3 Democrat-led states have rolled back Medicaid access for people lacking permanent legal status
She didn't have legal status, so she couldn't get health insurance and skipped routine exams, relying instead on home remedies and, at times, getting inhalers from Mexico. She insisted on using only her first name for fear of deportation.
Things changed for Maria and many others in recent years
when a handful of Democrat-led states opened up their health insurance programs to low-income immigrants regardless of their legal status
. Maria and her husband signed up the day the program began last year.
'It changed immensely, like from Earth to the heavens,' Maria said in Spanish of Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program. 'Having the peace of mind of getting insurance leads me to getting sick less.'
At least seven states and the District of Columbia have offered coverage for immigrants since mostly 2020. But three of them have done an about-face, ending or limiting coverage for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who aren't in the U.S. legally in California, Illinois and Minnesota.
The programs cost way more than officials had projected at a time when the states are facing multibillion-dollar deficits now and in the future. In Illinois, adult immigrants ages 42-64 without legal status have
lost their health care
to save an estimated $404 million. All adult immigrants in Minnesota
no longer have access
to the state program, saving nearly $57 million. In California, no one will automatically lose coverage, but
new enrollments for adults will stop
in 2026 to save more than $3 billion over several years.
Cuts in all three states were backed by Democratic governors who once championed expanding health coverage to immigrants.
The Trump administration this week shared the home addresses, ethnicities and personal data of all Medicaid recipients
with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. Twenty states, including
California, Illinois and Minnesota
, have sued.
Health care providers told The Associated Press that everything, especially the fear of being
arrested or deported
, is having a chilling effect on people seeking care. And states may have to spend more money down the road because immigrants will avoid preventive health care and end up needing to go to safety-net hospitals.
'I feel like they continue to squeeze you more and more to the point where you'll burst,' Maria said, referencing all the uncertainties for people who are in the U.S. without legal permission.
'People are going to die'
People who run free and community health clinics in California and Minnesota said patients who got on state Medicaid programs received knee replacements and heart procedures, and were diagnosed for serious conditions like late-stage cancer.
CommunityHealth is one of the nation's largest free clinics, serving many uninsured and underinsured immigrants in the Chicago area who have no other options for treatment. That includes the people who lost coverage
July 1
when Illinois ended its Health Benefits for Immigrants Adults Program, which served about
31,500 people
ages 42-64.
One of CommunityHealth's community outreach workers and care coordinator said Eastern European patients she works with started coming in with questions about what the change meant for them. She said many of the patients also don't speak English and don't have transportation to get to clinics that can treat them. The worker spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity to protect patients' privacy.
Health Finders Collective in Minnesota's rural Rice and Steele counties south of Minneapolis serves low-income and underinsured patients, including large populations of Latino immigrants and Somali refugees. Executive director Charlie Mandile said they're seeing patients rushing to squeeze in appointments and procedures before 19,000 people age 18 and older are kicked off of insurance at the end of the year.
Free and community health clinics in all three states say they will keep serving patients regardless of insurance coverage — but that might get harder after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services decided this month
to restrict federally qualified health centers from treating people without legal status
.
CommunityHealth CEO Stephanie Willding said she always worried about the stability of the program because it was fully state funded, 'but truthfully, we thought that day was much, much further away.'
'People are going to die. Some people are going to go untreated,' Alicia Hardy, chief executive officer of CommuniCARE+OLE clinics in California, said of the state's Medicaid changes. 'It's hard to see the humanity in the decision-making that's happening right now.'
A spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Health said ending the state's program will decrease MinnesotaCare spending in the short term, but she acknowledged health care costs would rise elsewhere, including uncompensated care at hospitals.
Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth, a Republican, said the state's program was not sustainable.
'It wasn't about trying to be non-compassionate or not caring about people,' she said. 'When we looked at the state budget, the dollars were not there to support what was passed and what was being spent.'
Demuth also noted that children will still have coverage, and adults lacking permanent legal status can buy private health insurance.
Health care providers also are worried that preventable conditions will go unmanaged, and people will avoid care until they end up in emergency rooms – where care will be available under federal law.
One of those safety-net public hospitals, Cook County Health in Chicago, treated about 8,000 patients from Illinois' program last year. Dr. Erik Mikaitis, the health system's CEO, said doing so brought in $111 million in revenue.
But he anticipated other providers who billed through the program could close, he said, adding: 'Things can become unstable very quickly.'
Monthly fees, federal policies create barriers
State lawmakers said California's Medi-Cal changes stem from budget issues —
a $12 billion deficit
this year, with larger ones projected ahead. Democratic state leaders last month agreed to stop new enrollment starting in 2026 for all low-income adults without legal status. Those under 60 remaining on the program will have to pay a $30 monthly fee in 2027.
States are also bracing for impact from federal policies. Cuts to Medicaid and other programs in the recently signed massive tax and spending bill include a 10% cut to the federal share of Medicaid expansion costs to
states that offer health benefits to immigrants
starting October 2027.
California health officials estimate roughly 200,000 people will lose coverage after the first full year of restricted enrollment, though Gov. Gavin Newsom maintains that even with the rollbacks, California provides the most expansive health care coverage for poor adults.
Every new bill requires a shift in Maria's monthly calculations to make ends meet. She believes many people won't be able to afford the $30-a-month premiums and will instead go back to self-medication or skip treatment altogether.
'It was a total triumph,' she said of Medi-Cal expansion. 'But now that all of this is coming our way, we're going backwards to a worse place.'
Fear and tension about immigration raids are changing patient behavior, too. Providers told the AP that, as immigration raids ramped up, their patients were requesting more virtual appointments, not showing up to routine doctor's visits and not picking up prescriptions for their chronic conditions.
Maria has the option to keep her coverage. But she is weighing the health of her family against risking what they've built in the U.S.
'It's going to be very difficult,' Maria said of her decision to remain on the program. 'If it comes to the point where my husband gets sick and his life is at risk, well then, obviously, we have to choose his life.'
___
Associated Press journalist Godofredo Vasquez in San Francisco contributed to this report. Shastri reported from Milwaukee.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
5 hours ago
- Atlantic
Trump's ‘Gold Standard' for Science Manufactures Doubt
Late last month, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a document detailing its vision for scientific integrity. Its nine tenets, first laid out in President Donald Trump's executive order for ' Restoring Gold Standard Science,' seem anodyne enough: They include calls for federal and federally supported science to be reproducible and transparent, communicative of error and uncertainty, and subject to unbiased peer review. Some of the tenets might be difficult to apply in practice—one can't simply reproduce the results of studies on the health effects of climate disasters, for example, and funding is rarely available to replicate expensive studies. But these unremarkable principles hide a dramatic shift in the relationship between science and government. Trump's executive order promises to ensure that 'federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available.' In practice, however, it gives political appointees—most of whom are not scientists—the authority to define scientific integrity and then decide which evidence counts and how it should be interpreted. The president has said that these measures are necessary to restore trust in the nation's scientific enterprise— which has indeed eroded since the last time he was in office. But these changes will likely only undermine trust further. Political officials no longer need to rigorously disprove existing findings; they can cast doubt on inconvenient evidence, or demand unattainable levels of certainty, to make those conclusions appear unsettled or unreliable. In this way, the executive order opens the door to reshaping science to fit policy goals rather than allowing policy to be guided by the best available evidence. Its tactics echo the 'doubt science' pioneered by the tobacco industry, which enabled cigarette manufacturers to market a deadly product for decades. But the tobacco industry could only have dreamed of having the immense power of the federal government. Applied to government, these tactics are ushering this country into a new era of doubt in science and enabling political appointees to block any regulatory action they want to, whether it's approving a new drug or limiting harmful pollutants. Historically, political appointees generally—though not always—deferred to career government scientists when assessing and reporting on the scientific evidence underlying policy decisions. But during Trump's first term, these norms began to break down, and political officials asserted far greater control over all facets of science-intensive policy making, particularly in contentious areas such as climate science. In response, the Biden administration invested considerable effort in restoring scientific integrity and independence, building new procedures and frameworks to bolster the role of career scientists in federal decision making. Trump's new executive order not only rescinds these Joe Biden–era reforms but also reconceptualizes the meaning of scientific integrity. Under the Biden-era framework, for example, the definition of scientific integrity focused on 'professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities.' The framework also emphasized transparency, and political appointees and career staff were both required to uphold these scientific standards. Now the Trump administration has scrapped that process, and appointees enjoy full control over what scientific integrity means and how agencies review and synthesize scientific literature necessary to support and shape policy decisions. Although not perfect, the Biden framework also included a way for scientists to appeal decisions by their supervisors. By contrast, Trump's executive order creates a mechanism by which career scientists who publicly dissent from the pronouncements of political appointees can be charged with 'scientific misconduct' and be subject to disciplinary action. The order says such misconduct does not include differences of opinion, but gives political appointees the power to determine what counts, while providing employees no route for appeal. This dovetails with other proposals by the administration to make it easier to fire career employees who express inconvenient scientific judgments. When reached for comment, White House spokesperson Kush Desai argued that 'public perception of scientific integrity completely eroded during the COVID era, when Democrats and the Biden administration consistently invoked an unimpeachable 'the science' to justify and shut down any reasonable questioning of unscientific lockdowns, school shutdowns, and various intrusive mandates' and that the administration is now 'rectifying the American people's complete lack of trust of this politicized scientific establishment.' But the reality is that, armed with this new executive order, officials can now fill the administrative record with caveats, uncertainties, and methodological limitations—regardless of their relevance or significance, and often regardless of whether they could ever realistically be resolved. This strategy is especially powerful against standards enacted under a statute that takes a precautionary approach in the face of limited scientific evidence. Some of our most important protections have been implemented while acknowledging scientific uncertainty. In 1978, although industry groups objected that uncertainty was still too high to justify regulations, several agencies banned the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as propellants in aerosol spray cans, based on modeling that predicted CFCs were destroying the ozone layer. The results of the modeling were eventually confirmed, and the scientists who did the work were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Elevating scientific uncertainty above other values gives political appointees a new tool to roll back public-health and environmental standards and to justify regulatory inaction. The result is a scientific record created less to inform sound decision making than to delay it—giving priority to what we don't know over what we do. Certainly, probing weaknesses in scientific findings is central to the scientific enterprise, and good science should look squarely at ways in which accepted truths might be wrong. But manufacturing and magnifying doubt undercuts science's ability to describe reality with precision and fealty, and undermines legislation that directs agencies to err on the side of protecting health and the environment. In this way, the Trump administration can effectively violate statutory requirements by stealth, undermining Congress's mandate for precaution by manipulating the scientific record to appear more uncertain than scientists believe it is. An example helps bring these dynamics into sharper focus. In recent years, numerous studies have linked PFAS compounds —known as 'forever chemicals' because they break down extremely slowly, if at all, in the environment and in human bodies—to a range of health problems, including immunologic and reproductive effects; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, and behavioral changes; and increased risk of prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers. Yet despite promises from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to better protect the public from PFAS compounds, efforts to weaken current protections are already under way. The president has installed in a key position at the EPA a former chemical-industry executive who, in the first Trump administration, helped make regulating PFAS compounds more difficult. After industry objected to rules issued by the Biden administration, Trump's EPA announced that it is delaying enforcement of drinking-water standards for two of the PFAS forever chemicals until 2031 and rescinding the standards for four others. But Zeldin faces a major hurdle in accomplishing this feat: The existing PFAS standards are backed by the best currently available scientific evidence linking these specific chemicals to a range of adverse health effects. Here, the executive order provides exactly the tools needed to rewrite the scientific basis for such a decision. First, political officials can redefine what counts as valid science by establishing their own version of the 'gold standard.' Appointees can instruct government scientists to comb through the revised body of evidence and highlight every disagreement or limitation—regardless of its relevance or scientific weight. They can cherry-pick the data, giving greater weight to studies that support a favored result. Emphasizing uncertainty biases the government toward inaction: The evidence no longer justifies regulating these exposures. This 'doubt science' strategy is further enabled by industry's long-standing refusal to test many of its own PFAS compounds—of which there are more than 12,000, only a fraction of which have been tested —creating large evidence gaps. The administration can claim that regulation is premature until more 'gold standard' research is conducted. But who will conduct that research? Industry has little incentive to investigate the risks of its own products, and the Trump administration has shown no interest in requiring it to do so. Furthermore, the government controls the flow of federal research funding and can restrict public science at its source. In fact, the EPA under Trump has already canceled millions of dollars in PFAS research, asserting that the work is 'no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.' In a broader context, the 'gold standard' executive order is just one part of the administration's larger effort to weaken the nation's scientific infrastructure. Rather than restore 'the scientific enterprise and institutions that create and apply scientific knowledge in service of the public good,' as the executive order promises, Elon Musk and his DOGE crew fired hundreds, if not thousands, of career scientists and abruptly terminated billions of dollars of ongoing research. To ensure that federal research support remains low, Trump's recently proposed budget slashes the research budgets of virtually every government research agency, including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the EPA. Following the hollowing-out of the nation's scientific infrastructure through deep funding cuts and the firing of federal scientists, the executive order is an attempt to rewrite the rules of how our expert bureaucracy operates. It marks a fundamental shift: The already weakened expert agencies will no longer be tasked with producing scientific findings that are reliable by professional standards and insulated from political pressure. Instead, political officials get to intervene at any point to elevate studies that support their agenda and, when necessary, are able to direct agency staff—under threat of insubordination—to scour the record for every conceivable uncertainty or point of disagreement. The result is a system in which science, rather than informing policy, is shaped to serve it.
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
Tuberville says Trump health issues exacerbated by ‘fighting the radicals'
After President Trump was diagnosed with a chronic vein condition, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) suggested the president's health condition could be a result of his efforts in 'fighting the radicals.' 'The pressure on somebody like President Trump right now, not just from outside entities … all over the world but also fighting the radicals in this country,' Tuberville said during a Sunday interview with radio host John Catsimatidis on WABC 770 AM's 'The Cats Roundtable. 'Every day it's almost like a fistfight.' The White House announced Thursday that Trump had been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a condition where leg veins have difficulty sending blood back to the heart. It often results in ankle swelling and is common in people over the age of 70. On the show, Tuberville repeated baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump and claimed that illegal immigrants were voting in droves for Democrats. Tuberville also bashed Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor. 'He's a communist! No police? Are you kidding me?' the Alabama senator exclaimed. Mamdani called for defunding the police in 2020, but vowed not to do so during a June debate. He identifies as a Democratic socialist. Catsimatidis is leading a coalition of wealthy business leaders to back Mayor Eric Adams' bid for re-election as a way to oppose Mamdani, Politico reported in June.
Los Angeles Times
7 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Federal cuts leave Los Angeles County health system in crisis
Los Angeles County's health system, which is responsible for the care of the region's poorest, is careening toward a financial crisis because of cuts from a presidential administration and Republican-led Congress looking to drastically slash the size of government. President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which passed earlier this month, is expected to soon claw $750 million per year from the county Department of Health Services, which oversees four public hospitals and roughly two dozen clinics. In an all-staff email Friday, the agency called the bill a 'big, devastating blow to our health system' and said a hiring freeze had gone into effect, immediately. And the Trump administration's budget for the next fiscal year will likely result in a $200-million cut to the county Department of Public Health, whose responsibilities include monitoring disease outbreaks, inspecting food and providing substance use treatment. 'I'm not going to sugarcoat it. I'm not going to say we survive this,' said Barbara Ferrer, head of the public health department, in an interview. 'We can't survive this big a cut.' Both Ferrer and Department of Health Services head Christina Ghaly warned that the federal cuts will devastate their agencies — and the patients they serve — for years to come. Employee layoffs are likely. In April, the White House announced it was ending infectious disease grants worth billions of dollars, including $45 million that L.A. County was supposed to use to combat the spread of measles and bird flu. California has joined other states in a lawsuit fighting the cuts, and the court has issued a preliminary injunction suspending the cuts. This month, the county public health department lost another $16 million after Trump's bill cut funding for a program educating food stamp recipients about how to buy healthy meals. And there's more to come. The Trump administration's proposed budget for 2026 will be the biggest blow yet, Ferrer warned, yanking $200 million from her department — a 12% cut. 'I'm old. I've been around for a long time,' said Ferrer, whose work in public health dates back to the Reagan administration. 'I've never actually seen this much disdain for public health.' Ferrer said the cuts mean she no longer has enough money for the county's bioterrorism watch program, which monitors for outbreaks that might signal a biological attack. Soon, she said, county officials may have to stop testing ocean water for toxins year round, cutting back to just half the year. 'Like, you want to swim? You want to know that the water is safe where you swim, then oppose these kinds of cuts,' she said. 'That affects everybody who goes to the beach.' Layoffs are likely, said Ferrer. About 1,500 public health staffers are supported through federal grants. More than half the federal money the department receives is funneled to outside organizations, which would likely need to make cuts to stay afloat. A similarly grim cost analysis is underway at the county Department of Health Services, where executives said they expect to lose $280 million this fiscal year because of the bill. 'I can't make a promise that we will be able to avoid layoffs because of the magnitude of the challenges,' said Ghaly. Ghaly said the bill slashed the extra Medicaid money the county typically gets to cover care for low-income patients. They expect many patients might be kicked off Medicaid because of new eligibility and work requirements. The federal government is pulling back on payments for emergency services for undocumented people, meaning the county will have to foot more of the bill. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Department of Health Services officials said they expect to lose $750 million per year by 2028. By then, the agency's budget deficit is projected to have ballooned to $1.85 billion. In an attempt to pump more cash into the system, L.A. County supervisors voted on Tuesday to increase a parcel tax first approved by voters in 2002, which is expected to raise an additional $87 million for the county's trauma care network. After a long debate Tuesday, Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Lindsey Horvath worked to direct $9 million of the parcel tax money to Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital, a private hospital that serves as a critical safety net for South Los Angeles residents who would otherwise find themselves in a medical desert. Without that cash infusion from the county, the cuts in Trump's bill would have put the hospital at risk of closing, since the majority of patients in its emergency room are on Medicaid, said Elaine Batchlor, Martin Luther King's chief executive officer. 'If they've lost their Medicaid coverage, we simply won't get paid for those patients,' she said. Martin Luther King replaced a county hospital that closed after losing national accreditation in 2005 because of serious medical malpractice, landing it the nickname 'Killer King.' 'The fact that that hospital closed in the first place I think is criminal, and I intend to do all I can to protect the integrity of the services,' said Mitchell, whose district includes the hospital and who pushed for it to get a cut of money from the parcel tax increase. Local health providers said that changes at the state level have created additional uncertainty. The state budget for this fiscal year freezes enrollment in Medi-Cal, California's version of Medicaid, for undocumented immigrants ages 19 and older starting in January. Medi-Cal recipients ages 19 to 59 will have to pay a $30 monthly premium beginning July 1, 2027. 'Most families [we serve] are making about $2,400 to $2,600 a month. They're going to have to choose between paying their Medi-Cal fees for a family of four — that's $120 a month — or paying rent or paying for food,' said Jim Mangia, head of St. John's Community Health, who said the cuts will disrupt care for tens of thousands of low-income residents. The St. John's clinic, which gets most of its revenue from Medi-Cal reimbursements, serves more than 120,000 patients a year, most of whom live below the federal poverty line. If the clinic doesn't find a way to replace the lost revenue, Mangia warned, services will have to be reduced. The clinic recently started treating immigrant patients in their homes after realizing they had been skipping appointments because they feared being arrested by federal immigration agents. 'Then what we're looking at is closing several health centers,' said Mangia. 'We're looking at laying off hundreds of staff.' At Venice Family Clinic, a community health center that serves nearly 45,000 patients annually, 80% of patients rely on Medi-Cal. Roughly half the clinic's revenue comes from Medi-Cal reimbursements. Dr. Mitesh Popat, a family physician and head of the clinic, said that federal policy changes — especially more frequent paperwork and added work requirements — will likely push eligible patients off of Medi-Cal. He said the clinic is exploring ways to expand support for patients to navigate the paperwork and keep their coverage. 'This puts a bunch of barriers in the way of people who already have enough challenges in life,' Popat said. 'They're trying to make it, trying to survive, trying to put food on the table.'
