Idaho doctor, patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
Advertisement
Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have devastating consequences on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.'
The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants.
Advertisement
The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding.
Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services.
Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program.
The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020.
One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others.
'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote.
Advertisement
The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said.
Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint.
'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
This Isn't Really About Defunding Planned Parenthood — Except It Is
The South Carolina case before the Supreme Court was about whether a woman could sue the state to enforce a provision of Medicaid law. But the implications are much broader. Save Most decisions of the US Supreme Court are not about what news reports say they're about, and Thursday's ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is no exception. The dispute isn't really about whether states can defund Planned Parenthood. It's about whether a patient can sue to enforce a previously obscure provision of the Medicaid Act. Except, of course, the case is about whether states can defund Planned Parenthood, and everybody knows it. And whatever side one takes on that hot-button issue, there's reason to be concerned about the implications. Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Supreme Court reframes Medicaid patients' rights
The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed low-income patients' rights to chose their health providers while giving conservative-led states a bigger opening to exclude Planned Parenthood affiliates from their Medicaid programs. The big picture: The 6-3 decision by the court's conservative majority potentially adds more obstacles to care, on top of financial barriers or poor health, and comes as Congress debates major changes to Medicaid that could cause millions of people to lose health coverage. While the arguments before justices were narrow in scope, the ruling has huge ramifications for women trying to access reproductive care. Medicaid covers 1 in 5 women of child-bearing age and is the biggest source of coverage for women with low incomes, covering more than 4 in 10, per KFF. The latest: Justices ruled Medicaid patients in South Carolina couldn't sue under a civil rights law to choose their provider after the governor excluded Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program in 2018 because it provided abortion care. Shutting the organization out of Medicaid has been a longtime priority of conservative politicians — and is one of the policy changes in the Republican budget bill now before Congress. Such moves not only curtail abortion access but place restrictions on other care the clinics provide, including for sexually transmitted infections and cancer screening, birth control and mental health services. Patient choices already are limited because, as KFF notes, many states require Medicaid beneficiaries to enroll in managed care plans with defined network of providers. Federal law states they can go out of network for family planning. But Thursday's ruling effectively cuts them off from enforcing their right to choose a provider. What they're saying:"This case fits within a pattern of anti-abortion lawmakers and governors seeking to weaponize their authority and overreach into constitutionally and federally protected spaces to deny not only abortion rights, but any other type of reproductive health care that they themselves personally disagree with," said Michele Bratcher Goodwin, co-faculty director at Georgetown's O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. Planned Parenthood said more than 1 million South Carolinians receive health care services through the Medicaid program, and approximately 5% of those recipients sought sexual and reproductive health care services. "Today's decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crisis," Paige Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said in a statement. The other side:"By rejecting Planned Parenthood's lawfare, the Court not only saves countless unborn babies from a violent death and their mothers from dangerously shoddy 'care,' it also protects Medicaid from exposure to thousands of lawsuits from unqualified providers that would jeopardize the entire program," Katie Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump administration restores funds for HIV prevention following outcry
The Trump administration has lifted a freeze on federal funds for HIV prevention and surveillance programs, officials said, following an outcry from HIV prevention organizations, health experts and Democrats in Congress. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health received notice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday that it had been awarded nearly $20 million for HIV prevention for the 12-month period that began June 1 — an increase of $338,019 from the previous year. 'Let's be clear — the Trump administration's move to freeze HIV prevention funding was reckless, illegal and put lives at risk,' said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) in a statement. 'I'm relieved the CDC finally did the right thing — but this never should have happened.' The CDC didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Friedman and other advocates for HIV prevention funding sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last month, warning that proposed cuts to these programs would reverse years of progress combating the disease and cause spikes in new cases — especially in California and among the LGBTQ+ community. The letter cited estimates from the Foundation for AIDS Research, known as amfAR, suggesting the cuts could lead to 143,000 additional HIV infections nationwide and 127,000 additional deaths from AIDS-related causes within five years. Los Angeles County, which stood to lose nearly $20 million in annual federal HIV prevention funding, was looking at terminating contracts with 39 providers. Experts said the dissolution of that network could result in as many as 650 new cases per year — pushing the total number of new infections per year in the county to roughly 2,000. 'Public Health is grateful for the support and advocacy from the Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles County Congressional delegation, and all of our community based providers in pushing CDC to restore this Congressionally approved funding,' a spokeswoman for the county's health department said. 'Looking forward, it is important to note that the President's FY26 budget proposes to eliminate this funding entirely, and we urge our federal partners to support this critical lifesaving funding,' she said.
