wells.
• The New York Times’ “Senior Living Facility in Distress as Immigrant Caregivers Are Forced Out,” by Miriam Jordan.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “Medical Billing Arbitration Paid Out $15 Billion to Providers in Surprise Bill Disputes,” by Anna Wilde Mathews and Tom McGinty.

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Taylor Cook Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

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

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

ST. LOUIS — Missouri healthcare advocate Leslie Ortbals and her husband want to start a family, but she worries they can’t afford it. The 27-year-old said she takes 10 medications daily to manage multiple chronic illnesses.

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 already tax over-the-counter drugs. Illinois, Missouri’s neighbor, is the only state to also tax prescription drugs. Delaware, Hawai‘i, New Mexico, and Washington all have taxes 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 restricted about $440 million in spending in this year’s budget over concerns of lagging revenues. The state legislature has passed a series of tax cuts since 2022, including repealing capital gains taxes. Federal covid aid has propped up the budget in recent years, but the state’s auditor recently warned that the surplus is dwindling. And the state is projected to lose about $14 billion 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 Elias Tsapelas of the Show-Me Institute, a conservative think tank, say the cut would spur economic and population growth 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, taxes cosmetic procedures (excluding reconstructive surgeries), which tend to be performed on wealthier people.

In a statement to KFF 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 a third of Americans 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 real reason 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.”

Eight states have no income tax, and Washington taxes only capital gains, but Carl Davis 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 largely repeal 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 recent income tax reductions 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.

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.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/health-care-costs/sales-tax-healthcare-services-missouri-state-amendment-revenue/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2259065&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana is taking aim at California’s Medicaid program for providing housing assistance, food, and other social services to high-need, low-income patients who tend to rack up big healthcare costs and, he argued, strain taxpayer funds.

The Republican blasted California during back-to-back political attacks in May, saying the heavily Democratic state is committing “outrageous fraud” and “stealing” by spending state and federal Medicaid money meant for basic medical treatment on unconventional services such as housing and nutrition assistance, gym memberships, and even tribal prayers and, he claimed, exorcisms.

“The California Medicaid program will pay for herbal medicines, meal deliveries. They’ll pay for housing,” Kennedy said. “I don’t know what housing has to do with healthcare.”

“California, they’re just setting all kind of records,” he added. “They’re wild people.”

Despite criticism from congressional Republicans and growing scrutiny from the Trump administration, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat considering a presidential run, said he’s proud of California’s spending on social services in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. It’s a multibillion-dollar experiment to help medically frail patients meet their housing, food, and other social needs that Newsom says is not only legal but also a more cost-effective and evidence-backed approach to providing healthcare for Californians with complex health conditions. He counters that investing in services outside clinical settings can help people avoid emergency rooms and hospital admissions, improve their long-term health, and ultimately save taxpayers money.

“It’s about whole-person care,” Newsom said, adding that he hopes President Donald Trump’s administration sees California’s leadership and agrees with the “reforms we’re advancing as national best practices.”

Now one of the governor’s marquee health initiatives is at the center of an intensifying partisan battle with Republicans in Washington, D.C., who have moved to rein in billions in healthcare spending on low-income and disabled people across red and blue states. It’s a philosophical divide: Conservatives say social services are a financial strain on Medicaid and shouldn’t be considered healthcare, while liberals argue that investing in prevention ultimately saves money. While experiments proliferated across the country under President Joe Biden, the Trump administration has rescinded federal policy encouraging state Medicaid programs to address health-related social needs.

The Medicaid fight is putting patients in limbo.

Lucy Rodriguez teaches Mexican folk dancing in the town of Hollister, in California’s Central Coast region. She said her life turned around this year once an intensive case manager with Titanium Healthcare, which contracts with health insurers to provide services, began helping her manage her chronic diseases and stay on top of her medical appointments and prescriptions, even picking up free food boxes for her. The 73-year-old is on Medicare and Medi-Cal, which offers more extensive benefits. The low-income health program has helped pay her utility bills, and she was recently approved for home-delivered meals.

“This has been a godsend,” said Rodriguez, who has diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney disease. “I was getting so stressed out and depressed. It’s really hard when you’re on a fixed income. Groceries are so expensive, and with summer, electricity gets even more expensive. But this is really improving my life.”

She worries the Trump administration will cut benefits to low-income older people.

Lucy Rodriguez, an enrollee in California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, has benefited from social services the program covers, including a care manager who helps her manage her diabetes and kidney disease. (Angela Hart/KFF Health News)

Last year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services warned states that federal funding for social services would be determined on a case-by-case basis. CMS spokesperson Christopher Krepich said the agency is not ending current agreements, known as waivers, that grant states temporary permission to provide social services, which are paid for with state and federal dollars. But future applications, for new services or to extend existing initiatives, could be at risk if they veer too far from traditional healthcare.

“Moving forward, CMS will work with states on innovative waivers that address core healthcare needs, as consistent with evidence-based approaches tied to clinical diagnoses and services, to the goal of ultimately improving health outcomes in the Medicaid population,” Krepich said in a statement.

In a further escalation, the Justice Department put out a recent memo allowing states to institutionalize people with disabilities and severe mental illness instead of providing community-based care. Republicans have also targeted states, mostly blue ones, for what they say is a failure to go after waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid. In May, CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz stood alongside JD Vance as the vice president announced the deferral of $1.3 billion in Medicaid money to California over suspicions of fraud.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Republicans are simply trying to score political points while ignoring the healthcare needs of poor people. “The federal government wants to politicize fraud,” Bonta said, “and use it, unfortunately, as a bludgeon and a cajole to beat up on blue states.”

Social Healthcare

Health policy researchers say roughly 80% of health outcomes are linked to socioeconomic, environmental, and behavioral factors, such as housing instability, homelessness, food insecurity, and exposure to violence, whereas 20% is associated with medical care delivered in hospitals and clinics. That evidence fueled the Biden administration’s efforts to tackle social services.

At least 24 states use their own money while drawing federal Medicaid funds for social healthcare experiments. Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Pennsylvania are among those that provide housing and nutrition assistance.

As the Trump administration pulls back on social services, states are rethinking how to fund benefits that have improved preventive care for low-income people. Some have launched new benefits under what’s known as a state plan amendment, a mechanism states use to modify their Medicaid programs that doesn’t need federal waiver approval. Michigan and Minnesota, for example, use this to add recuperative care for homeless patients after hospitalization. These short-term care facilities offer people the opportunity to recover, bridging the gap between hospital discharge and independent living.

This approach “has the advantage of establishing a permanent, statewide benefit that does not require ongoing federal renewals, offering greater stability and predictability,” said Lynn Sutfin, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

Other states, meanwhile, rely on federal waivers, which require renewal every five years, to provide social services. Arizona officials said the state intends to submit a request by the end of September to continue its program to provide housing and other services to homeless patients, or those at risk of homelessness, with a serious mental illness and a chronic health condition or recent incarceration.

“When members have access to stable housing and supportive services, they are more likely to engage in ongoing care and less likely to experience avoidable emergency department visits and inpatient admissions,” said Roberta Harrison, interim director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.

California, which has been the most aggressive state in adopting social services, has taken a two-pronged approach to keep its vast offerings funded past this year. The state is using its authority to make most of its existing social services and benefits permanent in Medi-Cal managed-care coverage. That regulatory maneuver bypasses federal waiver approval — a move that could attract further Republican scrutiny.

But not everything the state offers can be funded without permission from the federal government. As some services are made permanent, the Newsom administration is seeking new waivers to continue other social services, while also adding more.

It’s an ambitious approach that would expand California’s social healthcare experiment. Newsom said he’s worried that the federal government will decline the latest waiver request. “How could you not be with this administration?” he said. “I’m always concerned.”

Rodriguez tests her blood sugar to help manage her diabetes. Conservatives say that spending healthcare funds on nontraditional services such as housing and nutrition assistance is inappropriate, but liberals say it saves money in the long run. (Angela Hart/KFF Health News) Through Medi-Cal, Rodriguez has received help managing medical appointments after arm surgery. State officials say social healthcare provides a more cost-effective approach for people with complex health conditions. (Angela Hart/KFF Health News)

New Front in Healthcare

California offers most of its health-related social services under Biden-era waivers within Medi-Cal, which has a proposed budget of $217 billion. Although there are more than 14 million residents on Medi-Cal, the state has been selective about who gets help from 15 types of social services in its program, called California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal, or CalAIM. Patients with complex needs can also receive help navigating their health and social needs from specialized social workers under a benefit known as enhanced care management.

Since 2022, California has been offering social services, spending nearly $12 billion in joint state and federal money, with the hope of reducing long-term Medi-Cal spending by keeping enrollees out of costly institutions including emergency rooms, jails, nursing homes, and mental health crisis centers.

CalAIM had provided social services to more than 528,000 patients as of September 2025, the most recent state data available. And nearly 453,000 low-income Californians have received intensive case management. Some patients receive both services.

Among the services California is making permanent: Homeless patients can get help finding an apartment, with Medi-Cal paying rental security deposits and six months of rent. Patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease are eligible for home-delivered meals. Asthmatic patients can get mold removed from their homes to control flare-ups. Low-income seniors with disabilities can get a wheelchair ramp installed free of charge. And inmates leaving jail or prison can be connected immediately with primary care, mental health, and substance use treatment.

The social services — especially housing, food assistance, and home modifications — are already demonstrating success in stabilizing the health of the most complex patients, while achieving savings for Medi-Cal through reductions in emergency room visits and hospitalizations and less reliance on institutional care such as nursing homes, according to the state Department of Health Care Services.

In the Central Valley, for instance, Health Plan of San Joaquin CEO Lizeth Granados said CalAIM has helped place homeless patients who were routinely hospitalized into housing. And patients with uncontrolled diabetes saw their blood sugar drop after receiving nutrition counseling and home-delivered meals.

Overall, Granados said, the health plan has seen major improvements in chronic disease management and reductions in hospital stays, dropping to 44 inpatient hospitalizations per 1,000 members since it launched in 2022, down from 61 per 1,000 before CalAIM.

In Orange County, officials with CalOptima Health credited CalAIM housing services for contributing to a nearly 27% drop in unsheltered homelessness. “We’ve been able to expand our street medicine programs, too,” said Yunkyung Kim, the insurer’s chief operating officer.

Around the state, Medi-Cal health insurers said they’re optimistic that CalAIM will continue to save money and improve patient health. Yet, the fate of some services will be decided by the Trump administration.

California has asked CMS to continue enrolling jail and prison inmates in Medi-Cal 90 days before their release to maintain consistent treatment for substance use, mental disorders, or physical conditions, a CalAIM service still in its early stages.

The state has also proposed a new job assistance benefit that counties could opt into to help patients find and retain work in response to upcoming federal work requirements imposed by congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by Trump last summer.

And the state wants to continue its array of traditional healers and natural helpers for Californians with tribal affiliations, including music therapy, dancing, drumming, and referrals to sweat lodges for mental health treatment and substance use recovery. While it covers spiritual services, such as ceremonies, rituals, and herbal remedies, state officials said Medi-Cal does not cover exorcisms.

Already, the Trump administration’s positioning has forced the state to eliminate room-and-board benefits, which is threatening local efforts to provide recovery beds.

The state is cutting short-term post-hospitalization housing, which was meant to prevent hospitals from dumping homeless patients or those at risk of homelessness onto the streets. The CalAIM service providing up to six months of temporary housing and ongoing care is ending at the close of this year. And the state is cutting recuperative care benefits, no longer paying for beds for patients to recover from illness or injury, instead offering only wraparound services.

In San Francisco, these beds have been crucial in reducing overdose deaths, helping transition homeless people off the streets and into housing, and reducing hospital bed usage, said Neal Sheran, a medical director with the city’s Department of Public Health. The city’s health plan operates a sobering center, and recuperative care facilities where patients can recover from hospitalizations.

“We’re concerned,” Sheran said. “Funding for the overnight piece of these programs is really crucial to their success.”

Cuts on the Horizon

Even without federal threats, state budget pressures have strained CalAIM financing. Newsom has proposed reducing funding for social services by $68.3 million this fiscal year. The cut will deepen next year and remain at $150.2 million per year beginning in 2028.

Providers worry that Medi-Cal patients will lose access. And services, such as home-delivered meals and housing assistance, will be further restricted.

“It’s moving us back to the old days where our healthcare system is more expensive and reactive, instead of investing in prevention,” said Anwar Zoueihid, a vice president and the chief strategy officer at the Los Angeles-based Partners in Care Foundation, a CalAIM provider. “It’s contradictory to Make America Healthy Again.”

To save money, the state is tightening eligibility to limit services and reduce inappropriate use. For instance, Medi-Cal patients with food insecurity would no longer be eligible for home-delivered healthy meals without a qualifying condition like diabetes. And a homeless patient would get capped at six months for help finding an apartment.

Some of the biggest providers of CalAIM say services should be continuously evaluated and curtailed if health plans were too permissive. In some cases, food and housing services were given to low-income patients who didn’t necessarily qualify as the highest-need.

“It’s important everybody takes a look with a very sober view at whether we’re truly benefiting people so we’re spending money in the right places,” said Charlie Robinson, the chief health equity officer at L.A. Care, one of the state’s largest Medi-Cal health insurers.

Dorothy Seleski, the Medi-Cal president for Health Net, said the health insurer isn’t deterred by state and federal cuts.

“Regardless of what happens at the federal level, we are committed,” she said. “This is a significant transformation of the healthcare system, and we are already seeing major reductions in avoidable emergency room trips, avoidable hospital admissions, and we’ve closed gaps in preventive care.”

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.

This <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org/medicaid/medicaid-social-services-gavin-newsom-california-republican-criticism/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://kffhealthnews.org">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://kffhealthnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=2256086&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">