Trump's 2025 order shows how little progress the country has made since he issued a similar directive nearly six years ago.

This article was published on Wednesday, April 2, 2025 in KFF Health News.

By Daniel Chang

It's a holy grail of health care: forcing the industry to reveal prices negotiated between health plans and hospitals — information that had long been treated as a trade secret. And among the flurry of executive orders President Donald Trump signed during his first five weeks back in office was a promise to "Make America Healthy Again" by giving patients accurate health care prices.

The goal is to force hospitals and health insurance companies to make it easier for consumers to compare the actual prices of medical procedures and prescription drugs. Trump gave his administration until the end of May to come up with a standard and a mechanism to make sure the health care industry complies.

But Trump's 2025 order is also a symbol of how little progress the country has made since he issued a similar directive nearly six years ago. Consumers find it only partially useful, and the quality of the information is spotty.

A ‘Bold' First Step That Fizzled

The 2019 order was "pretty bold," said Gary Claxton, a senior vice president at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. "They basically went at the providers and the plans and said, ‘All this data you think is confidential we're not going to make confidential anymore.'"

What followed was, to consumer advocacy groups, a disappointment. Hospitals and insurers posted on websites voluminous, complex, and confusing data about their prices. The information has been a challenge for even experts in health care pricing to navigate, let alone consumers. Some members of Congress filed legislation to put the force of law behind price transparency requirements; those bills died. And President Joe Biden's administration was criticized for not more stringently enforcing the regulations, with one consumer advocacy group even buying a Super Bowl ad featuring the rapper Fat Joe alleging that "hospitals and insurers hide their prices."

Trump's new order, signed in February, said that hospitals and health plans "were not adequately held to account when their price transparency data was incomplete or not even posted at all."

The Government Accountability Office reported in October that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services didn't know whether prices reported by the health care industry were correct or complete. But CMS, which regulates hospitals, now plans to "systematically monitor compliance" and help institutions understand the requirements, said Catherine Howden, an agency spokesperson.

Howden did not answer questions about whether CMS staffers overseeing price transparency compliance have been fired as part of the Trump administration's wide-ranging effort to cut the federal workforce.

'Zombie' Rates and Other Inconsistencies

Meanwhile, independent researchers have found numerous problems with the quality of price data both hospitals and health insurers do share with consumers.

A recent report from the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker found that data reported by four health insurers in New York City often included prices that they say they pay hospitals for services that those health providers don't — or can't — provide. These are called "ghost" or "zombie" rates. For example, the health plans reported dentists, optometrists, and audiologists receiving payments for knee replacements, gastrointestinal exams, and other procedures unrelated to their specialties.

In other cases, the data included different prices for the same service paid for by the same insurer at the same hospital. UnitedHealthcare, for example, reported paying New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center three rates — $47,000, $64,000, and $70,000 — to treat a heart attack.

Or, the insurers reported paying the same price for vastly different services. Aetna, for example, said it paid exactly $6,292 to Mount Sinai Beth Israel hospital for the treatment of respiratory infections, heart attacks, cancers of the digestive tract, kidney and urinary tract infections, and psychosis.

Neither UnitedHealthcare nor Aetna addressed the discrepancies in the data. Cole Manbeck, a spokesperson for UnitedHealthcare, said the insurer has met price transparency requirements and urged members "to use our cost-estimator tools for exact costs based on their specific health plan." Aetna spokesperson Shelly Bendit referred questions to AHIP, a lobbying and trade association for insurers.

Health insurers have "strongly supported" price transparency, said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP. The group will work with the Trump administration to provide transparency "in a way that is meaningful for the end user, while also promoting a competitive private market," Bond said.

What's a Consumer To Do?

Estimates and total prices aren't very useful for consumers, who are mainly interested in what they'll ultimately have to pay out-of-pocket, said David Cutler, a professor of applied economics at Harvard University. That can vary by health plan, depending on deductibles, copayments, and other fees.

"Most of the price transparency information doesn't have that," he said.

It also doesn't give consumers information about the quality of care, Cutler added, which can lead to an old bias. "It's kind of like wine when you go to the restaurant," he said. "People assume that the more expensive wine is better."

Cutler said he's skeptical that price transparency will lower costs for patients. But he said it may offer insight to hospitals and health plans about what their competitors are charging and paying for services — knowledge that could inadvertently lead to price increases if hospitals that receive a lower rate than a competitor demand higher reimbursement from health plans.

Trump's recent executive order notes that the top quarter of the most expensive health service prices have dropped by 6.3% a year since his 2019 order.

However, the same research referenced in the executive order showed that the bottom quarter of services got more expensive, at a rate of about 3.4% per year, according to the analysis by Turquoise Health, a health care price data firm that examined rates at more than 200 hospitals in the 10 largest U.S. markets.

Some patients say that with research and persistence, they've been able to make price transparency work for them.

Theresa Schmotzer, 50, of Goodyear, Arizona, said she used hospital price data to save nearly $3,000 on outpatient surgery to have a fibroid removed last year.

Schmotzer, who has health insurance, said the hospital first told her she would owe $3,700 for the procedure and wanted the payment upfront. But she was skeptical.

She said her health insurer was unable to quote a price for the procedure or specify how much she would owe. The morning of the surgery, Schmotzer said, she found a spreadsheet online at PatientRightsAdvocate.org that included different prices paid by insurers, including hers. The reported price for the procedure was closer to $700, she said.

Schmotzer said she took a printout of the spreadsheet to the hospital and presented it during preadmission. She paid her $300 deductible and told the hospital to bill her for the rest.

A few months later, she said, the bill arrived in the mail for the remaining $400, which she paid.

When people go for surgery and aren't clear upfront what the cost will be, it stokes fear, she said. "Because they're going in blind."

Next Steps

Hospitals say they want to work with federal regulators and comply with reporting requirements, said Ariel Levin, director of coverage policy for the American Hospital Association, which represents about 5,000 institutions. Levin said consumers should be given the price of services and "a more comprehensive estimate" that represents an entire episode of care and the amount they'll owe out-of-pocket, based on their health plan.

CMS has developed rules since Trump's 2019 order to make price information reported by hospitals and health plans easier to understand, and the agency has fined more than a dozen hospitals for failing to comply.

Federal rules allow hospitals to report an estimate, a price range, or a historical rate for their services, while health plans can adjust prices based on factors like the severity of the case, the length of treatment, and a patient's age.

KFF's Claxton said that such flexibility doesn't allow for "apples-to-apples comparisons" and that the data must be reliable before researchers can use it to better understand health care costs. "It doesn't seem to be that yet," he said.

Much remains to be done before price transparency lives up to expectations that it will increase competition and lower costs, said Katie Martin, chief executive of the Health Care Cost Institute, a nonprofit research group.

Price transparency alone is not a silver bullet, Martin said. It's "a critical first step" for employers, lawmakers, regulators, and others to better understand how money flows through the health care system and how to make it more efficient, she said. "It's not the whole thing."

Daniel Chang: dchang@kff.org, @dchangmiami

Republicans and Democrats agree prior authorization needs fixing, but patients are growing impatient.

This article was published on Monday, March 31, 2025 in KFF Health News.

By Lauren Sausser

HENRICO, Va. — Sheldon Ekirch spends a lot of time on hold with her health insurance company.

Sometimes, as the minutes tick by and her frustration mounts, Ekirch, 30, opens a meditation app on her phone. It was recommended by her psychologist to help with the depression associated with a stressful and painful medical disorder.

In 2023, Ekirch was diagnosed with small fiber neuropathy, a condition that makes her limbs and muscles feel as if they're on fire. Now she takes more than a dozen prescriptions to manage chronic pain and other symptoms, including insomnia.

"I don't feel like I am the person I was a year and a half ago," said Ekirch, who was on the cusp of launching her law career, before getting sick. "Like, my body isn't my own."

Ekirch said specialists have suggested that a series of infusions made from blood plasma called intravenous immunoglobulin — IVIG, for short — could ease, or potentially eradicate, her near-constant pain. But Ekirch's insurance company has repeatedly denied coverage for the treatment, according to documents provided by the patient.

Patients with Ekirch's condition don't always respond to IVIG, but she said she deserves to try it, even though it could cost more than $100,000.

"I'm paying a lot of money for health insurance," said Ekirch, who pays more than $600 a month in premiums. "I don't understand why they won't help me, why my life means so little to them."

For patient advocates and health economists, cases like Ekirch's illustrate why prior authorization has become such a chronic pain point for patients and doctors. For 50 years, insurers have employed prior authorization, they say, to reduce wasteful health care spending, prevent unnecessary treatment, and guard against potential harm.

The practice differs by insurance company and plan, but the rules often require patients or their doctors to request permission from the patient's health insurance company before proceeding with a drug, treatment, or medical procedure.

The insurance industry provides little information about how often prior authorization is used. Transparency requirements established by the federal government to shed light on the use of prior authorization by private insurers haven't been broadly enforced, said Justin Lo, a senior researcher for the Program on Patient and Consumer Protections at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Yet it's widely acknowledged that prior authorization tends to disproportionately impact some of the sickest people who need the most expensive care. And despite bipartisan support to reform the system, as well as recent attempts by health insurance companies to ease the burden for patients and doctors, some tactics have met skepticism.

Some insurers' efforts to improve prior authorization practices aren't as helpful as they would seem, said Judson Ivy, CEO of Ensemble Health Partners, a revenue cycle management company.

"When you really dive deep," he said, these improvements don't seem to touch the services and procedures, such as CT scans, that get caught up in prior authorization so frequently. "When we started looking into it," he said, "it was almost a PR stunt."

The ‘Tipping Point'

When Arman Shahriar's father was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma in 2023, his father's oncologist ordered a whole-body PET scan to determine the cancer's stage. The scan was denied by a company called EviCore by Evernorth, a Cigna subsidiary that makes prior authorization decisions.

Shahriar, an internal medicine resident, said he spent hours on the phone with his father's insurer, arguing that the latest medical guidelines supported the scan. The imaging request was eventually approved. But his father's scan was delayed several weeks — and multiple appointments were scheduled, then canceled during the time-consuming process — while the family feared the cancer would continue to spread.

EviCore by Evernorth spokesperson Madeline Ziomek wrote in an emailed statement that incomplete clinical information provided by physicians is a leading cause of such denials. The company is "actively developing new ways to make the submission process simpler and faster for physicians," Ziomek said.

In the meantime, Shahriar, who often struggles to navigate prior authorization for his patients, accused the confusing system of "artificially creating problems in people's lives" at the wrong time.

"If families with physicians are struggling through this, how do other people navigate it? And the short answer is, they can't," said Shahriar, who wrote about his father's case in an essay published last year by JAMA Oncology. "We're kind of reaching a tipping point where we're realizing, collectively, something needs to be done."

The fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a New York City sidewalk in December prompted an outpouring of grief among those who knew him, but it also became a platform for public outrage about the methods insurance companies use to deny treatment.

An Emerson College poll conducted in mid-December found 41% of 18- to 29-year-olds thought the actions of Thompson's killer were at least somewhat acceptable. In a NORC survey from the University of Chicago conducted in December, two-thirds of respondents indicated that insurance company profits, and their denials for health care coverage, contributed "a great deal/moderate amount" to the killing. Instagram accounts established in support of Luigi Mangione, the 26-year-old Maryland suspect accused of murder and terrorism, have attracted thousands of followers.

"The past several weeks have further challenged us to even more intensely listen to the public narrative about our industry," Cigna Group CEO David Cordani said during an earnings call on Jan. 30. Cigna is focused on "making prior authorizations faster and simpler," he added.

The first Trump administration and the Biden administration put forth policies designed to improve prior authorization for some patients by mandating that insurers set up electronic systems and shortening the time companies may take to issue decisions, among other fixes. Hundreds of House Democrats and Republicans signed on to co-sponsor a bill last year that would establish new prior authorization rules for Medicare Advantage plans. In January, Republican congressman Jefferson Van Drew of New Jersey introduced a federal bill to abolish the use of prior authorization altogether.

Meanwhile, many states have passed legislation to regulate the use of prior authorization. Some laws require insurers to publish data about prior authorization denials with the intention of making a confusing system more transparent. Reform bills are under consideration by state legislatures in Hawaii, Montana, and elsewhere. A bill in Virginia approved by the governor March 18 takes effect July 1. Other states, including Texas, have established "gold card" programs that ease prior authorization requirements for some physicians by allowing doctors with a track record of approvals to bypass the rules.

No one from AHIP, an insurance industry lobbying group formerly known as America's Health Insurance Plans, was available to be interviewed on the record about proposed prior authorization legislation for this article.

But changes wouldn't guarantee that the most vulnerable patients would be spared from future insurance denials or the complex appeals process set up by insurers. Some doctors and advocates for patients are skeptical that prior authorization can be fixed as long as insurers are accountable to shareholders.

Kindyl Boyer, director of advocacy for the nonprofit Infusion Access Foundation, remains hopeful the system can be improved but likened some efforts to playing "Whac-A-Mole." Ultimately, insurance companies are "going to find a different way to make more money," she said.

‘Unified Anger'

In the weeks following Thompson's killing, UnitedHealthcare was trying to refute an onslaught of what it called "highly inaccurate and grossly misleading information" about its practices when another incident landed the company back in the spotlight.

On Jan. 7, Elisabeth Potter, a breast reconstruction surgeon in Austin, Texas, posted a video on social media criticizing the company for questioning whether one of her patients who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and was undergoing surgery that day needed to be admitted as an inpatient.

The video amassed millions of views.

In the days following her post, UnitedHealthcare hired a high-profile law firm to demand a correction and public apology from Potter. In an interview with KFF Health News, Potter would not discuss details about the dispute, but she stood by what she said in her original video.

"I told the truth," Potter said.

The facts of the incident remain in dispute. But the level of attention it received online illustrates how frustrated and vocal many people have become about insurance company tactics since Thompson's killing, said Matthew Zachary, a former cancer patient and the host of "Out of Patients," a podcast that aims to amplify the experiences of patients.

For years, doctors and patients have taken to social media to shame health insurers into approving treatment. But in recent months, Zachary said, "horror stories" about prior authorization shared widely online have created "unified anger."

"Most people thought they were alone in the victimization," Zachary said. "Now they know they're not."

Data published in January by KFF found that prior authorization is particularly burdensome for patients covered by Medicare Advantage plans. In 2023, virtually all Medicare Advantage enrollees were covered by plans that required prior authorization, while people enrolled in traditional Medicare were much less likely to encounter it, said Jeannie Fuglesten Biniek, an associate director at KFF's Program on Medicare Policy. Furthermore, she said, Medicare Advantage enrollees were more likely to face prior authorization for higher-cost services, including inpatient hospital stays, skilled nursing facility stays, and chemotherapy.

But Neil Parikh, national chief medical officer for medical management at UnitedHealthcare, explained prior authorization rules apply to fewer than 2% of the claims the company pays. He added that "99% of the time" UnitedHealthcare members don't need prior authorization or requests are approved "very, very quickly."

Recently, he said, a team at UnitedHealthcare was reviewing a prior authorization request for an orthopedic procedure when they discovered the surgeon planned to operate on the wrong side of the patient's body. UnitedHealthcare caught the mistake in time, he recounted.

"This is a real-life example of why prior authorization can really help," Parikh said.

Even so, he said, UnitedHealthcare aims to make the process less burdensome by removing prior authorization requirements for some services, rendering instant decisions for certain requests, and establishing a national gold card program, among other refinements. Cigna also announced changes designed to improve prior authorization in the months since Thompson's killing.

"Brian was an incredible friend and colleague to many, many of us, and we are deeply saddened by his passing," Parikh said. "It's truly a sad occasion."

The Final Denial

During the summer of 2023, Ekirch was working full time and preparing to take the bar exam when she noticed numbness and tingling in her arms and legs. Eventually, she started experiencing a burning sensation throughout her body.

That fall, a Richmond-area neurologist said her symptoms were consistent with small fiber neuropathy, and, in early 2024, a rheumatologist recommended IVIG to ease her pain. Since then, other specialists, including neurologists at the University of Virginia and Virginia Commonwealth University, have said she may benefit from the same treatment.

There's no guarantee it will work. A randomized controlled trial published in 2021 found pain levels in patients who received IVIG weren't significantly different from the placebo group, while an older study found patients responded "remarkably well."

"It's hard because I look at my peers from law school and high school — they're having families, excelling in their career, living their life. And most days I am just struggling, just to get out of bed," said Ekirch, frustrated that Anthem continues to deny her claim.

In a prepared statement, Kersha Cartwright, a spokesperson for Anthem's parent company, Elevance Health, said Ekirch's request for IVIG treatment was denied "because it did not meet the established medical criteria for effectiveness in treating small fiber neuropathy."

On Feb. 17, her treatment was denied by Anthem for the final time. Ekirch said her patient advocate, a nurse who works for Anthem, suggested she reach out to the drug manufacturer about patient charity programs.

"This is absolutely crazy," Ekirch said. "This is someone from Anthem telling me to plead with a pharmacy company to give me this drug when Anthem should be covering it."

Her only hope now lies with the Virginia State Corporation Commission Bureau of Insurance, a state agency that resolves prior authorization disputes between patients and health insurance companies. She found out through a Facebook group for patients with small fiber neuropathy that the Bureau of Insurance has overturned an IVIG denial before. In late March, Ekirch was anxiously waiting to hear the agency's decision about her case.

"I don't want to get my hopes up too much, though," she said. "I feel like this entire process, I've been let down by it."

Lauren Sausser: lsausser@kff.org, @laurenmsausser

Physician groups warn it will raise payment issues and other significant logistical problems.

This article was published on Thursday, March 20, 2025 in KFF Health News.

By Michelle Andrews

The routine is familiar for most people: When checking in for an appointment with a doctor or other health care provider, patients typically complete and sign a pile of paperwork, including a form that contains some version of the statement, "I agree to pay for all charges not covered by my insurance company."

Patients may not feel comfortable making that financial promise, often before they have any idea what the charges will be. But they generally sign the form anyway, because the alternative is often not to get the services they're seeking.

As a result, consumers may be responsible for unexpected bills and at risk for medical debt.

In New York, state officials, advocates, and the health care provider community have been engaged in a policy tug-of-war over efforts to protect consumers. Their advocates don't want them to get stuck signing "blank check" forms that put them in financial jeopardy. Doctors, hospitals, and other providers don't want to disrupt their practices' workflow and payment logistics with cost discussions and paperwork, especially after services have been provided. State officials' efforts to find a satisfying compromise have so far fallen short.

At the center is a state law that took effect last fall to prohibit requiring patients to sign such consent-to-pay forms before they've received treatment and discussed the costs.

Legal analysts described it as the first such law in the country. Physician groups cried foul, saying it would raise payment issues and other significant logistical problems.

Those concerns found traction. Shortly before the law's start date, the state's Department of Health delayed its implementation indefinitely. In addition, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's proposed fiscal year 2026 budget would let providers go back to requiring patients to agree to pay for care in advance of receiving treatment. It also clarified that the consent requirements would not apply to emergency care.

A key provision of the new law would remain in place, however: Doctors and other providers would still be obligated to have the cost discussion with patients before the patient is asked to sign the form agreeing to pay for the service. Some consider this a significant step.

"Providers having an affirmative obligation to discuss treatment costs is unique," said Gregory Mitchell, a partner in the health and life sciences practice group at McDermott Will & Emery law firm who specializes in managed care. Clients from around the country have been reaching out to the law firm with questions.

Requiring providers to discuss costs with patients, whether before or after services are provided, would pose a "significant burden," he said. Doctors and other providers typically don't know specifics about patient deductibles, cost sharing, or other insurance coverage details until after a claim is submitted to a health plan.

Health care services are different than refrigerators or other goods that people buy, doctors say. If a patient gets a colonoscopy and doesn't want to pay for it, "it's not possible to take the service back," said Jerome Cohen, a gastroenterologist and the president of the Medical Society of the State of New York, which represents physicians. As for the proposed changes in the 2026 budget, Cohen said the medical society "very much appreciates the governor's efforts to try to fix this problematic financial consent requirement."

But patient advocates are pushing back. The current practice is "unfair and it's wrong," said Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president of health initiatives at the Community Service Society of New York, a nonprofit that has successfully pushed for passage of several medical debt-related laws in recent years. No patient should ever have to preemptively agree to pay whatever a provider charges, Benjamin said.

In a written response to questions, Danielle De Souza, a spokesperson for the state Department of Health, said that the proposed law change is justified, "given the burden of this requirement on both patients and providers." De Souza didn't respond to a request for clarification about what those patient burdens are.

Helen Krim walked out of a doctor's office in the Bronx borough of New York City a few years ago rather than sign an open-ended form agreeing to pay for any services recommended by the doctor.

It was the first time that Krim, who is covered by Medicare, had visited that primary care practice. When she told them she didn't want to sign the form, she was told they wouldn't serve her unless she did.

"I'm one of those annoying people who actually reads the forms," the retired bank project manager said. "It's kind of like signing a consent to be scammed." She found another practice that didn't ask her to sign a similar form.

There are other consumer medical debt protections at the federal and state level. The federal No Surprises Act restricts providers from billing consumers for out-of-network services in certain instances. It also requires providers to give good-faith cost estimates for self-pay patients. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a final rule in January that would have removed medical debt from people's credit reports, but the rule's implementation has been frozen by the Trump administration. Several states besides New York have also taken steps to protect consumers with medical debt.

Benjamin said that simply requiring an unspecified "discussion" about costs doesn't address patients' potential unlimited financial liability. Under a bill that Benjamin's organization has drafted, providers would have to give patients a written good-faith estimate of their expected costs before the patient receives services and patients could not be held liable for unlimited or unspecified costs beyond that estimate.

"Let's be the first state to really have fair rules of engagement for both the providers and the patients about what is it that you're agreeing to be financially liable for at the point, beforehand," Benjamin said.

The measure was introduced in the Senate this month.

Providers are taking a wait-and-see attitude, Mitchell said, because the budget plan must still move through the legislative process.

Another New York medical debt-related law that took effect in October takes aim at the use of credit cards to pay for medical services. The Hochul administration has not proposed changing it. The law prohibits providers from requiring pre-authorization of credit cards or keeping a patient's card on file. It also requires providers to notify patients of the risks of paying for medical care with credit cards, which may lack medical debt protections. In addition, providers aren't allowed to help patients complete credit card applications under the law.

The laws are aimed at stopping unfair billing practices and reducing medical debt for New Yorkers. Earlier laws ban credit reporting of all medical debt and prohibit hospitals from suing patients with incomes under 400% of the poverty level, among other things.

New York providers don't like the credit card law either, though it hasn't generated the pushback seen with the consent-to-pay law.

In a statement, Brian Conway, a spokesperson for the Greater New York Hospital Association, said, "It's important to clarify that hospitals do not oppose the goals of the hospital financial assistance law reforms overall, but rather the operational burdens and patient disclosure overload that a few specific provisions create."

Michelle Andrews: andrews.khn@gmail.com, @mandrews110

At-Risk Intervention and Mentoring program supports gun-violence patients and their families at the hospital.

This article was published on Thursday, March 13, 2024 in KFF Health News.

By Stephanie Wolf

DENVER — Seven years ago, Erica Green learned through a Facebook post that her brother had been shot.

She rushed to check on him at a hospital run by Denver Health, the city's safety-net system, but she was unable to get information from emergency room workers, who complained that she was creating a disturbance.

"I was distraught and outside, crying, and Jerry came out of the front doors," she said.

Jerry Morgan is a familiar face from Green's Denver neighborhood. He had rushed to the hospital after his pager alerted him to the shooting. As a violence prevention professional with the At-Risk Intervention and Mentoring program, or AIM, Morgan supports gun-violence patients and their families at the hospital — as he did the day Green's brother was shot.

"It made the situation of that traumatic experience so much better. After that, I was, like, I want to do this work," Green said.

Today, Green works with Morgan as the program manager for AIM, a hospital-linked violence intervention program launched in 2010 as a partnership between Denver Health and the nonprofit Denver Youth Program. It since has expanded to include Children's Hospital Colorado and the University of Colorado Hospital.

AIM is one of dozens of hospital-linked violence intervention programs around the country. The programs aim to uncover the social and economic factors that contributed to someone ending up in the ER with a bullet wound: inadequate housing, job loss, or feeling unsafe in one's neighborhood, for example.

Such programs that take a public health approach to stopping gun violence have had success — one in San Francisco reported a fourfold reduction in violent injury recidivism rates over six years. But President Donald Trump's executive orders calling for the review of the Biden administration's gun policies and trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans have created uncertainty around the programs' long-term federal funding. Some organizers believe their programs will be just fine, but others are looking to shore up alternative funding sources.

"We've been worried about, if a domino does fall, how is it going to impact us? There's a lot of unknowns," said John Torres, associate director for Youth Alive, an Oakland, California-based nonprofit.

Federal data shows that gun violence became a leading cause of death among children and young adults at the start of this decade and was tied to more than 48,000 deaths among people of all ages in 2022. New York-based pediatric trauma surgeon Chethan Sathya, a National Institutes of Health-funded firearms injury prevention researcher, believes those statistics show that gun violence can't be ignored as a health care issue. "It's killing so many people," Sathya said.

Research shows that a violent injury puts someone at heightened risk for future ones, and the risk of death goes up significantly by the third violent injury, according to a 2006 study published in The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection and Critical Care.

Benjamin Li, an emergency medicine physician at Denver Health and the health system's AIM medical director, said the ER is an ideal setting to intervene in gun violence by working to reverse-engineer what led to a patient's injuries.

"If you are just seeing the person, patching them up, and then sending them right back into the exact same circumstances, we know it's going to lead to them being hurt again," Li said. "It's critical we address the social determinants of health and then try to change the equation."

That might mean providing alternative solutions to gunshot victims who might otherwise seek retaliation, said Paris Davis, the intervention programs director for Youth Alive.

"If that's helping them relocate out of the area, if that's allowing them to gain housing, if that's shifting that energy into education or job or, you know, family therapy, whatever the needs are for that particular case and individual, that is what we provide," Davis said.

AIM outreach workers meet gunshot wound victims at their hospital bedsides to have what Morgan, AIM's lead outreach worker, calls a tough, nonjudgmental conversation on how the patients ended up there.

AIM uses that information to help patients access the resources they need to navigate their biggest challenges after they're discharged, Morgan said. Those challenges can include returning to school or work, or finding housing. AIM outreach workers might also attend court proceedings and assist with transportation to health care appointments.

"We try to help in whatever capacity we can, but it's interdependent on whatever the client needs," Morgan said.

Since 2010, AIM has grown from three full-time outreach workers to nine, and this year opened the REACH Clinic in Denver's Five Points neighborhood. The community-based clinic provides wound-care kits; physical therapy; and behavioral, mental and occupational health care. In the coming months, it plans to add bullet removal to its services. It's part of a growing movement of community-based clinics focused on violent injuries, including the Bullet Related Injury Clinic in St. Louis.

Ginny McCarthy, an assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at the University of Colorado, described REACH as an extension of the hospital-based work, providing holistic treatment in a single location and building trust between health care providers and communities of color that have historically experienced racial biases in medical care.

Caught in the Crossfire, created in 1994 and run by Youth Alive in Oakland, is cited as the nation's first hospital-linked violence intervention program and has since inspired others. The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, a national network initiated by Youth ALIVE to advance public health solutions to gun violence, counted 74 hospital-linked violence intervention programs among its membership as of January.

The alliance's executive director, Fatimah Loren Dreier, compared medicine's role in addressing gun violence to that of preventing an infectious disease, like cholera. "That disease spreads if you don't have good sanitation in places where people aggregate," she said.

Dreier, who also serves as executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Gun Violence Research and Education, said medicine identifies and tracks patterns that lead to the spread of a disease or, in this case, the spread of violence.

"That is what health care can do really well to shift society. When we deploy this, we get better outcomes for everybody," Dreier said.

The alliance, of which AIM is a member, offers technical assistance and training for hospital-linked violence intervention programs and successfully petitioned to make their services eligible for traditional insurance reimbursement.

In 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive action that opened the door for states to use Medicaid for violence prevention. Several states, including California, New York, and Colorado, have passed legislation establishing a Medicaid benefit for hospital-linked violence intervention programs.

Last summer, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared gun violence a public health crisis, and the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act earmarked $1.4 billion in funding for a wide array of violence-prevention programs through next year.

But in early February, Trump issued an executive order instructing the U.S. attorney general to conduct a 30-day review of a number of Biden's policies on gun violence. The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention now appears to be defunct, and recent moves to freeze federal grants created uncertainty among the gun-violence prevention programs that receive federal funding.

AIM receives 30% of its funding from its operating agreement with Denver's Office of Community Violence Solutions, according to Li. The rest is from grants, including Victims of Crime Act funding, through the Department of Justice. As of mid-February, Trump's executive orders had not affected AIM's current funding.

Some who work with the hospital-linked violence prevention programs in Colorado are hoping a new voter-approved firearms and ammunition excise tax in the state, expected to generate about $39 million annually and support victim services, could be a new source of funding. But the tax's revenues aren't expected to fully flow until 2026, and it's not clear how that money will be allocated.

Trauma surgeon and public health researcher Catherine Velopulos, who is the AIM medical director at the University of Colorado hospital in Aurora, said any interruption in federal funding, even for a few months, would be "very difficult for us." But Velopulos said she was reassured by the bipartisan support for the kind of work AIM does.

"People want to oversimplify the problem and just say, ‘If we get rid of guns, it's all going to stop,' or ‘It doesn't matter what we do, because they're going to get guns, anyway,'" she said. "What we really have to address is why people feel so scared that they have to arm themselves."