Katheryn Houghton, Author at KFF Health News https://kffhealthnews.org Wed, 08 Apr 2026 14:36:19 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5 https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Katheryn Houghton, Author at KFF Health News https://kffhealthnews.org 32 32 161476233 This Northern Cheyenne Doula Was About To Start Getting Paid — Then Medicaid Cuts Hit https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/doula-care-indigenous-health-medicaid-cuts-montana-tribe/ Tue, 07 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000 https://kffhealthnews.org/?post_type=article&p=2176418 LAME DEER, Mont. — Misty Pipe had about an hour before her shift began at the post office. She used that time to check in on a new mom who lives a few miles outside this town at the heart of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation.

A mom of seven, Pipe is a doula on the reservation who supports new and expectant parents. She does that work free, around her day job. That’s because in this town of about 2,000 people, the closest hospital that delivers babies is 100 miles away.

“Women need this help,” Pipe said.

Doulas ready parents for childbirth, support their deliveries, and can be a steady presence in a baby’s first months. Studies link their work with lower rates of costly birth and postpartum complications — especially in hard-to-reach places like Lame Deer.

But that help can be scarce. As Pipe put it: “Doula doesn’t pay the bills around here.”

Things were supposed to change this year. Montana was set to join at least 25 other states that reimburse doulas through their Medicaid programs to ease gaps in care. Montana lawmakers approved the payments last year, authorizing up to $1,600 per pregnancy. Pipe hoped that money would give her the chance to leave her post office job one day to help more parents.

But the state Department of Public Health and Human Services postponed adding doula services to its Medicaid program in late March, citing a budget shortfall driven in part by higher-than-expected Medicaid costs.

“DPHHS will not be moving forward with the implementation of doula services in the Montana Medicaid benefit package at this time,” department spokesperson Holly Matkin told KFF Health News.

The news caught Pipe by surprise — she hadn’t heard any updates in a while, but the state had finalized its licensing rules for doulas in January. Last year, she supported three people through their deliveries. She doesn’t have time for much more. That weighs on her. Nearly half the people on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation live in poverty, and the people she helps usually can’t afford to pay a doula.

“I was looking forward to serving more people,” Pipe said. “Now that’s not going to happen anytime soon.”

Charlie Brereton, who heads the health department, told state lawmakers in March that the agency projected a $146.3 million shortfall in federal Medicaid funds for this year. Health officials predict another deficit next year as states feel the effects of Republicans’ massive tax-and-spending law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Signed last year, that law is projected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years.

Matkin said it’s “unclear” whether the agency can authorize doula coverage this year. The deficit will lead the department to seek supplemental funding from state lawmakers. When an agency makes that kind of request for the first year of the state’s two-year budget cycle, Montana law requires it to create a plan to reduce its spending.

Around the country, optional Medicaid services — such as doula support, home health care, and dental work — are at risk of losing funding as states brace for federal Medicaid cuts to hit their bottom lines. Already, lawmakers in Idaho are considering their own reductions to Medicaid to balance the state’s budget. Missouri officials proposed cutting tens of millions of dollars in services for people with disabilities.

In Montana, doula services are unlikely to be the only Medicaid cutbacks announced. “All options are on the table,” Brereton told lawmakers in March.

Stephanie Morton, executive director of Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies-The Montana Coalition, said more than half of Montana’s counties are designated as maternity care deserts.

“Budget cuts will continue to diminish the limited services families rely upon in these counties,” said Morton, whose nonprofit had advocated for doula Medicaid reimbursement. “This decision feels like the first of many rollbacks and cuts Montanans will face.”

Laboring Alone

At the check-in just outside town, Pipe handed a waking newborn to his mother and unwrapped a new swaddle for the child. This would have to be a quick visit — she was already late for work.

The mother, Britney WolfVoice, held her newborn son as her three young daughters stood close by. Pipe has been with WolfVoice and her husband for the birth of their newborn son and youngest daughter.

She helped them create delivery plans. For the birth of WolfVoice’s youngest daughter a few years ago, Pipe brought cedar oil, a sacred plant used for prayer, and calmed WolfVoice through her contractions. For the recent birth of her son, when hospital backlogs delayed WolfVoice’s induction, Pipe encouraged her to advocate for an earlier appointment by routinely calling the hospital. Doctors had recommended the procedure to avoid complications.

“Misty is one person who I can count on to be my voice,” WolfVoice said.

If someone needs a ride to a doctor’s appointment, Pipe takes time off work to drive them. If a client goes into labor when Pipe’s at the post office, she texts two other free doulas she knows of on the reservation to see if they have time to help until her shift ends. But they also have day jobs.

Pipe herself has ridden that 100-mile stretch between home and the hospital in labor and in the back of an ambulance. Twice, she gave birth in emergency rooms along the way. In one of her pregnancies, she miscarried at home and couldn’t get a doctor appointment for days.

The long distance to receive care often meant her husband had to stay behind to tend to their other children at home.

“I labored alone so many times,” Pipe said. “I just want to make sure no one’s alone.”

Rural maternity care deserts are a national problem, especially as labor and delivery units continue to shutter. In many tribal communities, a lack of care coincides with long-standing inequities caused by centuries of systematic discrimination.

Predominantly Indigenous communities face the longest distances to obstetric facilities compared with all other racial and ethnic groups, according to a 2024 report from the March of Dimes. That’s part of the reason Indigenous women are far more likely to get sick from pregnancy and at least twice as likely to die as white women.

Indigenous patients are supposed to be guaranteed access to health care through the federal Indian Health Service. But the chronically underfunded agency has severe gaps. A small fraction of its hospitals and clinics offer labor and delivery. As of 2024, only seven states had either an IHS or tribal birth facility, the agency reported. To help fill in those shortfalls, Medicaid is the main source of health coverage for many Native Americans, according to KFF.

Even where care exists, Native women can experience a distrust of health systems, according to Pipe and other health workers. The U.S. government has a long history of removing children from tribal homes and forcing Native American women to undergo sterilization.

Emily Haozous of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation’s Southwest center has studied premature deaths among Native Americans. A member of the Fort Sill-Chiricahua-Warm Springs-Apache Tribe, Haozous said data on maternal health disparities in pregnancy and postpartum often misses a key point.

“It’s not that women are just not taking care of themselves,” Haozous said. “The system is set up for them to not have access to care.”

On top of funding cuts, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will add more frequent eligibility checks and work requirements to access Medicaid. Those changes, when they take effect later this year and next, will lead an estimated 5.3 million people to lose their coverage by 2034.

Native Americans are exempt from some of the law’s new rules, such as the work requirements. Even so, tribal patients can get tangled in administrative hurdles. That includes struggling to enroll in the first place or to prove their tribal status. A full-time college student, WolfVoice said that when she got pregnant, it took about six months to enroll in the state’s Medicaid program.

Despite Montana’s long struggle with a backlogged Medicaid system, state officials aim to implement work requirements this summer, well before the federal deadline.

Moccasins on the Ground

As Pipe pulled into her driveway one day after a full shift at the post office, her kids ran to her. She was also greeted by Felicia Blindman, a 63-year-old public health nurse who used to work for the tribe. The two sat in lawn chairs into the night and brainstormed ways to connect more women to services — such as free prenatal classes.

Pipe’s four youngest children played around them. Her 14-year-old daughter is already certified as an Indigenous doula. Her 8-year-old daughter has begun helping Pipe pick up prescriptions for moms without a car who live out of town. Pipe hopes one day they could do that work full-time, if they want to.

Because of the lost Medicaid payment, Pipe said, she will continue to balance her job with her birth work, even if it means persuading more people to become doulas, such as family and respected community members, to cover more ground.

“It’s not going to stop me from training more birth workers, more young people, more aunties,” Pipe said. “For now, I guess it’s more about grassroots, moccasins on the ground, helping each other.”

She said that means telling pregnant people who walk into the post office she’s there to help if they need support. At least, as long as she’s not at her day job.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
2176418
Seis científicos federales expulsados por el gobierno de Trump hablan del trabajo que quedó sin terminar https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/seis-cientificos-federales-expulsados-por-el-gobierno-de-trump-hablan-del-trabajo-que-quedo-sin-terminar/ Sun, 08 Mar 2026 12:20:10 +0000 https://kffhealthnews.org/?post_type=article&p=2166315 Marc Ernstoff, un doctor que ha sido pionero en la investigación y los tratamientos de inmunoterapia para pacientes con cáncer, dijo que su trabajo como científico federal se volvió insostenible bajo el gobierno de Trump.

Philip Stewart, un investigador de Rocky Mountain Laboratories enfocado en enfermedades transmitidas por garrapatas, dijo que se jubiló dos años antes de lo planeado debido a obstáculos que hacían demasiado difícil hacer bien su trabajo.

Alexa Romberg, científica dedicada a la prevención de adicciones enfocada en el tabaco, dijo que “perdió gran parte” de la investigación que supervisaba cuando desaparecieron las subvenciones federales.

“Si uno piensa en la agenda de ‘Make America Healthy Again’ y en la prevención de enfermedades crónicas”, dijo Romberg, “el consumo de tabaco es el principal factor que contribuye a la enfermedad y la muerte temprana que podemos prevenir”.

Los Institutos Nacionales de la Salud (NIH, por sus siglas en inglés) son el mayor financiador público de investigación biomédica en el mundo. Su misión es “mejorar la salud, prolongar la vida y reducir las enfermedades”.

Durante décadas, el valor de los NIH ha sido quizá una de las pocas cosas en las que todos en Washington han estado de acuerdo. Los legisladores han aumentado su financiamiento de forma constante.

“Estoy muy complacido de estar asociado con los NIH”, dijo el senador Roy Blunt, republicano de Missouri y uno de los mayores defensores de la institución en el Congreso, en 2022, poco antes de retirarse.

Pero durante el segundo mandato del presidente Donald Trump, los NIH han visto un éxodo masivo de científicos como Ernstoff, Stewart y Romberg. Datos federales muestran que los NIH perdieron alrededor de 4.400 personas, más del 20% de su fuerza laboral.

Los científicos dicen que estas salidas afectan la capacidad de Estados Unidos para responder a brotes de enfermedades, desarrollar tratamientos para enfermedades crónicas y enfrentar los problemas de salud pública más urgentes del país.

“Las personas sufrirán las consecuencias”, señaló Sylvia Chou, científica que trabajó en el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer (NCI, por sus siglas en inglés) en Rockville, Maryland, durante más de 15 años antes de irse en enero. “Habrá muchos más problemas de salud e incluso muertes, porque necesitamos la ciencia para ayudar a las personas a estar sanas”.

Por qué se están yendo

KFF Health News entrevistó a media docena de científicos que dijeron que dejaron sus trabajos años antes de lo planeado debido a la agitación de 2025.

Hace apenas unos años, la fuerza laboral de los NIH crecía de forma constante, pasando de unos 17.700 empleados en el año fiscal 2019 a alrededor de 21.100 en el año fiscal 2024, según datos federales. Con Trump, ese crecimiento se redujo.

El gobierno de Trump implementó una campaña para sacar a trabajadores del gobierno considerados desleales al presidente. Algunas personas fueron despedidas o presionadas para irse. Los funcionarios también establecieron un congelamiento de contrataciones que duró varios meses.

La fuerza laboral de los NIH cayó a unas 17.100 personas, su nivel más bajo en al menos dos décadas. La mayoría de quienes se fueron no fueron despedidos. Aproximadamente 4 de cada 5 se jubilaron, renunciaron, terminaron sus nombramientos o encontraron otro trabajo, según datos federales.

Los científicos observaron con preocupación cómo a sus colegas se les obligaba a cancelar fondos de investigación para temas que el gobierno de Trump consideraba prohibidos. En los laboratorios de los NIH, el trabajo rutinario se detuvo.

También dijeron que enfrentaron grandes retrasos para acceder a equipos y suministros. Las autorizaciones de viaje se retrasaban o se negaban.

Al personal de la agencia se le ordenó no comunicarse con nadie fuera de la institución. Cuando volvieron a poder hacerlo, se les impusieron más restricciones sobre lo que podían presentar al público.

Y bajo la agenda del gobierno para eliminar la “diversidad, equidad e inclusión”, se sacaron referencias a minorías o a la equidad en salud en investigaciones financiadas por los NIH. También se eliminaron iniciativas destinadas a proteger la salud de los estadounidenses.

Entre ellas: apoyo a científicos que comienzan su carrera, estrategias para prevenir daños por VIH o por adicciones, y estudios sobre cómo los sistemas inmunológicos de distintas poblaciones responden a enfermedades.

En un artículo de opinión publicado en enero, Chou y Romberg estuvieron entre un grupo de científicos de los NIH que dijeron que renunciaron en protesta contra un gobierno “que trata la ciencia no como un proceso para construir conocimiento, sino como un medio para impulsar su agenda política”.

Una “destrucción fundamental”

Emily Hilliard, vocera del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS por sus siglas en inglés), dijo en un comunicado que la agencia cambió su enfoque para priorizar la investigación basada en evidencia en lugar de “agendas ideológicas”.

Agregó que los NIH siguen contratando a “los mejores y más brillantes” y avanzando en ciencia de alta calidad para “lograr avances para el pueblo estadounidense”. El departamento supervisa los NIH.

“Era necesario un reinicio importante. El HHS ha tomado medidas para simplificar las operaciones, reducir duplicaciones y volver a los niveles de empleo previos a la pandemia”, dijo Hilliard.

Sin embargo, muchos científicos dudan de que los NIH aún puedan cumplir su misión pública.

“Ha habido una destrucción fundamental”, observó Daniel Dulebohn, investigador que pasó casi dos décadas en Rocky Mountain Laboratories en Hamilton, Montana. “Va a tomar muchísimo tiempo reconstruirlo”.

Dulebohn dejó el Instituto Nacional de Alergias y Enfermedades Infecciosas (NIAID, por sus siglas en inglés) en septiembre.

Analizaba cómo interactúan moléculas y proteínas en enfermedades como la enfermedad de Lyme, el VIH y el Alzheimer, información clave para desarrollar nuevos tratamientos. Dulebohn era una fuente para científicos que enfrentaban dificultades para entender, por ejemplo, si ciertas moléculas podían prevenir infecciones o responder a un tratamiento.

Ahora él y su esposa viven de sus ahorros en México con sus tres niños pequeños. Dulebohn está pensando en qué hará después. Una opción: bienes raíces.

El experto en análisis bioquímico operaba equipos que pocas personas saben usar. Su salida reduce aún más los recursos en esta especialidad.

“Está claro cuando alguien crea un medicamento y se cura una enfermedad. Pero nunca sabes cuáles podrían haberse curado”, dijo Dulebohn. “No sabemos lo que hemos perdido”.

Laura Stark, profesora asociada en la Universidad Vanderbilt, especializada en la historia de la medicina y la ciencia, dijo que eliminar personal de los NIH impulsará un cambio hacia la investigación del sector privado, con fines de lucro, “en lugar de realmente ayudar a la salud de los estadounidenses”.

“Simplemente ya no tenemos personas que puedan dedicarse a investigar por el bien público”, señaló Stark.

De apoyo a escrutinio

Stark dijo que las bases de los NIH actuales se establecieron durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, cuando el gobierno de Estados Unidos lideró un esfuerzo para producir en masa el antibiótico penicilina y salvar a soldados de infecciones.

La agencia ha tenido un papel central en descubrimientos y tratamientos que salvan vidas, incluidos avances para afecciones del corazón, cáncer, diabetes y enfermedades genéticas como la fibrosis quística.

Con apoyo bipartidista en el Congreso, el presupuesto de los NIH ha crecido con el tiempo y alcanza los $48,7 mil millones para el año fiscal 2026.

Los NIH destinan aproximadamente el 11% de su presupuesto a científicos de la agencia. Alrededor del 80% se otorga a universidades y otras instituciones.

El dinero puede existir, pero las personas encargadas de asignarlo ya no están, dijeron los científicos.

Jennifer Troyer dejó el Instituto Nacional de Investigación del Genoma Humano (NHGRI, por sus siglas en inglés) en Bethesda, Maryland, el 31 de diciembre, después de trabajar en varios cargos en los NIH durante unos 25 años.

La división que dirigía revisa investigaciones y supervisa subvenciones a organizaciones que estudian el genoma humano —el conjunto completo de genes de una persona— y cómo puede usarse para mejorar la salud.

Dijo que el año pasado su división perdió cerca de dos tercios de su personal.

“Realmente no hay suficientes personas allí ahora para hacer el trabajo”, dijo Troyer. “Es un daño extremo”.

Decidió renunciar el día en que Trump emitió una orden ejecutiva en agosto que prohibía el uso de subvenciones para “financiar, promover, fomentar, subsidiar o facilitar” lo que describió como “valores antiestadounidenses”. También permitió que funcionarios políticos revisaran todas las decisiones de financiamiento.

“Yo no estaba dispuesta a dirigir una división bajo esas órdenes”, añadió Troyer. Aún no sabe cuál será su próximo paso profesional.

“Ya es suficiente”

Incluso investigaciones alineadas con las prioridades declaradas del gobierno se han visto afectadas.

El secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., ha dicho que el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la enfermedad de Lyme —una infección transmitida por garrapatas que puede causar síntomas debilitantes de por vida— son una prioridad.

En diciembre, Kennedy dijo que el gobierno durante mucho tiempo ha ignorado a pacientes afectados por esta enfermedad, que se diagnostica cada año a casi 500.000 personas en el país.

Ese mismo mes, Stewart, quien dedicó su carrera a estudiar garrapatas y la enfermedad de Lyme como científico federal, se jubiló antes de tiempo. Había trabajado para el gobierno durante 27 años.

Stewart dijo que los recortes de personal y los retrasos en los viajes frenaron sus esfuerzos por confirmar hasta dónde se habían extendido las garrapatas que transmiten Lyme, información que podría ayudar a los doctores a reconocer síntomas más rápido.

Stewart fue el científico principal en una investigación publicada el año pasado que identificó una garrapata de patas negras —también conocida como garrapata del venado— en Montana. Fue la primera vez que se confirmó en ese estado la garrapata más conocida por transmitir la enfermedad.

Él quería determinar si el hallazgo era un caso aislado o una señal de que la especie estaba expandiéndose.

“El consejo que hemos recibido es: ‘Bajen la cabeza debajo de la línea de la trinchera. No miren. No se asomen y se arriesguen a que les disparen’”, dijo Stewart. “¿En qué momento dices finalmente: ‘Ya es suficiente’ y ‘Ya no estamos siendo efectivos’?”

Los científicos dijeron que quienes comienzan sus carreras están buscando empleo y capacitación en el extranjero.

Los que quieren quedarse en Estados Unidos enfrentan dificultades para ser contratados debido a los recortes en subvenciones de investigación y la incertidumbre sobre el financiamiento.

En conjunto, los expertos que estudian enfermedades advierten que Estados Unidos podría perder su posición histórica como líder mundial en investigación biomédica, con un impacto devastador.

Stanley Perlman, virólogo de la Universidad de Iowa que estudia enfermedades infecciosas pediátricas, dijo que ese liderazgo le dio al país más que prestigio: atrajo a científicos de todo el mundo para estudiar enfermedades que afectan especialmente a las personas aquí.

No hay garantía de que la investigación que se ha frenado se retome en otro lugar, ya sea en la industria privada o en otros países. Y si otros realizan ese trabajo, los estadounidenses podrían enfrentar retrasos para ver los beneficios, dijo.

“Si no tienes acceso a cómo se hizo el trabajo”, agregó Perlman, “es más difícil reproducirlo y adaptarlo para tu país”.

La editora de datos de KFF Health News, Holly K. Hacker, contribuyó con este artículo.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
2166315
The NIH Workforce Is Its Smallest in Decades. Here’s the Work Left Behind. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/the-week-in-brief-nih-workforce-cuts-trump-administration-hhs/ Fri, 06 Mar 2026 19:30:00 +0000 https://kffhealthnews.org/?p=2165291&post_type=article&preview_id=2165291 The National Institutes of Health has lost thousands of workers since President Donald Trump began his second term. 

Among them: scientists who pioneered cancer treatments, researched tick-borne diseases, or worked to prevent tobacco use. 

We spoke to a half dozen scientists who said they left the agency because of the tumult of 2025 and talked about the work they left behind. They say the exodus from the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research will harm the nation’s ability to respond to illness. 

“People are going to get hurt,” said Sylvia Chou, a scientist who worked at the National Cancer Institute in Rockville, Maryland, for over 15 years before she left in January. “There’s going to be a lot more health challenges and even deaths, because we need science in order to help people get healthy.” 

The NIH consists of 27 institutes and centers, each with a different focus. Major research areas include cancer; infectious diseases; aging-related diseases such as Alzheimer’s; heart, lung, and blood diseases; and general medicine. 

Over decades, the value of the NIH may be the one thing everyone in Washington has agreed on. Lawmakers have routinely boosted its funding — even for this fiscal year, in defiance of the White House, which had proposed cutting the agency’s funding by 40%. 

Our reporting showed that, nonetheless, the Trump administration’s actions to curb certain research and push out scientists perceived as disloyal are having far-reaching repercussions. The NIH workforce stands at about 17,100 people — its lowest level in at least two decades. 

Scientists across specializations outlined challenges that made them decide to leave. They included delays in accessing research equipment and supplies, the termination of funds for topics the Trump administration deemed off-limits, and delayed or denied travel authorizations. 

Even research aligned with the Trump administration’s stated priorities has suffered, they said. They questioned whether the NIH could continue to fulfill its mission to “enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness.” 

“It’s clear when someone comes out with a drug and now you’ve just cured a disease. But you never know which ones could have been cured,” said Daniel Dulebohn, a researcher who spent nearly two decades at Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana. “We don’t know what we’ve lost.” 

Dulebohn left the NIH’s infectious disease and allergy institute in September and is considering leaving the scientific field altogether.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
2165291
Six Federal Scientists Run Out by Trump Talk About the Work Left Undone https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/nih-national-institutes-of-health-scientist-exodus-disease-treatments/ Fri, 06 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000 https://kffhealthnews.org/?post_type=article&p=2162343 Marc Ernstoff, a physician who has pioneered immunotherapy research and treatments for cancer patients, said his work as a federal scientist proved untenable under the Trump administration.

Philip Stewart, a Rocky Mountain Laboratories researcher focused on tick-borne diseases, said he retired two years earlier than planned because of hurdles that made it too challenging to do his job well.

Alexa Romberg, an addiction prevention scientist focused on tobacco, said she “lost a great deal” of the research she oversaw when federal grants vanished.

“If one is thinking about the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ agenda and the prevention of chronic disease,” Romberg said, “tobacco use is the No. 1 contributor to early morbidity and mortality that we can prevent.”

The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, with a mission statement to “enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness.”

Over decades, the value of the NIH may be the one thing everyone in Washington has agreed on. Lawmakers have routinely boosted its funding.

“I’m so pleased to be associated with NIH,” former Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican and one of the NIH’s biggest champions in Congress, said in 2022 shortly before he retired.

But in President Donald Trump’s second term, the NIH has seen an exodus of scientists like Ernstoff, Stewart, and Romberg. Federal data shows the NIH lost about 4,400 people — more than 20% of its workforce. Scientists say the departures harm the U.S.’ ability to respond to disease outbreaks, develop treatments for chronic illnesses, and confront the nation’s most pressing public health problems.

“People are going to get hurt,” said Sylvia Chou, a scientist who worked at the National Cancer Institute in Rockville, Maryland, for over 15 years before she left in January. “There’s going to be a lot more health challenges and even deaths, because we need science in order to help people get healthy.”

Why They’re Leaving

KFF Health News interviewed a half dozen scientists who said they quit their jobs years before they’d planned to because of the tumult of 2025.

Only a few years ago, the NIH workforce was steadily growing, from roughly 17,700 employees in fiscal year 2019 to around 21,100 in fiscal 2024, federal data shows. Under Trump, those gains have been slashed.

The Trump administration enacted a campaign to purge government workers perceived as disloyal to the president. People were fired or encouraged to leave. Officials instituted a months-long freeze on hiring.

The NIH workforce has plummeted to about 17,100 people — its lowest level in at least two decades. Most who left weren’t fired. Roughly 4 in 5 either retired, quit, had appointments that expired, or transferred to a different job, according to federal data.

Scientists watched with dread as their colleagues were forced to terminate research funds for topics the Trump administration deemed off-limits. Across NIH labs, routine work stalled. They said they faced major delays in accessing equipment and supplies. Travel authorizations were slowed or denied.

Agency staff were instructed not to communicate with anyone outside the agency. When they could talk again, they were subject to greater constraints on what they could present to the public.

And under the administration’s agenda to eliminate “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” references to minorities or health equity were purged from NIH-funded research. Initiatives to protect Americans’ health were gutted. Among them: support for early-career scientists, ways to prevent harm from HIV or substance use, and efforts to study how different populations’ immune systems respond to disease.

In a January op-ed, Chou and Romberg were among a group of NIH scientists who said they resigned in protest of an administration “that treats science not as a process for building knowledge, but as a means to advance its political agenda.”

A ‘Fundamental Destruction’

Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement that the agency had shifted to focus on evidence-based research over “ideological agendas.” She said the NIH is still recruiting “the best and brightest” and advancing high-quality science to “deliver breakthroughs for the American people.” The federal health department oversees NIH.

“A major reset was overdue. HHS has taken action to streamline operations, reduce redundancies, and return to pre-pandemic employment levels,” Hilliard said.

Many scientists, however, question whether the NIH can still fulfill its public mission.

“There’s been a fundamental destruction,” said Daniel Dulebohn, a researcher who spent nearly two decades at Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana. It’s going to “take a very, very long time to rebuild.”

Dulebohn left the NIH’s infectious disease and allergy institute in September.

He analyzed how molecules and proteins interact in diseases, such as Lyme disease, HIV, and Alzheimer’s — information that’s key for new treatments. Dulebohn was a resource for scientists when they hit walls trying to understand, for example, if molecules could prevent infection or react to a treatment.

Now he and his wife are living off savings in Mexico with their three young kids. Dulebohn’s thinking about what’s next. One option: real estate.

The expert in biochemical analysis operated equipment few others know how to use. His exit further depletes resources in the specialty.

“It’s clear when someone comes out with a drug and now you’ve just cured a disease. But you never know which ones could have been cured,” Dulebohn said. “We don’t know what we’ve lost.”

Laura Stark, a Vanderbilt University associate professor who specializes in the history of medicine and science, said wiping out NIH staff will propel a shift toward private-industry research, with its profit motives, “as opposed to actually helping American health.”

“We just don’t have people who are now able to pursue research for the public good,” Stark said.

From Support to Scrutiny

Stark said the seeds of the present-day NIH were planted during World War II when the U.S. government spearheaded an effort to mass-produce the antibiotic penicillin to save soldiers from infections.

The agency has played a central role in lifesaving discoveries and treatments — including for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

With bipartisan backing from Congress, the NIH budget has grown significantly over time, sitting at $48.7 billion for fiscal 2026. The NIH allocates roughly 11% of its budget for agency scientists. About 80% is awarded to universities and other institutions.

The money may be there, but the people who get it out the door are not, scientists said.

Jennifer Troyer left the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, on Dec. 31, after working in various positions at the NIH for about 25 years. The division she led reviews research and oversees grants to organizations studying the human genome — or a person’s complete set of genes — and how it can be used to benefit health.

Last year, she said, her division lost about two-thirds of its staff. “There really are not enough people there right now to actually get the work done,” Troyer said. “It’s extreme harm.”

She decided to quit the day Trump issued an executive order in August that prohibited the use of grants to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” what it described as “anti-American values.” It also allowed political appointees to review all funding decisions.

“I wasn’t going to operate a division under those orders,” Troyer said. She hasn’t figured out her next career steps.

‘Enough Is Enough’

Research aligned with the administration’s stated priorities has suffered.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease — a tick-borne infection that can cause debilitating lifelong symptoms — a priority. In December, Kennedy said the government had long dismissed patients burdened with a disease that nearly 500,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with annually.

That same month, Stewart, who had dedicated his career to ticks and Lyme disease as a federal scientist, retired early. He’d worked for the government for 27 years. Stewart said workforce cuts and travel delays stalled his efforts to confirm how far Lyme-carrying ticks had spread — information that could help doctors recognize symptoms sooner.

Stewart was a lead scientist on research published last year identifying a black-legged tick, or deer tick, in Montana. It was the first time the tick best known for transmitting Lyme disease had been confirmed in the state. He wanted to determine if the discovery was a fluke or an indicator that the species was gaining ground.

“The advice we’ve been getting is, ‘Put your head down below the trench line. Don’t look. Don’t peek over and risk getting shot,’” Stewart said. “At what point do you finally say, ‘Enough is enough’ and ‘We’re not being effective anymore’?”

Scientists said those early in their careers are looking abroad for jobs and training. People who want to stay in the U.S. are running into problems getting hired because of cuts to research grants and uncertainty about funding.

Collectively, people studying diseases warn the U.S. could lose its long-held position as the global leader in biomedical research, with devastating impact.

Stanley Perlman, a University of Iowa virologist who studies pediatric infectious diseases, said that title earned the nation more than prestige; it drew top scientists from the world over to the U.S. to study diseases that particularly affect people here.

There’s no guarantee halted research will be picked up elsewhere, whether by private industry or other countries. If others are doing that work, Americans could face delays in seeing benefits, he said.

“If you don’t have access to how the work was done,” Perlman said, “it’s harder to reproduce and adapt it for your country.”

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
2162343
The People — And Research — Lost in the NIH Exodus https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/nih-national-institutes-of-health-resignation-scientist-profiles-brain-drain/ Fri, 06 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000 https://kffhealthnews.org/?post_type=article&p=2162351 ‘No Longer Based on Facts or Truth’

Sylvia Chou, 51, Maryland

Program director, National Cancer Institute

Sylvia Chou specializes in communication between patients and their health care providers, and social media’s role in public health. She joined the federal government in 2007 as a fellow and became a civil servant in 2010.

She left her National Cancer Institute job in January, she said, because the “work is no longer based on facts or truth.”

After President Donald Trump returned to office, Chou said, health communication scientists like her were falsely accused of “essentially doing propaganda work.” The administration’s “anti-DEI hysteria,” she said, referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion, meant research funded by the National Institutes of Health was flagged and scrubbed of references to “equity, vulnerable, underserved, poor, even communities of color, minorities.”

She said the agency’s climate in 2025 brought to mind her childhood in Taiwan, when the island was still ruled by an authoritarian regime.

“I could see the difference between a time when, you know, we have a choral competition and we have to sing the same songs to revere the leader of the country, to suddenly they say you can sing any song you want,” Chou said. “I came to this country in part because there was so much opportunity to think freely.”

“To see us going backwards,” she added, “it just made me feel like I have limited time on this earth and I cannot participate anymore inside the system.”

‘One Hurdle After Another’

Philip Stewart, 60, Montana

Staff scientist, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Philip Stewart’s work was about understanding the pathogens ticks carry that make people and animals sick.

That often started with walks through tall grass searching for the arachnids. He analyzed them back at Rocky Mountain Laboratories.

When Trump entered office in 2025, Stewart experienced repeated disruptions to his work.

“It’s been one hurdle after another. Just when you’ve gotten over one and you think it’s finally behind you, another hurdle pops up,” Stewart said. “I don’t see that changing.”

NIH workers responsible for buying laboratory supplies were fired. As a result, Stewart said, he faced delays in getting the basics, including materials used to identify tick species.

Travel bans in early 2025 threatened his fieldwork. When those bans lifted, Stewart said, for the first time in his career he needed a presidential appointee’s approval to travel. Amid last year’s government shutdown, Stewart missed his only opportunity in the year to collect ticks from deer at hunting stations — his best chance to see if deer ticks had become established in Montana.

The review process for scientists to share their research became more burdensome.

He said scientists have debated whether they should try to stay and work within the system, adding that, if everyone leaves, “no cures get found.”

“If I saw a way to stay on and be useful and perhaps to protest, then I think I would’ve stayed,” Stewart said. “But I don’t see any of those alternatives.”

‘Losing a Lot of Expertise’

Alexa Romberg, 48, Maryland

Deputy branch chief, National Institute on Drug Abuse

Alexa Romberg is a scientist who specializes in preventing the use of and addiction to tobacco, electronic cigarettes, and cannabis. The harms that stem from substance use or addiction don’t affect all Americans equally, she said.

Romberg left her “dream job” at the National Institute on Drug Abuse in December, she said, because Trump policies had compromised the research she helped oversee. Among other things, Romberg said, grants were terminated under an initiative she led to reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minorities related to substance use. Pending applications were also pulled, she said, adding, “I couldn’t be effective from the inside in actively really preserving the science.”

Romberg said her work was undone even though it was consistent with “what the NIH leadership is saying that they want.” In August, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya issued a statement on priorities that included “solution-oriented approaches in health disparities research.”

Before the upheaval throughout 2025, she thought she would work at NIDA for the rest of her career.

“We’re losing a lot of expertise,” Romberg said. “Both scientific,” she added, and “institutional knowledge.”

Research ‘for the Benefit of Our Society’

Marc Ernstoff, 73, Maryland and Vermont

Branch chief, National Cancer Institute

Marc Ernstoff spent most of his career in academia before joining the National Cancer Institute in 2020. He led a team of scientists who oversaw grants for research into how the immune system responds to cancer, with the goal of developing drugs that extend patients’ lives.

“I felt that it was important for me to help define a national agenda in immuno-oncology and to give back to a country that I love by working as a civil servant,” Ernstoff said.

Under Trump, the NIH became a “hostile work environment.” Projects with “no weaknesses” were denied funding. Ernstoff left because of those challenges and because he was denied permission to work remotely. He now has a part-time position at Dartmouth Health in New Hampshire.

Leveraging a person’s immune system to fight off cancer is “just the beginning of the story,” Ernstoff said. Understanding how the immune system works — and the environmental and other factors that affect it — all “goes into developing better therapeutics for patients.”

“In my opinion, the government has a responsibility to support this kind of research for the benefit of our society,” he said.

Eyeing Less Stress, Better Pay

Daniel Dulebohn, 45, Montana

Staff scientist, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

At Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Daniel Dulebohn studied how molecules come together in infections and diseases. He helped agency researchers across the nation get insight needed for new discoveries and treatments.

Dulebohn said he worked for the government because he knew his research wouldn’t be steered by the pressure to make money. He had planned to stay indefinitely.

“You’re trying to cure a disease or understand something fundamental about biology,” Dulebohn said.

But then his work began to feel insecure, especially as federal leaders characterized scientists as inept, corrupt, and partisan.

“Reading the news and hearing people discuss the validity of vaccines,” he said, made him think, “Do we need iron lungs again, or people in wheelchairs, to say, ‘Huh, maybe vaccines are a good idea’? I mean, I don’t know; for me, it was just too much.”

He added federal researchers typically have other options for jobs with bigger paychecks.

Dulebohn left his job in September. He’s taking a year off to think about next options with his wife and their three young kids. Dulebohn said he’s considering going into real estate full-time, which until recently was a weekend hobby.

“It’s a lot less stress,” he said. “Pay is better.”

‘Susceptible to Political Decision-Making’

Jennifer Troyer, 57, Maryland

Division director, National Human Genome Research Institute

Jennifer Troyer’s work for the NIH most recently involved reviewing research and overseeing funding awarded to institutions for genomics research. Genomics studies all of a person’s genes to better understand health and disease risk.

She called it quits at the end of December, more than two decades after she arrived. She left for one reason, she said: “The way that the NIH is making the agreement to fund science is now susceptible to political decision-making in a way that it was not before.”

“NIH is looking at not the value of the science but whether the science falls within particular political or socially-acceptable-to-this-administration constructs,” she said. “Not whether it’s valuable for human health but whether it might offend somebody.”

For example, she saw HHS move to cut off funds to Harvard after alleging that it had shown “deliberate indifference” to antisemitism on campus. Early-career investigators from minority backgrounds lost their research dollars because the money was awarded under programs to make the science workforce more diverse.

The loss of staff means the NIH has “lost so much of that institutional knowledge and leadership, which is not something that is easy or can be learned overnight,” she said.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
2162351
End of Enhanced Obamacare Subsidies Puts Tribal Health Lifeline at Risk https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/tribal-health-enhanced-obamacare-subsidies-funding-shortages/ Wed, 11 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000 https://kffhealthnews.org/?post_type=article&p=2151252 Leonard Bighorn said his mother tried for two years to get help for severe stomach pain through the limited health services available near her home on the Fort Peck Reservation in northeastern Montana.

After his mom finally saw a specialist in Glasgow, about an hour away, she was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer, Bighorn said.

Now, 16 years after his mother’s death, Bighorn has access to regular screenings for cancer and other specialty care that she didn’t have, through a health insurance program the Fort Peck Tribes created in 2016. The program, which covers most of the costs for the roughly 1,000 tribal citizens enrolled, is among a growing number of tribally sponsored health insurance programs.

Such programs vary by tribe, but they essentially screen and enroll people living within tribal boundaries in Affordable Care Act marketplace plans. They allow participating Native Americans flexibility to go to outside doctors and clinics when care through the Indian Health Service is unavailable.

“I’d be in a bind otherwise,” said Bighorn, a 65-year-old tribal game warden and member of the Dakota community.

But the Fort Peck Tribes now limit who has access to that coverage. Other tribal organizations that offer Native Americans similar coverage are struggling with rising costs, too.

The financial crunch began when congressional lawmakers allowed enhanced subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire on Dec. 31. Those tax credits, created under the Biden administration during the covid-19 pandemic, expanded subsidized health coverage for millions of people. By late 2025, ACA plans saw about 24 million enrollees, more than twice the number of pre-pandemic annual sign-ups. The cost of coverage shot up for most of those people as the expanded subsidies expired, and enrollment so far has dropped by more than 1 million people, according to federal health officials.

The subsidies had also boosted tribal health insurance programs, like the one Bighorn is enrolled in. The programs pay the price of each person’s share of premiums after subsidies, and the coverage lowers patients’ treatment costs. Now that premium prices have ballooned, so have tribes’ costs.

Rae Jean Belgarde, who directs Fort Peck Tribes’ program, said the higher costs leave the tribes with one option at this point: “Start limiting who gets help.”

The tribes are helping people shift to other insurance options and, in some cases, find state programs to cover their premiums. Tribal leaders also sent a letter to Montana’s all-Republican congressional delegation asking them to support extending the subsidies.

“Our program is saving lives,” the letter read. Belgarde said she didn’t know whether the lawmakers responded.

Scrambling for Solutions

U.S. House members approved a temporary extension of the enhanced subsidies in January. But that measure stalled in the Senate. Lawmakers are scrambling for an alternative after President Donald Trump threatened to veto an extension if a bill reaches his desk. On Jan. 15, the president released an outline of a health care proposal that includes creating savings accounts for people to pay their health costs — an idea Senate Republicans previously floated as an alternative to the subsidies.

A.C. Locklear, CEO of the National Indian Health Board, a nonprofit that works to improve health in Native communities, said tribes are “looking at ways to cut back just as much as everyone else.”

Native Americans as a group continue to face disproportionately high rates of chronic diseases. Their median age at death is 14 years younger than that of white Americans.

“Reducing access to even just general primary care has a significant impact on those disparities,” Locklear said.

Tribal leaders have said letting the subsidies expire further undermines the federal government’s duty to ensure adequate care for Native Americans.

In exchange for taking tribal land through colonization, the U.S. government made long-standing promises to provide for the health and well-being of tribes. Native Americans are guaranteed free health care at clinics and hospitals operated or funded by the Indian Health Service. But that agency’s chronic underfunding has created massive blackouts in care. It sometimes pays for patients’ outside care through its Purchased/Referred Care program, but that’s limited too. Due to funding shortfalls, the agency prioritizes which treatments it will pay for.

To help fill the coverage gaps, some tribal nations have built their own health insurance programs. When tribes pay health premiums, clinics and hospitals in their areas can bill for services that might otherwise go unpaid. Some tribes have leveraged that money to expand services.

“I don’t see tribes getting rid of these programs,” Locklear said. “But it will drastically shift how much tribes can really put back in their community.”

For example, Tuba City Regional Health Care Corp., in northern Arizona within the Navajo Nation, is unique in providing comprehensive cancer treatment on a reservation, Locklear said. The corporation, he said, estimates its costs to cover patients this year are increasing by roughly 170% to nearly $38,000 per month without the enhanced subsidies.

One of the newer programs is on the Blackfeet reservation in northwestern Montana, where basic health services can be hard to find. Medical visits are often offered on a first-come, first-served basis, and services vanish when staff positions go unfilled, said Lyle Rutherford, a Blackfeet Nation council member.

“Some of it is just getting a regular eye appointment, or a primary care appointment,” Rutherford said.

The tribe has been slowly building its health insurance program since launching it in 2024. Rutherford said the enhanced subsidies made that possible. Fewer than 400 people are enrolled out of an estimated 3,000 who qualify. In January, the tribe paused the employer-sponsored coverage portion of its insurance program, which at the time included 52 people.

He said tribal leaders are seeking extra funding to keep the program afloat, and he hopes Congress finds a solution.

Lives on the Line

The impact goes beyond tribes’ insurance programs. The Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based economic and social policy research nonprofit, estimates that 125,000 Native Americans will become uninsured in 2026 due to the higher costs.

Patients at the Oyate Health Center in Rapid City, South Dakota, are already reporting sky-high premium increases for ACA plans. CEO Jerilyn Church said it’s too soon to know how many will forgo coverage. But she said more uninsured patients would further strain the IHS Purchased/Referred Care program — with officials raising the bar for how sick patients must be to cover care outside of tribal health sites.

“There will be people that will not be able to get the care they need,” Church said, adding that could translate to “people losing their lives.”

Bighorn, the game warden on the Fort Peck Reservation, is among those still covered by the tribes’ insurance program. He has put it to use.

Soon after enrolling, Bighorn needed two hip replacements, surgeries that require off-reservation care and are ranked as low-priority procedures by the Indian Health Service. Bighorn said that in pre-surgery tests, specialists found the cause for his long-standing, dangerously high blood pressure. The diagnosis: untreated lifelong asthma and sleep apnea.

“I was a miserable man, tired all the time,” he said.

Without the tribe’s coverage, Bighorn may have eventually gotten those diagnoses but said it would have likely taken years to get help through the Indian Health Service. That would have meant getting much sicker before receiving care.

KFF Health News correspondent Arielle Zionts contributed to this report.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact KFF Health News and share your story.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
2151252
In Lodge Grass, Montana, a Crow Community Works To Rebuild From Meth’s Destruction https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/tribal-health-meth-epidemic-recovery-montana-town-rebuilds-crow-reservation/ Thu, 08 Jan 2026 10:00:00 +0000 https://kffhealthnews.org/?post_type=article&p=2131224

LODGE GRASS, Mont. — Brothers Lonny and Teyon Fritzler walked amid the tall grass and cottonwood trees surrounding their boarded-up childhood home near the Little Bighorn River and daydreamed about ways to rebuild.

The rolling prairie outside the single-story clapboard home is where Lonny learned from their grandfather how to break horses. It’s where Teyon learned from their grandmother how to harvest buffalo berries. It’s also where they watched their father get addicted to meth.

Teyon, now 34, began using the drug at 15 with their dad. Lonny, 41, started after college, which he said was partly due to the stress of caring for their grandfather with dementia. Their own addictions to meth persisted for years, outlasting the lives of both their father and grandfather.

It took leaving their home in Lodge Grass, a town of about 500 people on the Crow Indian Reservation, to recover. Here, methamphetamine use is widespread.

The brothers stayed with an aunt in Oklahoma as they learned to live without meth. Their family property has sat empty for years — the horse corral’s beams are broken and its roof caved in, the garage tilts, and the house needs extensive repairs. Such crumbling structures are common in this Native American community, hammered by the effects of meth addiction. Lonny said some homes in disrepair would cost too much to fix. It’s typical for multiple generations to crowd under one roof, sometimes for cultural reasons but also due to the area’s housing shortage.

“We have broken-down houses, a burnt one over here, a lot of houses that are not livable,” Lonny said as he described the few neighboring homes.

In Lodge Grass, an estimated 60% of the residents age 14 and older struggle with drug or alcohol addictions, according to a local survey contracted by the Mountain Shadow Association, a local, Native-led nonprofit. For many in the community, the buildings in disrepair are symbols of that struggle. But signs of renewal are emerging. In recent years, the town has torn down more than two dozen abandoned buildings. Now, for the first time in decades, new businesses are going up and have become new symbols — those of the town’s effort to recover from the effects of meth.

One of those new buildings, a day care center, arrived in October 2024. A parade of people followed the small, wooden building through town as it was delivered on the back of a truck. It replaced a formerly abandoned home that had tested positive for traces of meth.

“People were crying,” said Megkian Doyle, who heads the Mountain Shadow Association, which opened the center. “It was the first time that you could see new and tangible things that pulled into town.”

The nonprofit is also behind the town’s latest construction project: a place where families together can heal from addiction. The plan is to build an entire campus in town that provides mental health resources, housing for kids whose parents need treatment elsewhere, and housing for families working to live without drugs and alcohol.

Though the project is years away from completion, locals often stop by to watch the progress.

“There is a ground-level swell of hope that’s starting to come up around your ankles,” Doyle said.

Two of the builders on that project are Lonny and Teyon Fritzler. They see the work as a chance to help rebuild their community within the Apsáalooke Nation, also known as the Crow Tribe.

“When I got into construction work, I actually thought God was punishing me,” Lonny said. “But now, coming back, building these walls, I’m like, ‘Wow. This is ours now.’”

Meth ‘Never Left’

Meth use is a long-standing public health epidemic throughout the U.S. and a growing contributor to the nation’s overdose crisis. The drug had been devastating in Indian Country, a term that encompasses tribal jurisdictions and certain areas with Native American populations.

Native Americans face the highest rates of meth addiction in the U.S. compared with any other demographic group.

“Meth has never left our communities,” said A.C. Locklear, CEO of the National Indian Health Board, a nonprofit that works to improve health in Indian Country.

Many reservations are in rural areas, which have higher rates of meth use compared with cities. As a group, Native Americans face high rates of poverty, chronic disease, and mental illness — all are risk factors for addiction. These conditions are rooted in more than a century of systemic discrimination, a byproduct of colonization. Meanwhile, the Indian Health Service, which provides health care to Native Americans, has been chronically underfunded. Cutbacks under the Trump administration have shrunk health programs nationwide.

LeeAnn Bruised Head, a recently retired public health adviser with the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, said that despite the challenges, tribal nations have developed strong survival skills drawing from their traditions. For example, Crow people have held onto their nation’s language; neighbors are often family, or considered such; and many tribal members rely on their clans to mentor children, who eventually become mentors themselves for the next generation.

“The strength here, the support here,” said Bruised Head, who is part of the Crow Tribe. “You can’t get that anywhere else.”

Signs of Rebuilding

On a fall day, Quincy Dabney greeted people arriving for lunch at the Lodge Grass drop-in center. The center recently opened in a former church as a place where people can come for help to stay sober or for a free meal. Dabney volunteers at the center. He’s also the town’s mayor.

Dabney helped organize community cleanup days starting in 2017, during which people picked up trash in yards and alongside roads. The focus eventually shifted to tearing down empty, condemned houses, which Dabney said had become spots to sell, distribute, and use meth, often during the day as children played nearby.

“There was nothing stopping it here,” Dabney said.

The problem hasn’t disappeared, though. In 2024, officials broke up a multistate trafficking operation based on the Crow reservation that distributed drugs to other Montana reservations. It was one example of how drug traffickers have targeted tribal nations as sales and distribution hubs.

A few blocks from where Dabney spoke stood the remains of a stone building where someone had spray-painted “Stop Meth” on its roofless walls. Still, there are signs of change, he said.

Dabney pointed across the street to a field where a trailer had sat empty for years before the town removed it. The town was halfway through tearing down another home in disrepair on the next block. Another house on the same street was being cleaned up for an incoming renter: a new mental health worker at the drop-in center.

Just down the road, work was underway on the new campus for addiction recovery, called Kaala’s Village. Kaala means “grandmother” in Crow.

The site’s first building going up is a therapeutic foster home. Plans include housing to gradually reunite families, a community garden, and a place to hold ceremonies. Doyle said the goal is that, eventually, residents can help build their own small homes, working with experienced builders trained to provide mental health support.

She said one of the most important aspects of this work “is that we finish it.”

Tribal citizens and organizations have said the political chaos of Trump’s first year back in office shows the problem with relying on federal programs. It underscores the need for more grassroots efforts, like what’s unfolding in Lodge Grass. But a reliable system to fund those efforts still doesn’t exist. Last year’s federal grant and program cuts also fueled competition for philanthropic dollars.

Kaala’s Village is expected to cost $5 million. The association is building in phases as money comes in. Doyle said the group hopes to open the foster home by spring, and family housing the following year.

The site is a few minutes’ drive from Lonny and Teyon’s childhood home. In addition to building the new facility’s walls, they’re getting training to offer mental health support. Eventually, they hope to work alongside people who come home to Kaala’s Village.

As for their own home, they hope to restore it — one room at a time.

“Just piece by piece,” Lonny said. “We’ve got to do something. We’ve got these young ones watching.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
2131224
Aunque se reanuda SNAP, nuevas reglas laborales amenazan el acceso al programa de alimentos por años https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/aunque-se-reanuda-snap-nuevas-reglas-laborales-amenazan-el-acceso-al-programa-de-alimentos-por-anos/ Wed, 03 Dec 2025 15:32:00 +0000 https://kffhealthnews.org/?post_type=article&p=2126562 Alejandro Santillan-Garcia teme perder la ayuda que le permite comprar comida.

El residente de Austin, de 20 años, calificó el año pasado para recibir beneficios federales de alimentos porque salió del sistema de cuidado temporal (foster care, en inglés) de Texas, al que ingresó cuando era bebé.

El Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria —conocido como SNAP, por sus siglas en inglés, o cupones de alimentos— ayuda a alimentar a 42 millones de personas con bajos ingresos en el país. Ahora, debido a cambios incluidos en la ley que los republicanos llaman One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Santillan-Garcia pronto podría tener que demostrar a las autoridades que está trabajando para conservar este beneficio.

Contó que perdió su último empleo por faltar al trabajo para ir al doctor para tratarse infecciones estomacales recurrentes. No tiene auto y ha solicitado empleo en supermercados, Walmart, Dollar General, “en cualquier lugar que se te ocurra” al que pueda llegar caminando o en bicicleta.

“Ningún trabajo me ha contratado”.

Según la nueva ley federal de presupuesto, más personas deben demostrar que están trabajando, haciendo voluntariado o estudiando para ser elegibles para SNAP.

Quienes no entreguen la documentación a tiempo corren el riesgo de perder la ayuda alimentaria por hasta tres años.

Al principio, se instruyó a los estados que comenzaran a contar “faltas” de los participantes a partir del 1 de noviembre, el mismo día en que millones de personas vieron suspenderse sus beneficios de SNAP por la negativa de la administración de Donald Trump a financiar el programa durante el cierre del gobierno.

Sin embargo, autoridades federales dieron marcha atrás a mitad de ese mes y dieron a los estados hasta diciembre para aplicar las nuevas reglas.

La ley también limita aún más cuándo los estados y condados con alto desempleo pueden eximir a los beneficiarios de estos requisitos. Pero una batalla legal sobre esa disposición ha generado que los plazos para cumplir con las nuevas normas varíen según el lugar donde vive la persona, incluso dentro del mismo estado en algunos casos.

El Departamento de Agricultura de Estados Unidos (USDA, por sus siglas en inglés) no respondió a una lista detallada de preguntas sobre cómo se implementarán las nuevas reglas de SNAP, y la Casa Blanca tampoco respondió a un pedido de comentarios sobre si estas reglas podrían dejar fuera del programa a personas que dependen de él.

La ley sí extendió exenciones para muchos integrantes de pueblos nativos americanos.

Aun así, los estados deben cumplir con las nuevas reglas o enfrentar sanciones que podrían obligarlos a cubrir una parte mayor del costo del programa, que el año pasado fue de aproximadamente $100.000 millones.

El presidente Trump firmó esta enorme ley presupuestaria, junto con los nuevos requisitos de SNAP, el 4 de julio. Según Chloe Green, subdirectora de la Asociación Estadounidense de Servicios Humanos Públicos (American Public Human Services Association), que asesora a los estados en programas federales, los estados inicialmente estimaron que necesitarían al menos 12 meses para aplicar cambios de tal magnitud.

Según la ley, las personas “capaces de trabajar” que están sujetas a requisitos laborales pueden perder el acceso a los beneficios por tres años si pasan tres meses sin presentar documentación que demuestra sus horas trabajadas.

Dependiendo de cuándo los estados apliquen las reglas, muchas personas podrían comenzar a ser excluidas del programa a principios del próximo año, dijo Lauren Bauer, investigadora en estudios económicos del centro de análisis Brookings Institution. Se espera que los cambios dejen al menos a 2,4 millones de personas fuera de SNAP durante la próxima década, según la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso.

“Es muy difícil trabajar si tienes hambre”, sentenció Bauer.

Muchos adultos beneficiarios de SNAP menores de 55 años ya tenían que cumplir con requisitos de trabajo antes de que se promulgara la ley presupuestaria.

Ahora, por primera vez, los que tengan entre 55 y 64 años, y los padres cuyos hijos tengan 14 años o más deben documentar al menos 80 horas mensuales de trabajo o de otras actividades válidas.

La nueva ley también elimina exenciones que desde 2023 se aplicaban a veteranos, personas sin vivienda y jóvenes que salieron del sistema de cuidado temporal, como Santillan-Garcia.

Políticos republicanos han dicho que estas nuevas reglas forman parte de un esfuerzo más amplio para eliminar el despilfarro, el fraude y el abuso en los programas de asistencia pública.

La secretaria de Agricultura, Brooke Rollins, dijo en noviembre que, además de aplicar la ley, requerirá que millones de personas vuelvan a solicitar los beneficios para reducir el fraude, aunque no dio más detalles. En una entrevista con Newsmax, Rollins afirmó que quiere asegurarse de que los beneficios de SNAP lleguen solo a quienes son “vulnerables” y “no pueden sobrevivir sin ellos”.

Green explicó que los estados están obligados a notificar a las personas que estarán sujetas a cambios en sus beneficios antes de que se los corten. Algunos estados han anunciado los cambios en sus sitios web o por correo, pero muchos no están dando suficiente tiempo para que los beneficiarios se pongan al día.

Defensores contra el hambre temen que los cambios, y la confusión que generan, aumenten el número de personas que enfrentan inseguridad alimentaria. Este año, los bancos de alimentos han reportado cifras récord de personas en busca de ayuda.

Incluso cuando cumplen con los requisitos laborales, muchas personas enfrentan dificultades para subir documentos y hacer que los estados procesen sus beneficios a través de sistemas saturados.

En una encuesta del Urban Institute, alrededor de 1 de cada 8 adultos dijo haber perdido los beneficios alimentarios por problemas al entregar la documentación. Algunos fueron dados de baja por errores del estado o por falta de personal.

Pat Scott, trabajadora comunitaria del Centro de Asistencia de Recursos Beaverhead, en la zona rural de Dillon, en Montana, es la única persona en al menos una hora de distancia conduciendo que ayuda a la población a acceder a asistencia pública, incluidos adultos mayores sin transporte confiable. Pero el centro solo abre una vez por semana, y Scott afirma que ha visto a personas perder la cobertura por problemas con el portal estatal en internet.

Jon Ebelt, vocero del Departamento de Salud de Montana, dijo que el estado trabaja continuamente para mejorar sus programas. Agregó que, si bien algunas reglas han cambiado, ya existe un sistema para reportar el cumplimiento de los requisitos laborales.

En Missoula, Montana, Jill Bonny, directora del albergue Poverello Center, explicó que sus clientes sin techo ya enfrentan grandes desafíos para solicitar ayuda: con frecuencia pierden sus documentos en medio del reto diario de cargar con todas sus pertenencias.

Bonny dijo que también le preocupa que los cambios federales puedan llevar a más personas mayores a quedarse sin hogar si pierden los beneficios de SNAP y tienen que elegir entre pagar la renta o comprar comida.

En Estados Unidos, las personas de 50 años o más son el grupo con mayor crecimiento dentro de la población sin vivienda, según datos federales.

Sharon Cornu, directora ejecutiva del St. Mary’s Center, una organización que apoya a adultos mayores sin hogar en Oakland, California, afirmó que las nuevas reglas están generando desconfianza. “Esto no es normal. No estamos jugando con las reglas de siempre”, dijo Cornu sobre los cambios federales. “Es una medida punitiva y malintencionada”.

A principios de noviembre, un juez federal en Rhode Island ordenó al gobierno de Trump entregar los pagos completos de SNAP durante el cierre del gobierno, que terminó el 12 de noviembre.

Ese mismo juez intentó frenar algunos de los nuevos requisitos laborales. Ordenó al gobierno respetar los acuerdos existentes que eximen del requisito de trabajo a ciertas personas en algunos estados y condados hasta que finalicen dichos acuerdos. En total, 28 estados y el Distrito de Columbia tenían estas exenciones, con fechas de finalización distintas.

Para complicar aún más la situación, algunos estados, como Nuevo México, tienen exenciones que hacen que personas en diferentes condados deban cumplir las reglas en distintos momentos.

Green explicó que si los estados no documentan adecuadamente el estatus laboral de los beneficiarios de SNAP, se les forzará a pagar después. Según la nueva ley, por primera vez los estados deben cubrir una parte del costo de los alimentos, y el monto dependerá de qué tan bien calculen los beneficios.

Durante el cierredel gobierno, cuando nadie recibió beneficios de SNAP, Santillan-Garcia y su novia dependieron de tarjetas de regalo de supermercados que les dio una organización sin fines de lucro para alimentar al bebé de su novia. Para comer ellos, recurrieron a un banco de alimentos, aunque muchos productos, como los lácteos, le hacen daño a Santillan-Garcia.

Le preocupa que en febrero vuelva a estar en la misma situación cuando tenga que renovar sus beneficios —ya sin la exención para jóvenes que salieron del sistema de cuidado temporal—. Las autoridades de Texas aún no le informan qué deberá hacer para seguir recibiendo SNAP.

Santillan-Garcia dijo que reza para que, si no logra encontrar trabajo, pueda encontrar otra forma de seguir cumpliendo los requisitos y mantener sus beneficios.

“Probablemente me los van a quitar”, dijo.

Lo que debes saber

Los cambios en SNAP eliminaron las exenciones a los requisitos laborales para:

  • Personas de entre 55 y 64 años
  • Cuidadores de menores de 14 años en adelante
  • Veteranos
  • Personas sin vivienda
  • Jóvenes de hasta 24 años que salieron del sistema de cuidado temporal

Qué deben hacer los beneficiarios de SNAP

  • Consultar con organizaciones de asistencia pública para saber cuándo entran en vigencia las nuevas reglas en su región. Es posible que las revisen al momento de recertificar, pero podrían pedirle cumplir con los requisitos laborales mensuales mucho antes.
  • Informar a su estado si está a cargo de un menor de 14 años que vive en su hogar; está embarazada; estudia al menos medio tiempo; asiste a un programa de tratamiento de alcohol o drogas; tiene una condición física o mental que le impide trabajar; es una persona indígena; o cuida a un miembro del hogar incapacitado. Si cumple con alguno de estos criterios, podría seguir estando exento.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
2126562
Even as SNAP Resumes, New Work Rules Threaten Access for Years To Come https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/snap-food-stamps-hunger-work-requirements-one-big-beautiful-bill/ Wed, 03 Dec 2025 10:00:00 +0000 https://kffhealthnews.org/?post_type=article&p=2122381 Alejandro Santillan-Garcia is worried he’s going to lose the aid that helps him buy food. The 20-year-old Austin resident qualified for federal food benefits last year because he aged out of the Texas foster care system, which he entered as an infant.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — commonly referred to as food stamps, or SNAP — helps feed 42 million low-income people in the United States. Now, because of changes included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, to keep his food benefits Santillan-Garcia might soon have to prove to officials that he’s working.

He said he lost his last job for taking time off to go to the doctor for recurrent stomach infections. He doesn’t have a car and said he has applied to a grocery store, Walmart, Dollar General, “any place you can think of” that he could walk or ride his bike to.

“No job has hired me.”

Under the new federal budget law, to be eligible for SNAP benefits, more people are required to show that they are working, volunteering, or studying. Those who don’t file paperwork in time risk losing food aid for up to three years. States were initially instructed to start counting strikes against participants on Nov. 1, the same day that millions of people saw their SNAP benefits dry up because of the Trump administration’s refusal to fund the program during the government shutdown. But federal officials backtracked partway through the month, instead giving states until December to enforce the new rules.

The new law further limits when states and counties with high unemployment can waive recipients from requirements. But a legal battle over that provision means that the deadline for people to comply with the new rules varies depending on where recipients live, even within a state in some cases.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture did not respond to a detailed list of questions about how the new rules around SNAP will be implemented, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment about whether the rules could kick off people who rely on the program. The law did extend exemptions to many Native Americans.

Still, states must comply with new rules or accrue penalties that could force them to pay a bigger share of the program’s cost, which was about $100 billion last year.

President Donald Trump signed the massive budget bill, along with the new SNAP rules, into law on July 4. States initially predicted they would need at least 12 months to implement such significant changes, said Chloe Green, an assistant director at the American Public Human Services Association who advises states on federal programs.

Under the law, “able-bodied” people subject to work requirements can lose access to benefits for three years if they go three months without documenting working hours.

Depending on when states implement the rules, many people could start being dropped from SNAP early next year, said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, a policy think tank. The changes are expected to knock at least 2.4 million people off SNAP within the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“It’s really hard to work if you are hungry,” Bauer said.

Many adult SNAP recipients under 55 already needed to meet work requirements before the One Big Beautiful Bill Act became law. Now, for the first time, adults ages 55 to 64 and parents whose children are all 14 or older must document 80 hours of work or other qualifying activities per month. The new law also removes exemptions for veterans, homeless people, and former foster care youths, like Santillan-Garcia, that had been in place since 2023.

Republican policymakers said the new rules are part of a broader effort to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in public assistance programs.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in November that in addition to the law, she will require millions to reapply for benefits to curb fraud, though she did not provide more details. Rollins told Newsmax that she wants to ensure that SNAP benefits are going only to those who “are vulnerable” and “can’t survive without it.”

States are required to notify people that they are subject to changes to their SNAP benefits before they’re cut off, Green said. Some states have announced the changes on websites or by mailing recipients, but many aren’t giving enrollees much time to comply.

Anti-hunger advocates fear the changes, and confusion about them, will increase the number of people in the U.S. experiencing hunger. Food pantries have reported record numbers of people seeking help this year.

Even when adhering to the work rules, people often report challenges uploading documents and getting their benefits processed by overwhelmed state systems. In a survey of SNAP participants, about 1 in 8 adults reported having lost food benefits because they had problems filing their paperwork, according to the Urban Institute. Some enrollees have been dropped from aid as a result of state errors and staffing shortfalls.

Pat Scott, a community health worker for the Beaverhead Resource Assistance Center in rural Dillon, Montana, is the only person within at least an hour’s drive who is helping people access public assistance, including seniors without reliable transportation. But the center is open only once a week, and Scott says she has seen people lose coverage because of problems with the state’s online portal.

Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson with the Montana health department, said the state is always working to improve its programs. He added that while some of the rules have changed, a system is already in place for reporting work requirements.

In Missoula, Montana, Jill Bonny, head of the Poverello Center, said the homeless shelter’s clients already struggle to apply for aid, because they often lose documentation amid the daily challenge of carrying everything they own. She said she’s also worried the federal changes could push more older people into homelessness if they lose SNAP benefits and are forced to pick between paying rent or buying food.

In the U.S., people 50 or older are the fastest-growing group experiencing homelessness, according to federal data.

Sharon Cornu is the executive director at St. Mary’s Center, which helps support homeless seniors in Oakland, California. She said the rule changes are sowing distrust. “This is not normal. We are not playing by the regular rules,” Cornu said, referring to the federal changes. “This is punitive and mean-spirited.”

In early November, a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to deliver full SNAP payments during the government shutdown, which ended Nov. 12. That same judge sought to buffer some of the incoming work requirements. He ordered the government to respect existing agreements that waive work requirements in some states and counties until each agreement is set to end. In total, 28 states and the District of Columbia had such exemptions, with different end dates.

Adding to the confusion, some states, including New Mexico, have waivers that mean people in different counties will be subject to the rules at different times.

If states don’t accurately document SNAP enrollees’ work status, they will be forced to pay later on, Green said. Under the new law, states must cover a portion of the food costs for the first time — and the amount depends on how accurately they calculate benefits.

During the government shutdown, when no one received SNAP benefits, Santillan-Garcia and his girlfriend relied on grocery gift cards they received from a nonprofit to prioritize feeding his girlfriend’s baby. They went to a food pantry for themselves, even though many foods, including dairy, make Santillan-Garcia sick.

He’s worried that he’ll be in that position again in February when he must renew his benefits — without the exemption for former foster care youths. Texas officials have yet to inform him about what he will need to do to stay on SNAP.

Santillan-Garcia said he’s praying that, if he is unable to find a job, he can figure out another way to ensure he qualifies for SNAP long-term.

“They’ll probably take it away from me,” he said.

What You Should Know

Changes to SNAP removed work-requirement exemptions for:

  • People ages 55 to 64.
  • Caretakers of dependent children 14 or older
  • Veterans
  • People without housing
  • People 24 or younger who aged out of foster care

What SNAP Participants Should Do:

  • Check with public assistance organizations to find out when the new rules go into effect in your region. Your benefits may be checked at recertification, but you may be required to meet the monthly work reporting rules long before that.
  • Let your state know if you’re responsible for a dependent child younger than 14 who lives in your home; pregnant; a student at least half the time; attending a drug or alcohol treatment program; physically or mentally unable to work; a Native American; or a caretaker of an incapacitated household member. If so, you may still be exempt.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
2122381
The Nation’s Largest Food Aid Program Is About To See Cuts. Here’s What You Should Know. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/snap-food-stamps-cuts-shutdown-states-lawsuits-groceries-healthy-eating/ Fri, 31 Oct 2025 19:29:14 +0000 https://kffhealthnews.org/?post_type=article&p=2108057 The Trump administration’s overhaul of the nation’s largest food assistance program will cause millions of people to lose benefits, strain state budgets, and pressure the nation’s food supply chain, all while likely hindering the goals of the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” platform, according to researchers and former federal officials.

Permanent changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are coming regardless of the outcome of at least two federal lawsuits that seek to prevent the government from cutting off November SNAP benefits. The lawsuits challenge the Trump administration’s refusal to release emergency funds to keep the program operating during the government shutdown.

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the government to use those funds to keep SNAP going. A Massachusetts judge in a separate lawsuit also said the government must use its food aid contingency funds to pay for SNAP, but gave the Trump administration until Nov. 3 to come up with a plan.

Amid that uncertainty, food banks across the U.S. braced for a surge in demand, with the possibility that millions of people will be cut off from the food program that helps them buy groceries.

On Oct. 28, a vanload of SpaghettiOs, tuna, and other groceries arrived at Gateway Food Pantry in Arnold, Missouri. It may be Gateway’s last shipment for a while. The food pantry south of St. Louis largely serves families with school-age children, but it has already exhausted its yearly food budget because of the surge in demand, said Executive Director Patrick McKelvey.

New Disabled South, a Georgia-based nonprofit that advocates for people with disabilities, announced that it was offering one-time payments of $100 to $250 to individuals and families who were expected to lose SNAP benefits in the 14 states it serves.

Less than 48 hours later, the nonprofit had received more than 16,000 requests totaling $3.6 million, largely from families, far more than the organization had funding for.

“It’s unreal,” co-founder Dom Kelly said.

The threat of a SNAP funding lapse is a preview of what’s to come when changes to the program that were included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed in July take effect.

The domestic tax-and-spending law cuts $187 billion within the next decade from SNAP. That’s a nearly 20% decrease from current funding levels, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The new rules shift many food and administrative costs to states, which may lead some to consider withdrawing from the program, which helped about 42 million people buy groceries last year. Separate from the new law, the administration is also pushing states to limit SNAP purchases by barring such things as candy and soda.

All that “puts us in uncharted territory for SNAP,” said Cindy Long, a former deputy undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture who is now a national adviser at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

The country’s first food stamps were issued at the end of the Great Depression, when the poverty-stricken population couldn’t afford farmers’ products. Today, instead of stamps, recipients use debit cards. But the program still buoys farmers and food retailers and prevents hunger during economic downturns.

The CBO estimates that about 3 million people will lose food assistance as a result of several provisions in the budget law, including applying work requirements to more people and shifting more costs to states. Trump administration leaders have backed the changes as a way to limit waste, to put more people to work, and to improve health.

This is the biggest cut to SNAP in its history, and it is coming against the backdrop of rising food prices and a fragile labor market.

The exact toll of the cuts will be difficult to measure, because the Trump administration ended an annual report that measures food insecurity.

Here are five big changes that are coming to SNAP and what they mean for Americans’ health:

1. Want food benefits? They will be harder to get.

Under the new law, people will have to file more paperwork to access SNAP benefits.

Many recipients are already required to work, volunteer, or participate in other eligible activities for 80 hours a month to get money on their benefit cards. The new law extends those requirements to previously exempted groups, including homeless people, veterans, and young people who were in foster care when they turned 18. The expanded work requirements also apply to parents with children 14 or older and adults ages 55 to 64.

Starting Nov. 1, if recipients fail to document each month that they meet the requirements, they will be limited to three months of SNAP benefits in a three-year period.

“That is draconian,” said Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research group. About 1 in 8 adults reported having lost SNAP benefits because they had problems filing their paperwork, according to a December Urban Institute survey.

Certain refugees, asylum-seekers, and other lawful immigrants are cut out of SNAP entirely under the new law.

2. States will have to chip in more money and resources.

The federal law drastically increases what each state will have to pay to keep the program.

Until now, states have needed to pay for only half the administrative costs and none of the food costs, with the rest covered by the federal government.

Under the new law, states are on the hook for 75% of the administrative costs and must cover a portion of the food costs. That amounts to an estimated median cost increase for states of more than 200%, according to a report by the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality.

A KFF Health News analysis shows that a single funding shift related to the cost of food could put states on the hook for an additional $11 billion.

All states participate in the SNAP program, but they could opt out. In June, nearly two dozen Democratic governors wrote to congressional leaders warning that some states wouldn’t be able to come up with the money to continue the program.

“If states are forced to end their SNAP programs, hunger and poverty will increase, children and adults will get sicker, grocery stores in rural areas will struggle to stay open, people in agriculture and the food industry will lose jobs, and state and local economies will suffer,” the governors wrote.

3. Will the changes lead to more healthy eating?

The Trump administration, through its “Make America Healthy Again” platform, has made healthy eating a priority.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has championed the restrictions on soda and candy purchases within the food aid program. To date, 12 states have received approval to limit what people can buy with SNAP dollars.

Federal officials previously blocked such restrictions, because they were difficult for states and stores to implement and they boost stigma around SNAP, according to a 2007 USDA report. In 2018, the first Trump administration rejected an effort from Maine to ban sugar-sweetened drinks and candy.

A store may decide that hassle isn’t worth participating in the program and drop out of it, leaving SNAP recipients fewer places to shop.

People who receive SNAP are no more likely to buy sweets or salty snacks than people who shop without the benefits, according to the USDA. Research shows that encouraging healthy food choices is more effective than regulating purchases.

When people have less money to spend on food, they often resort to cheaper, unhealthier alternatives that keep them sated longer rather than paying for more expensive food that is healthy and fresh but quick to perish.

4. How will SNAP cuts affect health?

Advocacy organizations working to end hunger in the nation say the cuts will have long-term health effects.

Research has found that kids in households with limited access to food are more likely to have a mental disorder. Similarly, food insecurity is linked to lower math and reading skills.

Working-age people with food insecurity are more likely to experience chronic disease. That long list includes high blood pressure, arthritis, diabetes, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Those health issues come with costs for individuals. Low-income adults who aren’t on SNAP spend on average $1,400 more a year on health care than those who are.

About 47 million people lived in households with limited or uncertain access to food in 2023.

5. What does this mean for the nation’s food supply chain?

SNAP spending directly boosts grocery stores, their suppliers, and the transportation and farming industries. Additionally, when low-income households have help accessing food, they’re more likely to spend money on other needs, such as prescriptions or car repairs. All that means that every dollar spent through SNAP generates at least $1.50 in economic activity, according to the USDA.

A report by associations representing convenience stores, grocers, and the food industry estimated it could cost grocers $1.6 billion to comply with the new SNAP restrictions.

Advocates warn stores may pass the costs on to shoppers, or they may close.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

]]>
2108057