Under a new executive order, prescription drug prices will be reduced 'almost immediately.' — President Donald Trump, in a May 11 post on Truth Social.
This article was published on Tuesday, May 20, 2025 in KFF Health News.
President Donald Trump expressed high hopes for an executive order to reduce drug prices.
On May 11, the day before he held a White House event to sign the executive order, Trump posted on Truth Social, "Prescription Drug and Pharmaceutical prices will be REDUCED, almost immediately, by 30% to 80%."
However, the executive order's text, unveiled May 12, undercut the president's description of how soon consumers could experience this potential boon.
The idea of the executive order, he said, was to lower high prescription drug costs in the U.S. to levels more typical in other countries.
"We're going to equalize," Trump said at the order signing. "We're all going to pay the same. We're going to pay what Europe's going to pay."
Experts said Trump's action could lower the cost of prescription drugs, perhaps by the 30% to 80% Trump said, but they cautioned that the order's required procedural steps would make it far from an immediate fix.
The executive order says that within 30 days, administration officials must determine and communicate to drugmakers "most-favored-nation price targets," to push the companies to "bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations."
After an unspecified period of time, the administration will gauge whether "significant progress" toward lower pricing has been achieved. If not, the order requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to "propose a rulemaking plan to impose most-favored-nation pricing," which could take months or years to take effect.
"Executive orders are wish lists," said Joseph Antos, a senior fellow emeritus in health care policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The order "hopes that manufacturers will unilaterally lower U.S. prices. The legal authority to intervene in the market is unclear if this implausible scenario doesn't happen."
When contacted for comment, the White House did not provide evidence that the executive order would provide immediate results.
Why Do Americans Pay More for Prescriptions?
There is wide agreement that drug prices are unusually high in the U.S. The prices Americans pay for pharmaceuticals are nearly three times the average among a group of other industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
A study by the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan research organization, found that, across all drugs, U.S. prices were 2.78 times as high as the average prices across 33 OECD countries. The gap was even wider for brand-name drugs, with U.S. prices averaging 4.22 times as much.
The U.S. has lower prices than comparable nations for unbranded, generic drugs, which account for about 90% of filled prescriptions in the U.S. But generics account for only a fifth of U.S. prescription drug spending.
Experts cite several reasons for this pricing discrepancy.
One is that the U.S. has more limited price negotiation with drug manufacturers than other countries do. Often, if another country fails to find the extra cost of a new drug is justified by improved results, it'll reject the drug application. Some countries also set price controls.
Another factor is patent exclusivity. Over the years, U.S. pharmaceutical companies have used strong legal protections to amass patents that can keep generic competitors from the marketplace.
Drug companies have also argued that high prices help pay for research and development of new and improved pharmaceuticals. When Trump released the executive order, Stephen J. Ubl, president and CEO of the drug industry group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement, "It would mean less treatments and cures and would jeopardize the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America." (In Trump's May 13 interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Trump offered a different picture of what drug company officials have told him; he said they agreed "it's time" to lower U.S. prices.)
Recent studies have cast doubt on the idea that high prices pay for research and development. A 2023 study found that from 1999 to 2018, the world's 15 largest biopharmaceutical companies spent more on selling and general administrative activities, which include marketing, than on research and development. The study also said most new medicines developed during this period offered little to no clinical benefit over existing treatments.
The long-standing reality of high U.S. drug prices has driven Democratic and Republican efforts to bring them down. Then-President Joe Biden signed legislation to require Medicare, the federal health care program that covers Americans over 65, to negotiate prices with the makers of some popular, high-cost medicines. And Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has made lowering drug prices a cornerstone issue during his political career.
During his first term, Trump sought to lower prices for certain drugs under Medicare, but the courts blocked the move on procedural grounds.
Trump's drug-price push could attract bipartisan support, experts said.
Jonathan Cohn, who has worked for several left-of-center media outlets and wrotetwo books on health care policy, offered measured praise for Trump's executive order in The Bulwark, a publication generally critical of Trump, calling it "a serious policy initiative, one that credible people think could bring some relief on drug prices."
Andrew Mulcahy, a Rand Corp. senior health economist, said one part of Trump's statement — the possibility of a 30% to 80% price reduction — is plausible.
"Of course, the devil's in the policy design and implementation details," Mulcahy said. "But at first blush, a savings of roughly two-thirds on what we spend now for drugs seems in line" with what Rand's research has shown.
What Would Trump's Executive Order Do?
Referring to high U.S. drug prices, Trump told Hannity that "I ended it" by issuing the executive order. But that's not how the order is structured.
The executive order makes plain that any actions will not happen quickly.
"That 'almost' in 'almost immediately' is doing a lot of work," Mulcahy said, referring to Trump's statement.
The executive order also could face court challenges, just as Trump's first-term executive order did.
"It seems unlikely that the federal government can set prices for drugs outside of the Medicare program," Antos said. If Trump wants reduced prices to benefit all U.S. consumers, experts said, Congress will likely have to pass new legislation. While executive orders direct federal agencies what to do, requiring action from privately owned companies likely would require legislation passed by Congress, experts said.
If Congress gets involved, that will not only tack on extra time, but it also could draw opposition from the Republican majority in one or both chambers. Historically, Antos said, "federal price controls are anathema for many Republicans in Congress."
Our Ruling
Trump said that, because of his new executive order, prescription drug prices would be reduced "almost immediately."
Experts said that if the goals of the executive order are achieved, price reductions would not happen "almost immediately."
The order sets out a 30-day period to develop pricing targets for drugmakers, followed by an unspecified amount of time to see if companies achieve the targets. If they don't, a formal rulemaking process would begin, requiring months or even years. And if Trump intends to lower prices for all consumers, not only those who have federal coverage such as Medicare, Congress will likely have to pass a law to do it.
Trump gives the impression that Americans will shortly see steep decreases in what they pay for prescription drugs. But even if the executive order acts as intended — which would require a lot to go right — it could take months or years.
The statement contains an element of truth but ignores evidence that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
Healthcare has proved a vulnerable target for the firehose of cuts and policy changes President Donald Trump ordered in the name of reducing waste and improving efficiency. But most of the impact isn't as tangible as, say, higher egg prices at the grocery store.
One thing experts from a wide range of fields, from basic science to public health, agree on: The damage will be varied and immense. "It's exceedingly foolish to cut funding in this way," said Harold Varmus, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist and former director of both the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute.
The blaze of cuts have yielded nonsensical and perhaps unintended consequences. Consider instances in which grant funding gets canceled after two years of a three-year project. That means, for example, that $2 million has already been spent but there will be no return on that investment.
Some of the targeted areas are not administration priorities. That includes the abrupt termination of studies on long covid, which afflicts more than 100,000 Americans, and the interruption of work on mRNA vaccines, which hold promise not just in infectious disease but also in treating cancer.
While charitable dollars have flowed in to plug some gaps, "philanthropy cannot replace federal funding," said Dustin Sposato, communications manager for the Science Philanthropy Alliance, a group that works to boost support from charities for basic science research.
Here are critical ways in which Trump administration cuts — proposed and actual — could affect American healthcare and, more important, the health of American patients.
Cuts to the National Institutes of Health: The Trump administration has cut $2.3 billion in new grant funding since its term began, as well as terminated existing grants on a wide range of topics — vaccine hesitancy, HIV/AIDS, and covid-19 — that do not align with its priorities. National Institutes of Health grants do have yearly renewal clauses, but it is rare for them to be terminated, experts say. The administration has also cut "training grants" for young scientists to join the NIH.
Why It Matters: The NIH has long been a crucible of basic science research — the kind of work that industry generally does not do. Most pharmaceutical patents have their roots in work done or supported by the NIH, and many scientists at pharmaceutical manufacturers learned their craft at institutions supported by the NIH or at the NIH itself. The termination of some grants will directly affect patients since they involved ongoing clinical studies on a range of conditions, including pediatric cancer, diabetes, and long covid. And, more broadly, cuts in public funding for research could be costly in the longer term as a paucity of new discoveries will mean fewer new products: A 25% cut to public research and development spending would reduce the nation's economic output by an amount comparable to the decline in gross domestic product during the Great Recession, a new study found.
Cuts to Universities: The Trump administration also tried to deal a harrowing blow — currently blocked by the courts — to scientific research at universities by slashing extra money that accompanies research grants for "indirect costs," like libraries, lab animal care, support staff, and computer systems.
Why It Matters: Wealthier universities may find the funds to make up for draconian indirect cost cuts. But poorer ones — and many state schools, many of them in red states — will simply stop doing research. A good number of crucial discoveries emerge from these labs. "Medical research is a money-losing proposition," said one state school dean with former ties to the Ivies. (The dean requested anonymity because his current employer told him he could not speak on the record.) "If you want to shut down research, this will do it, and it will go first at places like the University of Tennessee and the University of Arkansas." That also means fewer opportunities for students at state universities to become scientists.
Cuts to Public Health: These hits came in many forms. The administration has cut or threatened to cut long-standing block grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; covid-related grants; and grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion activities — which often translated into grants to improve healthcare for the underserved. Though the covid pandemic has faded, those grants were being used by states to enhance lab capacity to improve detection and surveillance. And they were used to formally train the nation's public health workforce, many of whom learn on the job.
Why It Matters: Public health officials and researchers were working hard to facilitate a quicker, more thoughtful response to future pandemics, of particular concern as bird flu looms and measles is having a resurgence. Mati Hlatshwayo Davis, the St. Louis health director, had four grants canceled, three in one day. One grant that fell under the covid rubric included programs to help community members make lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of hypertension and diabetes — the kind of chronic diseases that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he will focus on fighting. Others paid the salaries of support staff for a wide variety of public health initiatives. "What has been disappointing is that decisions have been made without due diligence," she said.
Health-Related Impact of Tariffs: Though Trump has exempted prescription drugs from his sweeping tariffs on most imports thus far, he has not ruled out the possibility of imposing such tariffs. "It's a moving target," said Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, noting that since high drug prices are already a burden, adding any tax to them is problematic.
Why It Matters: That supposed exemption doesn't fully insulate American patients from higher costs. About two-thirds of prescription drugs are already manufactured in the U.S. But their raw materials are often imported from China — and those enjoy no tariff exemption. Many basic supplies used in hospitals and doctors' offices — syringes, surgical drapes, and personal protective equipment — are imported, too. Finally, even if the tariffs somehow don't themselves magnify the price to purchase ingredients and medical supplies, Americans may suffer: Across-the-board tariffs on such a wide range of products, from steel to clothing, means fewer ships will be crossing the Pacific to make deliveries — and that means delays. "I think there's an uncomfortably high probability that something breaks in the supply chain and we end up with shortages," Strain said.
Changes to Medicaid: Trump has vowed to protect Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for Americans with low incomes and disabilities. But House Republicans have eyed the program as a possible source of offsets to help pay for what Trump calls "the big, beautiful bill" — a sweeping piece of budget legislation to extend his 2017 tax cuts. The amount of money GOP leaders have indicated they could squeeze from Medicaid, which now covers about 20% of Americans, has been in the hundreds of billions of dollars. But deep cuts are politically fraught.
To generate some savings, administration officials have at times indicated they are open to at least some tweaks to Medicaid. One idea on the table — work requirements — would require adults on Medicaid to be working or in some kind of job training. (Nearly two-thirds of Medicaid recipients ages 19-64 already work.)
Why It Matters: In 2024 the uninsured rate was 8.2%, near the all-time low, in large part because of the Medicaid expansion under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Critics say work requirements are a backhanded way to slim down the Medicaid rolls, since the paperwork requirements of such programs have proved so onerous that eligible people drop out, causing the uninsured rate to rise. A Congressional Budget Office report estimates that the proposed change would reduce coverage by at least 7.7 million in a decade. This leads to higher rates of uncompensated care, putting vulnerable healthcare facilities — think rural hospitals — at risk.
WINNER, S.D. — Sophie Hofeldt planned to receive prenatal care and give birth at her local hospital, 10 minutes from her house. Instead, she's driving more than three hours round trip for her appointments.
The hospital, Winner Regional Health, recently joined the increasing number of rural hospitals shuttering their birthing units.
"It's going to be a lot more of a stress and a hassle for women to get the healthcare that they need because they have to go so much further," said Hofeldt, who has a June 10 due date for her first child.
Hofeldt said longer drives mean spending more on gas — and a higher risk of not making it to the hospital in time. "My main concern is having to give birth in a car," she said.
More than a hundred rural hospitals have stopped delivering babies since 2021, according to the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, a nonprofit organization. Such closures are often blamed on shortages of staff and money.
About 58% of South Dakota counties have no birthing facilities, the second-highest rate among states, after North Dakota, according to March of Dimes. And the South Dakota health department says pregnant womenand infants in the state, especially those who are Black or Native American, experience high rates of complications and death.
Winner Regional Health serves rural communities, including parts of the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation, in South Dakota and Nebraska. It delivered 107 babies last year, down from 158 in 2021, said CEO Brian Williams.
The nearest birthing hospitals are in rural towns an hour or more from Winner. But several women said driving to those facilities would take them through areas without reliable cellphone service, which could be a problem if they have an emergency along the way.
KFF Health News spoke with five patients from the Winner area who planned to deliver at Avera St. Mary's Hospital in Pierre, about 90 miles from Winner, or at one of the large medical centers in Sioux Falls, 170 miles away.
Hofeldt and her boyfriend drive every three weeks to her prenatal appointments at the Pierre hospital, which serves the small capital city and vast surrounding rural area. She'll have to make weekly trips closer to her due date. Neither of their jobs provides paid time off for such appointments.
"When you have to go to Pierre, you have to take almost the whole day off," said Hofeldt, who was born at the Winner hospital.
That means forfeiting pay while spending extra money on travel. Not everyone has gas money, let alone access to a car, and bus services are scarce in rural America. Some women also need to pay for child care during their appointments. And when the baby comes, family members may need to pay for a hotel.
Amy Lueking, Hofeldt's doctor in Pierre, said when patients can't overcome these barriers, obstetricians can give them home monitoring devices and offer phone- or video-based care. Patients can also receive prenatal care at a local hospital or clinic before connecting with a doctor at a birthing hospital, Lueking said.
However, some rural areas don't have access to telehealth. And some patients, such as Hofeldt, don't want to split up their care, form relationships with two doctors, and deal with logistics like transferring medical records.
During a recent appointment, Lueking glided an ultrasound device over Hofeldt's uterus. The "woosh-woosh" rhythm of the fetal heartbeat thumped over the monitor.
"I think it's the best sound in the whole wide world," Lueking said.
Hofeldt told Lueking she wanted her first delivery to be "as natural as possible."
But ensuring a birth goes according to plan can be difficult for rural patients. To guarantee they make it to the hospital on time, some schedule an induction, in which doctors use medicine or procedures to stimulate labor.
Katie Larson lives on a ranch near Winner in the town of Hamill, population 14. She had hoped to avoid having her labor induced.
Larson wanted to wait until her contractions began naturally, then drive to Avera St. Mary's in Pierre. But she scheduled an induction in case she didn't go into labor by April 13, her due date.
Larson ended up having to reschedule for April 8 to avoid a conflict with an important cattle sale she and her husband were preparing for.
"People are going to be either forced to pick an induction date when it wasn't going to be their first choice or they're going to run the risk of having a baby on the side of the road," she said.
Lueking said it's very rare for people to give birth while heading to the hospital in a car or ambulance. But last year, she said, five women who planned to deliver in Pierre ended up delivering in other hospitals' emergency rooms after rapidly progressing labor or weather made it too risky to drive long distances.
Nanette Eagle Star's plan was to deliver at the Winner hospital, five minutes from home, until the hospital announced it would be closing its labor and delivery unit. She then decided to give birth in Sioux Falls, because her family could save money by staying with relatives there.
Eagle Star's plan changed again when she went into early labor and the weather was too dangerous to drive or take a medical helicopter to Sioux Falls.
"It happened so fast, in the middle of a snowstorm," she said.
Eagle Star delivered at the Winner hospital after all, but in the ER, without an epidural pain blocker since no anesthesiologist was available. It was just three days after the birthing unit closed.
The end of labor and delivery services at Winner Regional Health isn't just a health issue, local women said. It also has emotional and financial impacts on the community.
Eagle Star fondly recalls going to doctor appointments with her sisters when she was a child. As soon as they arrived, they'd head to a hallway with baby photos taped to the wall and begin "a scavenger hunt" for Polaroids of themselves and their relatives.
"On both sides it was just filled with babies' pictures," Eagle Star said. She remembers thinking, "look at all these cute babies that were born here in Winner."
Hofeldt said many locals are sad their babies won't be born in the same hospital they were.
Anora Henderson, a family physician, said a lack of maternity care can lead to poor outcomes for infants. Those babies may develop health problems that will require lifelong, often expensive care and other public support.
"There is a community effect," she said. "It's just not as visible and it's farther down the road."
Henderson resigned in May from Winner Regional Health, where she delivered vaginal births and assisted on cesarean sections. The last baby she delivered was Eagle Star's.
To be designated a birthing hospital, facilities must be able to conduct C-sections and provide anesthesia 24/7, Henderson explained.
Williams, the hospital's CEO, said Winner Regional Health hasn't been able to recruit enough medical professionals trained in those skills.
For the last several years, the hospital was only able to offer birthing services by spending about $1.2 million a year on temporary physicians, he said, and it could no longer afford to do that.
Another financial challenge is that many births at rural hospitals are covered by Medicaid, the federal and state program serving people with low incomes or disabilities. The program typically pays about half of what private insurers do for childbirth services, according to a 2022 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Williams said about 80% of deliveries at Winner Regional Health were covered by Medicaid.
Obstetric units are often the biggest financial drain on rural hospitals, and therefore they're frequently the first to close when a hospital is struggling, the GAO report said.
Williams said the hospital still provides prenatal care and that he'd love to restart deliveries if he could hire enough staff.
Henderson, the physician who resigned from the Winner hospital, has witnessed the decline in rural maternity care over decades.
She remembers tagging along with her mother for appointments before her sister was born. Her mother traveled about 100 miles each way after the hospital in the town of Kadoka shuttered in 1979.
Henderson practiced for nearly 22 years at Winner Regional Health, sparing women from having to travel to give birth like her mother did.
Over the years, she took in new patients as a nearby rural hospital and then an Indian Health Service facility closed their birthing units. Then, Henderson's own hospital stopped deliveries.
"What's really frustrating me now is I thought I was going to go into family medicine and work in a rural area and that's how we were going to fix this, so people didn't have to drive 100 miles to have a baby," she said.
When people call large insurance brokerages seeking free assistance in choosing Medicare Advantage plans, they're often offered assurances such as this one from eHealth: "Your benefit advisors will find plans that match your needs — no matter the carrier."
About a third of enrollees do seek help in making complex decisions about whether to enroll in original Medicare or select among private-sector alternatives, called Medicare Advantage.
Now a blockbuster lawsuit filed May 1 by the federal Department of Justice alleges that insurers Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana paid "hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks" to large insurance brokerages — eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The payments, made from 2016 to at least 2021, were incentives to steer patients into the insurer's Medicare Advantage plans, the lawsuit alleges, while also discouraging enrollment of potentially more costly disabled beneficiaries.
Policy experts say the lawsuit will add fuel to long-running concerns about whether Medicare enrollees are being encouraged to select the coverage that is best for them — or the one that makes the most money for the broker.
Medicare Advantage plans, which may include benefits not covered by the original government program, such as vision care or fitness club memberships, already cover more than half of those enrolled in the federal health insurance program for seniors and people with disabilities. The private plans have strong support among Republican lawmakers, but some research shows they cost taxpayers more than traditional Medicare per enrollee.
The plans have also drawn attention for requiring patients to get prior authorization, a process that involves gaining approval for higher-cost care, such as elective surgeries, nursing home stays, or chemotherapy, something rarely required in original Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans are under the microscope for aggressive marketing and sales efforts, as outlined in a recent report from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). During the last year of the Biden administration, regulators put in place a rule that reined in some broker payments, although parts of that rule are on hold pending a separate court case filed in Texas by regulation opponents.
The May DOJ case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleges insurers labeled payments as "marketing" or "sponsorship" fees to get around rules that set caps on broker commissions. These payments from insurers, according to the lawsuit, added incentives — often more than $200 per enrollee — for brokers to direct Medicare beneficiaries toward their coverage "regardless of the quality or suitability of the insurers' plans." The case joins the DOJ in a previously filed whistleblower lawsuit brought by a then-employee of eHealth.
"In order to influence the market, the Defendant Insurers understood that they needed to make greater, illicit payments in addition to the permitted (but capped) commissions," the lawsuit alleges.
In one example cited, the lawsuit says insurer Anthem paid broker GoHealth "more than $230 million in kickbacks" from 2017 to at least 2021 in exchange for the brokerage to hit specified sales targets in payments often referred to as "marketing development funds."
Insurers and brokers named in the case pushed back. Aetna, Humana, Elevance, eHealth, and SelectQuote each sent emailed statements to KFF Health News disputing the allegations and saying they would fight them in court. EHealth spokesperson Will Shanley, for example, wrote that the brokerage "strongly believes the claims are meritless and remains committed to vigorously defending itself." GoHealth posted online a response denying the allegations.
The DOJ lawsuit is likely to add to the debate over the role of the private sector in Medicare with vivid details often drawn from internal emails among key insurance and brokerage employees. The case alleges that brokers knew that Aetna, for example, saw the payments as a "shortcut" to increase sales, "instead of attracting beneficiaries through policy improvements or other legitimate avenues," the lawsuit said.
One eHealth executive in a 2021 instant message exchange with a colleague that is cited in the lawsuit allegedly said incentives were needed because the plans themselves fell short: "More money will drive more sales [be]cause your product is dog sh[*]t."
The DOJ case focuses on large insurance brokerages, which often rely on national marketing efforts to gain customers, rather than mom-and-pop insurance offices.
The filing, which alleges violations under the federal False Claims Act, outlines some of the problems consumers could face because of those payments, including being enrolled or switched into plans without their express permission, and getting coverage that didn't meet their needs.
A cancer patient, for example, was switched from the original Medicare program into a private-sector managed-care plan by a large brokerage firm, according to the lawsuit, only to get hit with $17,000 in ongoing treatment costs that would have been covered without the change. Another person calling for free advice later discovered she had been enrolled without permission into a plan with a different insurer than she had previously chosen.
Meanwhile, people with disabilities looking to enroll in private-sector Medicare Advantage plans had their calls ignored or rerouted by systems designed to weed out disabled people, especially if they were under age 65, the lawsuit alleges. That's because the insurers knew that disabled beneficiaries usually cost more to cover than those without medical problems, the case alleges. Medicare plans are not allowed to discriminate against people with disabilities.
Still, private insurers are allowed to offer commissions to brokers — or not.
Congress and regulators, however, concerned about insurers' potential financial influence over beneficiaries' choice of plans, set maximum commissions and limited payments for other things, such as administrative costs, to a vaguer standard: their fair market value. (Under the Biden-era rule that's on hold, administrative fees would have been capped at $100 per enrollment.) On commissions, the national cap in 2021 — the final year cited in the lawsuit — was $539 per enrollment for the initial year, with higher amounts in some states, including California and New Jersey, the lawsuit said.
The allowed commission rates have risen to a maximum in the low $600s per person in most states this year. Those amounts are higher than what brokers earn if a client enrolls in original Medicare and buys a supplemental drug plan, for which the commission is capped at $109 for the initial year.
Some policy experts say that pay structure alone — aside from any of the allegations in the lawsuit — creates an uneven playing field between the private-sector plans and the original program.
"It's not my intent to paint all agents and brokers with the same brushstroke, but there are significant financial incentives to steer people toward Medicare Advantage in general," said David Lipschutz, co-director of law and policy at the Center for Medicare Advocacy.
While brokers can be helpful in sorting out complexities, other options are available. Lipschutz suggested that consumers seek information from their federally funded State Health Insurance Assistance Program, which can advise beneficiaries about Medicare options, are not affiliated with insurers, and don't receive commissions.
While encouraged that the Trump administration filed the case under investigations that began under the Biden administration, policy experts say Congress and insurers need to do more.
"What we see in this lawsuit highlights the terrible incentives that desperately need Congress to reform," said Brian Connell, a vice president at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, an advocacy group.
Right now, however, Congress is embroiled in budget battles amid calls by the Trump administration to drastically cut federal spending.
"It doesn't seem like it's high in the queue," said Zachary Baron, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. Some members of Congress may push for more changes to Medicare Advantage, Baron said, "but the real question is whether there will be bipartisan interest."
The large amounts of money that the lawsuit alleges were involved, though, might add legislative momentum.
"This is money not being spent on care, money not going to providers of health care services," Lipschutz said. "In my mind, it's a lot of wasted payment. It's pretty staggering."
In the dim basement of a Salt Lake City pharmacy, hundreds of amber-colored plastic pill bottles sit stacked in rows, one man's defensive wall in a tariff war.
Independent pharmacist Benjamin Jolley and his colleagues worry that the tariffs, aimed at bringing drug production to the United States, could instead drive companies out of business while raising prices and creating more of the drug shortages that have plagued American patients for several years.
Jolley bought six months' worth of the most expensive large bottles, hoping to shield his business from the 10% across-the-board tariffs on imported goods that President Donald Trump announced April 2. Now with threats of additional tariffs targeting pharmaceuticals, Jolley worries that costs will soar for the medications that will fill those bottles.
In principle, Jolley said, using tariffs to push manufacturing from China and India to the U.S. makes sense. In the event of war, China could quickly stop all exports to the United States.
"I understand the rationale for tariffs. I'm not sure that we're gonna do it the right way," Jolley said. "And I am definitely sure that it's going to raise the price that I pay my suppliers."
Squeezed by insurers and middlemen, independent pharmacists such as Jolley find themselves on the front lines of a tariff storm. Nearly everyone down the line — drugmakers, pharmacies, wholesalers, and middlemen — opposes most tariffs.
Slashing drug imports could trigger widespread shortages, experts said, because of America's dependence on Chinese- and Indian-made chemical ingredients, which form the critical building blocks of many medicines. Industry officials caution that steep tariffs on raw materials and finished pharmaceuticals could make drugs more expensive.
"Big ships don't change course overnight," said Robin Feldman, a UC Law San Francisco professor who writes about prescription drug issues. "Even if companies pledge to bring manufacturing home, it will take time to get them up and running. The key will be to avoid damage to industry and pain to consumers in the process."
Trump on April 8 said he would soon announce "a major tariff on pharmaceuticals," which have been largely tariff-free in the U.S. for 30 years.
"When they hear that, they will leave China," he said. The U.S. imported $213 billion worth of medicines in 2024 — from China but also India, Europe, and other areas.
Trump's statement sent drugmakers scrambling to figure out whether he was serious, and whether some tariffs would be levied more narrowly, since many parts of the U.S. drug supply chain are fragile, drug shortages are common, and upheaval at the FDA leaves questions about whether its staffing is adequate to inspect factories, where quality problems can lead to supply chain crises.
On May 12, Trump signed an executive order asking drugmakers to bring down the prices Americans pay for prescriptions, to put them in line with prices in other countries.
Meanwhile, pharmacists predict even the 10% tariffs Trump has demanded will hurt: Jolley said a potential increase of up to 30 cents a vial is not a king's ransom, but it adds up when you're a small pharmacy that fills 50,000 prescriptions a year.
"The one word that I would say right now to describe tariffs is ‘uncertainty,'" said Scott Pace, a pharmacist and owner of Kavanaugh Pharmacy in Little Rock, Arkansas.
To weather price fluctuations, Pace stocked up on the drugs his pharmacy dispenses most.
"I've identified the top 200 generics in my store, and I have basically put 90 days' worth of those on the shelf just as a starting point," he said. "Those are the diabetes drugs, the blood pressure medicines, the antibiotics — those things that I know folks will be sicker without."
Pace said tariffs could be the death knell for the many independent pharmacies that exist on "razor-thin margins" — unless reimbursements rise to keep up with higher costs.
Unlike other retailers, pharmacies can't pass along such costs to patients. Their payments are set by health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers largely owned by insurance conglomerates, who act as middlemen between drug manufacturers and purchasers.
Neal Smoller, who employs 15 people at his Village Apothecary in Woodstock, New York, is not optimistic.
"It's not like they're gonna go back and say, well, here's your 10% bump because of the 10% tariff," he said. "Costs are gonna go up and then the sluggish responses from the PBMs — they're going to lead us to lose more money at a faster rate than we already are."
Smoller, who said he has built a niche selling vitamins and supplements, fears that FDA firings will mean fewer federal inspections and safety checks.
"I worry that our pharmaceutical industry becomes like our supplement industry, where it's the wild West," he said.
Narrowly focused tariffs might work in some cases, said Marta Wosińska, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center on Health Policy. For example, while drug manufacturing plants can cost $1 billion and take three to five years to set up, it would be relatively cheap to build a syringe factory — a business American manufacturers abandoned during the covid-19 pandemic because China was dumping its products here, Wosińska said.
It's not surprising that giants such as Novartis and Eli Lilly have promised Trump they'll invest billions in U.S. plants, she said, since much of their final drug product is made here or in Europe, where governments negotiate drug prices. The industry is using Trump's tariff saber-rattling as leverage; in an April 11 letter, 32 drug companies demanded European governments pay them more or face an exodus to the United States.
Brandon Daniels, CEO of supply chain company Exiger, is bullish on tariffs. He thinks they could help bring some chemical manufacturing back to the U.S., which, when coupled with increased use of automation, would reduce the labor advantages of China and India.
"You've got real estate in North Texas that's cheaper than real estate in Shenzhen," he said at an economic conference April 25 in Washington, referring to a major Chinese chemical manufacturing center.
But Wosińska said no amount of tariffs will compel makers of generic drugs, responsible for 90% of U.S. prescriptions, to build new factories in the U.S. Payment structures and competition would make it economic suicide, she said.
Several U.S. generics firms have declared bankruptcy or closed U.S. factories over the past decade, said John Murphy, CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the generics trade group. Reversing that trend won't be easy and tariffs won't do it, he said.
"There's not a magic level of tariffs that magically incentivizes them to come into the U.S.," he said. "There is no room to make a billion-dollar investment in a domestic facility if you're going to lose money on every dose you sell in the U.S. market."
His group has tried to explain these complexities to Trump officials, and hopes word is getting through. "We're not PhRMA," Murphy said, referring to the powerful trade group primarily representing makers of brand-name drugs. "I don't have the resources to go to Mar-a-Lago to talk to the president myself."
Many of the active ingredients in American drugs are imported. Fresenius Kabi, a German company with facilities in eight U.S. states to produce or distribute sterile injectables — vital hospital drugs for cancer and other conditions — complained in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that tariffs on these raw materials could paradoxically lead some companies to move finished product manufacturing overseas.
Fresenius Kabi also makes biosimilars, the generic forms of expensive biologic drugs such as Humira and Stelara. The United States is typically the last developed country where biosimilars appear on the market because of patent laws.
Tariffs on biosimilars coming from overseas — where Fresenius makes such drugs — would further incentivize U.S. use of more expensive brand-name biologics, the March 11 letter said. Biosimilars, which can cost a tenth of the original drug's price, launch on average 3-4 years later in the U.S. than in Canada or Europe.
In addition to getting cheaper knockoff drugs faster, European countries also pay far less than the United States for brand-name products. Paradoxically, Murphy said, those same countries pay more for generics.
European governments tend to establish more stable contracts with makers of generics, while in the United States, "rabid competition" drives down prices to the point at which a manufacturer "maybe scrimps on product quality," said John Barkett, a White House Domestic Policy Council member in the Biden administration.
As a result, Wosińska said, "without exemptions or other measures put in place, I really worry about tariffs causing drug shortages."
Smoller, the New York pharmacist, doesn't see any upside to tariffs.
"How do I solve the problem of caring for my community," he said, "but not being subject to the emotional roller coaster that is dispensing hundreds of prescriptions a day and watching every single one of them be a loss or 12 cents profit?"
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Federal prosecutors sought a maximum prison sentence of nearly 20 years for the CEO of Pain MD, a company found to have given hundreds of thousands of questionable injections to patients, many reliant on opioids. It would have been among the longest sentences for a health care executive convicted of fraud in recent years.
Instead, he got 18 months.
Michael Kestner, 73, who was convicted of 13 fraud felonies last year, faced at least a decade behind bars based on federal sentencing guidelines. He was granted the substantially lightened sentence due to his age and health Wednesday during a federal court hearing in Nashville.
U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger described Kestner as a "ruthless businessman" who funded a "lavish lifestyle" by turning medical professionals into "puppets" who pressured patients into injections that did not help their pain and sometimes made it worse.
"In the court's eyes, he knew it was wrong, and he didn't really care if it was doing anyone any good," Trauger said.
But Trauger also said she was swayed by defense arguments that Kestner would struggle in federal prison due to his age and medical conditions, including the blood disorder hemochromatosis. Trauger said she had concerns about prison health care after considering about 200 requests for compassionate release in other court cases.
"The medical care at these facilities," defense attorney Peter Strianse said, "has always been dodgy and suspect."
Kestner did not speak at the court hearing, other than to detail his medical conditions. He did not respond to questions as he left the courthouse.
Pain MD ran as many as 20 clinics in Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina throughout much of the 2010s. While many doctors were scaling back their use of prescription painkillers due to the opioid crisis, Pain MD paired opioids with monthly injections into patients' backs, claiming the shots could ease pain and potentially lessen reliance on pills, according to federal court documents.
During Kestner's October trial, the Department of Justice proved that the injections were part of a decade-long scheme that defrauded Medicare and other insurance programs of millions of dollars by capitalizing on patients' dependence on opioids.
The DOJ successfully argued at trial that Pain MD's "unnecessary and expensive injections" were largely ineffective because they targeted the wrong body part, contained short-lived numbing medications but no steroids, and appeared to be based on test shots given to cadavers — people who felt neither pain nor relief because they were dead. During closing arguments, the DOJ argued Pain MD had turned some patients into "human pin cushions."
"They were leaned over a table and repeatedly injected in their spine," federal prosecutor Katherine Payerle said during the May 14 sentencing hearing. "Over and over, month after month, at the direction of Mr. Kestner."
At last year's trial, witnesses testified that Kestner was the driving force behind the injections, which amounted to roughly 700,000 shots over about eight years, with some patients receiving up to 24 at once.
Four former patients testified that they tolerated the shots out of fear that Pain MD otherwise would have cut off their painkiller prescriptions, without which they might have spiraled into withdrawal.
One of those patients, Michelle Shaw, told KFF Health News that the injections sometimes left her in so much pain she had to use a wheelchair. She was outraged by Kestner's sentence.
"I'm disgusted that all they got was a slap on the wrist as far as I'm concerned," Shaw said May 14. "I hope karma comes back to him. That he suffers to his last breath."
BRANCHLAND, W.Va. — Ada Carol Adkins lives with her two dogs in a trailer tucked into the timbers off Upper Mud River Road.
"I'm comfortable here, but I'm having health issues," said the 68-year-old, who retired from her job as a school cook several years ago after having a stroke. "Things are failing me."
Her trailer sits halfway up a ridge miles from town and the local health clinic. Her phone and internet are "wacky sometimes," she said. Adkins — who is fiercely independent and calls herself a "Mountain Momma" — worries she won't be able to call for help if service goes out, which happens often.
To Frontier Communications, the telecommunications company that owns the line to her home, Adkins says: "Please come and hook me right."
But she might be waiting years for better service, frustrated by her internet provider and left behind by troubled federal grant programs.
A quarter of West Virginia counties — including Lincoln, where the Mud River bends its way through hollows and past cattle farms — face two barriers to health care: They lack high-speed internet and have a shortage of primary care providers and behavioral health specialists, according to a KFF Health News analysis.
Years of Republican and Democratic administrations have tried to fix the nation's broadband woes, through flawed attempts. Bad mapping, weak standards, and flimsy oversight have left Adkins and nearly 3 million other rural Americans in dead zones — with eroded health care services and where telehealth doesn't reach.
Blair Levin, a former executive director of the Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan, called one rural program rollout during the first Trump administration "a disaster."
It was launched before it was ready, he said, using unreliable federal maps and a reverse-auction process to select internet carriers. Locations went to the lowest bidder, but the agency failed to ensure winners had the knowledge and resources to build networks, said Levin, who is now an equity analyst with New Street Research.
The fund initially announced awards of $9.2 billion to build infrastructure in 49 states. By 2025, $3.3 billion of those awards were in default and, as a result, the program won't connect 1.9 million homes and businesses, according to a recent study.
A $42 billion Biden-era initiative still may not help Adkins and many others shortchanged by earlier federal broadband grants. The new wave of funding, the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, or BEAD, has an anti-waste provision and won't provide service in places where previous grants were awarded — even if companies haven't delivered on their commitments.
The use of federal money to get people connected is "really essential" for rural areas, said Ross DeVol, CEO and chairman of the board of Heartland Forward, a nonpartisan think tank based in Bentonville, Arkansas, that specializes in state and local economic development.
"Internet service providers look at the economics of trying to go into some of these communities and there just isn't enough purchasing power in their minds," DeVol said, adding that broadband expansion is analogous to rural electrification. Without high-speed internet, "you're simply at a distinct disadvantage," he added. "I'll call it economic discrimination."
'I Got Books Full'
Adkins keeps spiral-bound notebooks and calendars filled with handwritten records of phone and internet outages.
In January, while bean soup warmed on the stove, she opened a notebook: "I got books full. Hang on."
Her finger traced the page as she recounted outages that occurred about once a month last year. Adkins said she lost connectivity twice in November, again in October, and in July, May, and March. Each time she went for days without service.
Adkins pays Frontier Communications $102.13 a month for a "bundle" that includes a connection for her house phone and wireless internet access on her cellphone. Frontier did not respond to requests for comment on Adkins' and other customers' service.
Adkins, a widow, spends most of her time at home and said she would do video calls with her doctors if she could. She said she still has numbness on one side of her body after the stroke. She also has high blood pressure and arthritis and uses over-the-counter pain patches when needed, such as after she carries 30-pound dog food bags into the house.
She does not own a four-wheel-drive truck and, for three weeks in January, the snow and ice were so severe she couldn't leave. "I'm stranded up here," she said, adding that neighbors check in: "'Do you have electric? Have you got water? Are you OK?'"
The neighbors have all seen Adkins' line. The pale-yellow cord was tied off with green plastic ties around a pole outside her trailer. As it ran down the hill, it was knotted around tree trunks and branches, frayed in places, and, finally, collapsed on the ground under gravel, snow, and ice at the bottom of the hill.
Adkins said a deer stepping on the line has interrupted her phone service.
David and Billi Belcher's double-wide modular home sits near the top of the ridge past Adkins' home. Inside, an old hunting dog sleeps on the floor. Belcher pointed out a window toward where he said Frontier's cable has remained unrepaired for years: "It's laying on the ground in the woods," he said.
Frontier is West Virginia's legacy carrier, controlling most of the state's old landlines since buying them from Verizon Communications in 2010. Twelve years later, the company won nearly $248 million to install high-speed internet to West Virginia through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, an initiative launched during President Donald Trump's first term.
"Big Daddy," as local transit driver Bruce Perry called Trump, is popular with the people of Lincoln County. About 80% of the county's voters picked the Republican in the last election.
The Trump administration awarded Frontier money to build high-speed internet to Upper Mud River Road residents, like Adkins, according to state mapping. Frontier has until Dec. 31, 2028, to build.
But the Belchers needed better internet access for work and could afford to pay $700 for a Starlink satellite internet kit and insurance, they said. Their monthly Starlink bill is $120 — a price many cannot manage, especially since Congress sunset an earlier program that helped offset the cost of high-speed plans for consumers.
Meanwhile, the latest broadband program to connect rural Americans is ensnared in Trump administration policy shifts.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which administers the program, in April announced a 90-day extension for states to finalize their plans during a "comprehensive review" of the program.
West Viriginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, announced his state would take an extension. The move, though, doesn't make a lot of sense, said Evan Feinman, who left the agency in March after directing the broadband program for the past three years.
Calling the work already done in West Virginia an "incredible triumph," Feinman said the state had completed the planning, mapping, and the initial selection of companies. The plan that was in place would have brought high-speed fiber lines to homes ahead of schedule and under budget, he said.
"They could be building today, and it's just deeply disappointing that they're not," Feinman said.
When Feinman resigned in March, he sent a lengthy email stating that the new administration wants to take fiber away from homes and businesses and substitute it with satellite connections. The move, he said, would be more expensive for consumers and hurt rural and small-town America.
Morrisey, whose office declined to respond to requests for comment, said in his announcement that he wants to ensure West Virginia spends the money in a manner "consistent with program changes being proposed by the Trump Administration" and "evaluate a broader range of technology options."
Commissioners from Grant County responded with a letter supporting fiber-optic cables rather than satellite-based connections like those provided by Elon Musk's Starlink. Nationwide, 115 lawmakers from 28 states sent a letter to federal leaders stating that changes could "delay broadband deployment by a year or more."
For Adkins and others, the wait has been long enough.
While legislators in Washington and across the country bickered over the broadband program, Adkins went without phone and internet. By late March, she said, her 42-year-old son was increasingly worried, noting "you're getting up in age." He told her: "Mom, move out, get off of that hill."
Worst-Case Scenario
A few miles from Upper Mud River Road, past the McDonald's and across the road from the local library, Brian Vance sat in his downtown Hamlin, West Virginia, office. He said his company has been trying to "build up there for a while."
Vance is a general manager for Armstrong Telephone and Cable, a regional telecommunications provider that competes with Frontier. He grew up in the community, and parents of a high school friend live off Upper Mud River. But he said "it's very difficult" to build fiber along the rocky terrain to homes where "you are hoping that people will hook up, and if they don't, well, you've lost a lot of money."
A 2022 countywide broadband assessment found that stringing fiber-optic lines along telephone poles would cost more than $5,000 per connection in some areas — work that would need big federal subsidies to be feasible.
Yet Vance said Armstrong cannot apply for the latest BEAD funding to help finance connections. And while he likes that the federal government is "being responsible" by not handing out two federal grants for the same area, Vance said, "we want to see people deliver on the grants they have."
If Frontier hadn't already gotten federal funds from the earlier Trump program, "we definitely would have applied to that area," Vance said.
The 2022 assessment noted the community's economy would not be sustainable without "ubiquitous broadband."
High-speed internet brings more jobs and less poverty, said Claudia Persico, an associate professor at American University. Persico, who is also a research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a recent paper that found increased broadband internet leads to a reduction in the number of suicides as well as improvements in self-reported mental and physical health.
More than 30% of Lincoln County's population reports cases of depression, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate of opioid prescriptions dispensed in Lincoln County is down about 60% from 2014 to 2024 — but still higher than the state average, according to the West Virginia Board of Pharmacy.
Twenty percent of the county's population lives below the poverty line, and residents are also more likely than the national average to experience heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.
Lincoln Primary Care Center offers telehealth services such as electronic medical records on a patient portal and a pharmacy app, said Jill Adkins, chief quality and risk officer at Southern West Virginia Health System, which operates the clinic.
But because of limited access, only about 7% of patients use telehealth, she said.
Della Vance was a patient at the clinic but said she has never used a patient portal. If she could, Vance said, she would check records on the baby she is expecting.
"You can't really get on if you don't have good service and no internet," she said. "It makes me angry, honestly."
Vance and her husband, Isaiah, live off a gravel road that veers from Upper Mud River. There is a tall pole with black wires dangling across the road from their small home. Pointing to the cables, Isaiah Vance said he couldn't get phone service anymore.
Verizon announced plans last year to buy Frontier for an estimated $20 billion. The deal, which must be approved by federal and state regulators, is expected to be completed in early 2026, according to an investor's press release.
In its federal merger application, Frontier stated that it had taken on too much debt after emerging from bankruptcy and that debt would make it difficult to finish the work of installing fiber to customers in 25 states.
In West Virginia, Frontier's Allison Ellis wrote in March 3 testimony, seeking approval for the merger from state regulators, that Verizon will honor the rural program commitments. The previous month, in February, Frontier filed a motion with the state public service commission to keep the number of customers using copper lines and the faster fiber-optic lines confidential.
Kelly Workman, West Virginia's broadband director, said during a November interview that her office has asked federal regulators for "greater visibility" into Frontier's rural program construction, particularly because those locations cannot win the Biden-era infrastructure money when it's available.
"The worst-case scenario would be for any of these locations to be left behind," Workman said.
'Money Cow'
Frontier's progress installing fiber-optic lines and its unreliable service have frustrated West Virginians for years. In a 2020 letter to the FCC, U.S. Sen. Shelley Capito (R-W.Va.) cited "the failure of Frontier to deliver on promises to federal partners" and its "mismanagement" of federal dollars, which forced the state to pay back $4.7 million because of improper use and missed deadlines.
Michael Holstine, a longtime member of the West Virginia Broadband Enhancement Council, said the company has "just used West Virginia as a money cow." Holstine has been fighting for the construction of fiber-optic lines in Pocahontas County for years. "I really just hope I get it before I die."
Across the state, people like Holstine and Adkins are eager for updated networks, according to interviews as well as letters released under a public records request.
Chrissy Murray, vice president of Frontier's external communications, acknowledged that the company was "building back our community efforts" in West Virginia after a bankruptcy filing and reorganization. She said there has been a "notable decline" in consumer complaints, though she did not provide specific numbers.
Murray said Frontier built fiber-optic cables to 20% of its designated rural funds locations as of the end of 2024. It has also invested in other infrastructure projects across the state, she said in a January email, adding that the company donated high-speed fiber internet to West Virginia University's rural Jackson's Mill campus.
According to data tracked by a federal agency, Frontier has connected 6,100 — or fewer than 10% — of the more than 79,000 locations it was awarded in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program.
The FCC oversees the rural fund. The agency did not respond to a request for comment. Frontier expects to receive $37 million annually from the agency through 2032, according to a federal filing.
In April, a new batch of letters from West Virginia residents filed as "support" for Frontier's merger with Verizon appeared in the state regulatory docket:
"My support for this case depends on whether Verizon plans to upgrade or replace the existing Frontier infrastructure," wrote one customer in Summers County, in the far southern corner of the state, adding, "West Virginians in my neck of the woods have been held hostage by Frontier for a generation now because no other providers exist."
A customer from Hardy County, in the state's northeastern corner, wrote: "This is [a] move by frontier to to [sic] escape its responsibility to continue services."
'Deep-Rooted'
Adkins moved to Upper Mud River with her husband, Bobby, decades ago.
For years, Bobby and Ada Carol Adkins ran a "carry-out" on Upper Mud River Road. The old building is still at the rock quarry just down the hill and around the curve from where her trailer sits.
It was the type of store where locals kept a tab — which Bobby treated too much like a "charity," Adkins said. They sold cigarettes, beer, bread, bags of chips, and some food items like potatoes and rice. "Whatever the community would want," she said.
Then, Bobby Adkins' "health started deteriorating and money got tighter," Adkins said. He died at 62 years old.
Now, Adkins said, "I'm having kidney problems. I got arthritis, they're treating me for high blood pressure."
Her doctor has begun sending notes over the internet to refill her blood pressure medicine and, Adkins said, "I love that!"
But Adkins' internet was out again in early April, and she can't afford Starlink like her neighbors. Even as Adkins said she is "deep-rooted," her son's request is on her mind.
"I'm having health problems," Adkins said. "He makes a lot of sense."
A prime example of elderspeak: Cindy Smith was visiting her father in his assisted living apartment in Roseville, California. An aide who was trying to induce him to do something — Smith no longer remembers exactly what — said, "Let me help you, sweetheart."
"He just gave her The Look — under his bushy eyebrows — and said, 'What, are we getting married?'" recalled Smith, who had a good laugh, she said. Her father was then 92, a retired county planner and a World War II veteran; macular degeneration had reduced the quality of his vision, and he used a walker to get around, but he remained cognitively sharp.
"He wouldn't normally get too frosty with people," Smith said. "But he did have the sense that he was a grown-up and he wasn't always treated like one."
People understand almost intuitively what "elderspeak" means. "It's communication to older adults that sounds like baby talk," said Clarissa Shaw, a dementia care researcher at the University of Iowa College of Nursing and a co-author of a recent article that helps researchers document its use.
"It arises from an ageist assumption of frailty, incompetence, and dependence."
Its elements include inappropriate endearments. "Elderspeak can be controlling, kind of bossy, so to soften that message there's 'honey,' 'dearie,' 'sweetie,'" said Kristine Williams, a nurse gerontologist at the University of Kansas School of Nursing and another co-author of the article.
"We have negative stereotypes of older adults, so we change the way we talk."
Or caregivers may resort to plural pronouns: Are we ready to take our bath? There, the implication "is that the person's not able to act as an individual," Williams said. "Hopefully, I'm not taking the bath with you."
Sometimes, elderspeakers employ a louder volume, shorter sentences, or simple words intoned slowly. Or they may adopt an exaggerated, singsong vocal quality more suited to preschoolers, along with words like "potty" or "jammies."
With what are known as tag questions — It's time for you to eat lunch now, right? — "You're asking them a question but you're not letting them respond," Williams explained. "You're telling them how to respond."
Studies in nursing homes show how commonplace such speech is. When Williams, Shaw, and their team analyzed video recordings of 80 interactions between staff and residents with dementia, they found that 84% involved some form of elderspeak.
"Most of elderspeak is well intended. People are trying to show they care," Williams said. "They don't realize the negative messages that come through."
For example, among nursing home residents with dementia, studies have found a relationship between exposure to elderspeak and behaviors collectively known as resistance to care.
"People can turn away or cry or say no," Williams explained. "They may clench their mouths shut when you're trying to feed them." Sometimes, they push caregivers away or strike them.
She and her team developed a training program called CHAT, for Changing Talk: three hourlong sessions that include videos of communication between staff members and patients, intended to reduce elderspeak.
It worked. Before the training, in 13 nursing homes in Kansas and Missouri, almost 35% of the time spent in interactions consisted of elderspeak; that share dropped to about 20% afterward.
Furthermore, resistant behaviors accounted for almost 36% of the time spent in encounters; after training, that proportion fell to about 20%.
What's more, CHAT training in nursing homes was associated with lower use of antipsychotic drugs. Though the results did not reach statistical significance, due in part to the small sample size, the research team deemed them "clinically significant."
"Many of these medications have a black box warning from the FDA," Williams said of the drugs. "It's risky to use them in frail, older adults" because of their side effects.
Now, Williams, Shaw, and their colleagues have streamlined the CHAT training and adapted it for online use. They are examining its effects in about 200 nursing homes nationwide.
Even without formal training programs, individuals and institutions can combat elderspeak. Kathleen Carmody, owner of Senior Matters Home healthcare and Consulting in Columbus, Ohio, cautions her aides to address clients as Mr. or Mrs. or Ms., "unless or until they say, 'Please call me Betty.'"
In long-term care, however, families and residents may worry that correcting the way staff members speak could create antagonism.
A few years ago, Carol Fahy was fuming about the way aides at an assisted living facility in suburban Cleveland treated her mother, who was blind and had become increasingly dependent in her 80s.
Calling her "sweetie" and "honey babe," the staff "would hover and coo, and they put her hair up in two pigtails on top of her head, like you would with a toddler," said Fahy, a psychologist in Kaneohe, Hawaii.
Although she recognized the aides' agreeable intentions, "there's a falseness about it," she said. "It doesn't make someone feel good. It's actually alienating."
Fahy considered discussing her objections with the aides, but "I didn't want them to retaliate." Eventually, for several reasons, she moved her mother to another facility.
Yet objecting to elderspeak need not become adversarial, Shaw said. Residents and patients — and people who encounter elderspeak elsewhere, because it's hardly limited to healthcare settings — can politely explain how they prefer to be spoken to and what they want to be called.
Cultural differences also come into play. Felipe Agudelo, who teaches health communications at Boston University, pointed out that in certain contexts a diminutive or term of endearment "doesn't come from underestimating your intellectual ability. It's a term of affection."
He emigrated from Colombia, where his 80-year-old mother takes no offense when a doctor or healthcare worker asks her to "tómese la pastillita" (take this little pill) or "mueva la manito" (move the little hand).
That's customary, and "she feels she's talking to someone who cares," Agudelo said.
"Come to a place of negotiation," he advised. "It doesn't have to be challenging. The patient has the right to say, 'I don't like your talking to me that way.'"
In return, the worker "should acknowledge that the recipient may not come from the same cultural background," he said. That person can respond, "This is the way I usually talk, but I can change it."
Lisa Greim, 65, a retired writer in Arvada, Colorado, pushed back against elderspeak recently when she enrolled in Medicare drug coverage.
Suddenly, she recounted in an email, a mail-order pharmacy began calling almost daily because she hadn't filled a prescription as expected.
These "gently condescending" callers, apparently reading from a script, all said, "It's hard to remember to take our meds, isn't it?" — as if they were swallowing pills together with Greim.
Annoyed by their presumption, and their follow-up question about how frequently she forgot her medications, Greim informed them that having stocked up earlier, she had a sufficient supply, thanks. She would reorder when she needed more.
Then, "I asked them to stop calling," she said. "And they did."
The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with The New York Times.
SPENCER, Iowa — This town's hospital is a holdout on behalf of people going through mental health crises. The facility's leaders have pledged not to shutter their inpatient psychiatric unit, as dozens of other U.S. hospitals have.
Keeping that promise could soon get tougher if Congress slashes Medicaid funding. The joint federal-state health program covers an unusually large share of mental health patients, and hospital industry leaders say spending cuts could accelerate a decades-long wave of psychiatric unit closures.
At least eight other Iowa hospitals have stopped offering inpatient mental healthcare since 2007, forcing people in crisis to seek help in distant facilities. Spencer Hospital is one of the smallest in Iowa still offering the service.
CEO Brenda Tiefenthaler said 40% of her hospital's psychiatric inpatients are covered by Medicaid, compared with about 12% of all inpatients. An additional 10% of the hospital's psychiatric inpatients are uninsured. National experts say such disparities are common.
Tiefenthaler vows to keep her nonprofit hospital's 14-bed psychiatric unit open, even though it loses $2 million per year. That's a significant loss for an organization with an overall annual budget of about $120 million. But the people who use the psychiatric unit need medical care, "just like people who have chest pains," Tiefenthaler said.
Medicaid covers healthcare for about 72 million Americans with low incomes or disabilities. Tiefenthaler predicts that if some of them are kicked off the program and left without insurance coverage, more people would delay treatment for mental health problems until their lives spin out of control.
"Then they're going to enter through the emergency room when they're in a crisis," she said. "That's not really a solution to what we have going on in our country."
Republican congressional leaders have vowed to protect Medicaid for people who need it, but they also have called for billions of dollars in cuts to areas of the federal budget that include the program.
The U.S. already faces a deep shortage of inpatient mental health services, many of which were reduced or eliminated by private hospitals and public institutions, said Jennifer Snow, director of government relations and policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness. At the same time, the number of people experiencing mental problems has climbed.
"I don't even want to think about how much worse it could get," she said.
The American Hospital Association estimates nearly 100 U.S. hospitals have shuttered their inpatient mental health services in the past decade.
Such closures are often attributed to mental health services being more likely to lose money than many other types of healthcare. "I'm not blaming the hospitals," Snow said. "They need to keep their doors open."
Medicaid generally pays hospitals lower rates for services than they receive from private insurance or from Medicare, the federal program that mostly covers people 65 or older. And Medicaid recipients are particularly likely to need mental healthcare. More than a third of nonelderly Medicaid enrollees have some sort of mental illness, according to a report from KFF, a nonprofit health policy organization that includes KFF Health News. Iowa has the highest rate of mental illness among nonelderly Medicaid recipients, at 51%.
As of February, just 20 of Iowa's 116 community hospitals had inpatient psychiatric units, according to a state registry. Iowa also has four freestanding mental hospitals, including two run by the state.
Iowa, with 3.2 million residents, has a total of about 760 inpatient mental health beds that are staffed to care for patients, the state reports. The Treatment Advocacy Center, a national group seeking improved mental healthcare, says the "absolute minimum" of such beds would translate to about 960 for Iowa's population, and the optimal number would be about 1,920.
Most of Iowa's psychiatric beds are in metro areas, and it can take several days for a slot to come open. In the meantime, patients routinely wait in emergency departments.
Sheriff's deputies often are assigned to transport patients to available facilities when treatment is court-ordered.
"It's not uncommon for us to drive five or six hours," said Clay County Sheriff Chris Raveling, whose northwestern Iowa county includes Spencer, a city of 11,000 people.
He said Spencer Hospital's mental health unit often is too full to accept new patients and, like many such facilities, it declines to take patients who are violent or charged with crimes.
The result is that people are held in jail on minor charges stemming from their mental illnesses or addictions, the sheriff said. "They really shouldn't be in jail," he said. "Did they commit a crime? Yes. But I don't think they did it on purpose."
Raveling said authorities in many cases decide to hold people in jail so they don't hurt themselves or others while awaiting treatment. He has seen the problems worsen in his 25 years in law enforcement.
Most people with mental health issues can be treated as outpatients, but many of those services also depend heavily on Medicaid and could be vulnerable to budget cuts.
Jon Ulven, a psychologist who practices in Moorhead, Minnesota, and neighboring Fargo, North Dakota, said he's particularly worried about patients who develop psychosis, which often begins in the teenage years or early adulthood. If they're started right away on medication and therapy, "we can have a dramatic influence on that person for the rest of their life," he said. But if treatment is delayed, their symptoms often become harder to reverse.
Ulven, who helps oversee mental health services in his region for the multistate Sanford Health system, said he's also concerned about people with other mental health challenges, including depression. He noted a study published in 2022 that showed suicide rates rose faster in states that declined to expand their Medicaid programs than in states that agreed to expand their programs to cover more low-income adults. If Medicaid rolls are reduced again, he said, more people would be uninsured and fewer services would be available. That could lead to more suicides.
Nationally, Medicaid covered nearly 41% of psychiatric inpatients cared for in 2024 by a sample of 680 hospitals, according to an analysis done for KFF Health News by the financial consulting company Strata. In contrast, just 13% of inpatients in those hospitals' cancer programs and 9% of inpatients in their cardiac programs were covered by Medicaid.
If Medicaid participants have mental crises after losing their coverage, hospitals or clinics would have to treat many of them for little or no payment. "These are not wealthy people. They don't have a lot of assets," said Steve Wasson, Strata's chief data and intelligence officer. Even though Medicaid pays hospitals relatively low rates, he said, "it's better than nothing."
Birthing units, which also have been plagued by closures, face similar challenges. In the Strata sample, 37% of those units' patients were on Medicaid in 2024.
Spencer Hospital, which has a total of 63 inpatient beds, has maintained both its birthing unit and its psychiatric unit, and its leaders plan to keep them open. Amid a critical shortage of mental health professionals, it employs two psychiatric nurse practitioners and two psychiatrists, including one providing care via video from North Carolina.
Local resident David Jacobsen appreciates the hospital's efforts to preserve services. His son Alex was assisted by the facility's mental health professionals during years of struggles before he died by suicide in 2020.
David Jacobsen knows how reliant such services are on Medicaid, and he worries that more hospitals will curtail mental health offerings if national leaders cut the program. "They're hurting the people who need help the most," he said.
People on Medicaid aren't the only ones affected when hospitals reduce services or close treatment units. Everyone in the community loses access to care.
Alex Jacobsen's family saw how common the need is. "If we can learn anything from my Alex," one of his sisters wrote in his obituary, "it's that mental illness is real, it doesn't discriminate, and it takes some of the best people down in its ugly swirling drain."
On the eastern plains of Colorado, in a county of less than 6,000 people, Lincoln Health runs the only hospital within a 75-minute drive. The facility struggles financially, given its small size and the area's tiny population.
But for over a decade, the Hugo, Colorado-based health system has remained afloat partially thanks to a surprising source: special taxes on the state's hospitals.
The taxes Lincoln pays help cover the state's Medicaid costs and — because the federal government matches a portion of what states spend on Medicaid — enable Colorado to claim more federal money. That generally leads to more dollars for the hospital. The tax proceeds also have helped Colorado expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to cover 400,000 more low-income adults, significantly reducing the number of people showing up at hospital doors without insurance.
Last year, Lincoln paid $500,000 in provider taxes but netted more than $3.6 million extra from Medicaid, accounting for about 15% of its budget, said Lincoln CEO Kevin Stansbury.
"These dollars allow me to care for patients who are enrolled in Medicaid and to break even rather than lose money," he said. "Without them, it would significantly impact our ability to survive."
But Republicans who control Congress are looking for potential cuts in the nearly $900 billion Medicaid program to help fund an extension of President Donald Trump's tax cuts — and have sought to portray provider taxes as malicious, sometimes even deriding them as "money laundering." Lawmakers say they may curtail or eliminate provider taxes as part of legislation to enact Trump's domestic agenda.
"It's infuriating," Stansbury said.
Medicaid and the closely related Children's Health Insurance Program together cover roughly 79 million low-income and disabled people and are jointly financed by states and the federal government.
Federal dollars match state payments with no limit. While the split varies based on a state's per capita income, the federal match ranges from 50% to 77% for children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities, who make up most of the enrollment.
States started using provider taxes in the 1980s to help pay their share and gain additional Medicaid funds from the federal government.
Brian Blase, a former Trump health policy adviser who leads the conservative Paragon Health Institute, sees provider taxes as one of the highest forms of waste in Medicaid. States and their hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers aren't held accountable for how the tax money is used, reducing incentives for states to control Medicaid spending, he said.
"This has been a feature of the program for four decades, and it is a feature that is getting worse," Blase said.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates eliminating provider taxes would save the federal government more than $600 billion over a decade.
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), who chairs the House committee that oversees Medicaid, has said provider taxes are on the menu for potential cuts.
Other changes Republicans are considering to cut federal Medicaid spending include requiring adult enrollees to prove they're working as a condition of eligibility, as well as ending higher payments for adults enrolled as part of the Affordable Care Act's expansion of the program.
Since 2014, more than 20 million nondisabled adults in 40 states and Washington, D.C., have gained coverage under the expansion.
House Republicans have set a Memorial Day deadline to come to an agreement on spending cuts, which would help pay for extending about $4 trillion in tax cuts passed during Trump's first administration and set to expire at the end of this year.
But opposition from hospitals, nursing homes, and states snuffed out any move to limit or end the arrangements.
Colorado and other states often use the money to maintain or increase payments to providers, which are often paid less by Medicaid than by Medicare, the federal program primarily for people 65 or older, or private insurers.
States have added provider taxes to help generate federal money to cope with economic downturns and budget constraints.
Hospitals in Idaho last year began paying an additional provider tax to increase pay to hospitals and home- and community-based providers. The tax came as Idaho's Republican-controlled legislature sought to add many conditions that threatened to end the state's Medicaid expansion — which would also eliminate a key source of increased federal funding.
Brian Whitlock, president and CEO of the Idaho Hospital Association, said funding from the hospital tax helps boost Medicaid payments to about 80% of Medicare's rates instead of 60%.
"We still lose money on every Medicare and Medicaid patient," he said. "The state recognizes that this money helps offset the losses we take under Medicaid reimbursement."
While hospitals and nursing homes have been the main beneficiaries of provider tax proceeds, ambulance services have also paid and benefited from Medicaid taxes. States increasingly have also approved Medicaid taxes on private insurers that operate their Medicaid programs to gain more federal funds.
California's Medicaid managed care tax began in 2009 and is expected to generate nearly $9 billion in net revenue for the 2024-25 fiscal period — or about 5% of the state's Medicaid budget, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office.
In recent years, California has extended full Medicaid coverage to immigrants lacking permanent legal status. Federal law prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from being used to cover people in the country without authorization, but states can use their own money.
At a presentation to congressional staffers in April, Blase cited California's strategy as an example of provider tax abuse and claimed the state is effectively laundering federal funds to cover people living in the U.S. without authorization.
In practice, the tax has been a kind of fiscal pressure valve generally offsetting state spending. A ballot measure that passed in November now requires that much of the money from California's tax specifically be used to increase Medicaid reimbursement to doctors, hospitals, and other providers.
Hospital officials and state Medicaid leaders argue the term "money laundering" is an inaccurate way to describe provider taxes, since they are allowed by federal law. But Blase said calling the levies a "tax" is misleading, pointing out that most businesses don't typically advocate to pay one.
Jamie Whitney, chief legal officer for Texas-based Adelanto HealthCare Ventures, a consulting firm, said that provider taxes are a politically neutral way to help states pay for Medicaid and that curtailing their use would harm them all. "This is not a red-state, blue-state issue," she said.
Colorado is one of more than a dozen states that have funded an ACA Medicaid expansion using provider tax money. Others include Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.
Colorado implemented its Medicaid provider tax effort in 2009. In the 2024 fiscal year, about $5 billion of the state's $15 billion Medicaid program was funded by provider taxes, according to the state.
The money helps the state pay higher Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals, which reduces their need to charge higher rates to private insurers, said Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which oversees Medicaid.
Some of the extra payments are dependent on hospitals meeting certain quality and patient-safety metrics, such as reducing readmission rates after patients are discharged — a requirement state officials say improves care for everyone.
The provider taxes also fund a program allowing working residents with disabilities to buy into Medicaid coverage even if their income is as high as 300% of the federal poverty level, or $46,950 for an individual. About 20,000 people are enrolled in the program.
Among them is Alison Sbrana, 31, of Fort Collins, Colorado, who has a type of chronic fatigue syndrome and relies on Medicaid to cover long-term home care.
"It would be devastating if the benefit went away," said Sbrana, who works as a researcher and activist for those with the same disorder. "I would be forced to stop working to keep my income low enough to qualify."
The state's provider taxes also pay for a $60 million fund to support rural hospitals, helping them add telehealth services, recruit surgeons, and hire paramedics, according to a state report.
Konnie Martin, CEO of San Luis Valley Health, a two-hospital system based in Alamosa, Colorado, said her nonprofit paid $5.4 million in provider taxes last year and gained about $15 million in benefits from higher Medicaid payments and the rural grants.
She said the money helps her hospital maintain obstetrical services, so residents don't have to drive 120 miles to the nearest maternity hospital. Without the birthing center, the entire region would suffer, she said.
"It also would gut the economy of the community, because young people will move away," she said.
KFF Health News senior correspondent Bernard Wolfson contributed to this report.