The federal government doesn’t track how many children have entered foster care because of immigration enforcement actions, leaving it unclear how often it happens. In Oregon, as of February two children had been placed in foster care after being separated from their parents in immigration detention cases, according to Jake Sunderland, a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Human Services.

“Before fall 2025, this simply had never happened before,” Sunderland said.

As of mid-February, nearly by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The record 73,000 people in detention in January represented an compared with one year before. According to , parents of 11,000 children who are U.S. citizens were detained from the beginning of Trump’s term through August.

The news outlet NOTUS that at least 32 children of detained or deported parents had been placed in foster care in seven states.

Sandy Santana, executive director of Children’s Rights, a legal advocacy organization, said he thinks the actual number is much higher.

“That, to us, seems really, really low,” he said.

Separation from a parent is deeply traumatic for children and can lead to , including post-traumatic stress disorder. Prolonged, intense stress can lead to more-frequent infections in children and developmental issues. That “toxic stress” is also associated with responsible for learning and memory, according to KFF.

, and amended existing laws during Trump’s first term to allow guardians to be granted temporary parental rights for immigration enforcement reasons. Now the enforcement surge that began after Trump returned to office last year has prompted a new wave of state responses.

In New Jersey, lawmakers are considering to amend a state law that allows parents to nominate standby, or temporary, guardians in the cases of death, incapacity, or debilitation. The bill would add separation due to federal immigration enforcement as another allowable reason.

Nevada and California passed laws last year to protect families separated by immigration enforcement actions. California’s law, called the , allows parents to nominate guardians and share custodial rights, instead of having them suspended, while they’re detained. They regain their full parental rights if they are released and are able to reunite with their children.

There are significant legal barriers to reunification once a child is placed in state custody, said Juan Guzman, director of children’s court and guardianship at the Alliance for Children’s Rights, a legal advocacy organization in Los Angeles.

If a parent’s child is placed in foster care and the parent cannot participate in required court proceedings because they are in detention or have been deported, it’s less likely they will be able to reunite with their child, Guzman said.

are U.S. citizens who live with a parent or family member who does not have legal immigration status, according to research from the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. Within that group, 2.6 million children have two parents lacking legal status.

Santana said he expects the number of family separation cases to grow as the Trump administration continues its immigration enforcement campaign, putting more children at risk of being placed in foster care.

the agency to make efforts to facilitate detained parents’ participation in family court, child welfare, or guardianship proceedings, but Santana said it’s uncertain whether ICE is complying with those rules.

ICE officials did not respond to requests for comment for this report.

Before the change in California’s law, the only way a parent could share custodial rights with another guardian was if the parent was terminally ill, Guzman said.

If parents create a preparedness plan and identify an individual to assume guardianship of their children, the state child welfare agency can begin the process of placing the children with that individual without opening a formal foster care case, he added.

While Nevada lawmakers expanded an existing guardianship law last year to include immigration enforcement, the measure requires the parents to take the additional step of filing notarized paperwork with the secretary of state’s office, said Cristian Gonzalez-Perez, an attorney at Make the Road Nevada, a nonprofit that provides resources to immigrant communities.

Gonzalez-Perez said some immigrants are still hesitant to fill out government forms, out of fear that ICE might access their information and target them. He reassures community members that the state forms are secure and can be accessed only by hospitals and courts.

The Trump administration has taken through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the IRS, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other entities.

Gonzalez-Perez and Guzman said that not enough immigrant parents know their rights. Nominating a temporary guardian and creating a plan for their families is one way they can prevent feelings of helplessness, Gonzalez-Perez said.

“Folks don’t want to talk about it, right?” Guzman said. “The parent having to speak to a child about the possibility of separation, it’s scary. It’s not something anybody wants to do.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Raven’s case reveals a little-known gap in the U.S. donation system: There is no clear, nationally binding way to opt out — or to ensure a later “no” overrides an earlier “yes” in a different state.

This gap, along with a range of other issues related to the organ procurement system, has become a point of bipartisan congressional concern. Late last year, the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight examining what members described as shortcomings, including alleged consent failures.

The panel’s scrutiny of organ procurement organizations, or OPOs, and their consent practices is a first step toward a more meaningful accountability plan that could help maintain trust across the system, according to some committee staff members.

The trust in our organ procurement and transplant system “has been eroded,” said Rep. Terri Sewell of Alabama, the panel’s senior Democrat, calling for stronger transparency and oversight to rebuild public confidence.

“Respect for autonomy — our ability to make our own decisions (self-determination) — allows for both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ decisions and for changing one’s mind,” Margaret McLean, a bioethicist at Santa Clara University, said in an email.

“Medical decision-making is not well served in a context of ambiguity,” she said.

And if a donor revokes consent, she added, “revocation by that person should carry the same ethical and procedural weight as the initial authorization, perhaps more.”

Raven Kinser Changed Her Mind

Raven was 25 when she died. Her parents, Jeff and Jaime Kinser, were at home in Michigan when they received the phone call that shattered their world. They drove through the night to the Newport News hospital, where they learned Raven’s disposition had been referred to LifeNet Health, the region’s federally designated OPO. LifeNet a failing OPO by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, meaning it doesn’t meet the government’s standards for how well it finds donors and recovers usable organs for transplant compared with other organizations.

Under federal law, hospitals are required to refer deaths and imminent deaths to OPOs, which take responsibility for donation-related decisions and discussions.

OPOs occupy a hybrid position in the health care system, as private nonprofit entities that hold exclusive, federally authorized contracts to recover organs within defined regions. They are regulated by CMS and overseen by the Health Resources and Services Administration, but that oversight occurs primarily through certification standards, performance metrics, and periodic audits rather than routine public disclosure requirements. With donor registries largely managed at the state level and no unified federal reporting requirement for removals, comprehensive national data on revocations is elusive.

OPOs are meant to separate bedside care from organ procurement decisions — to help prevent conflicts of interest and preserve the trust that decisions about life-sustaining treatment are made solely in the dying patient’s interest. But the , leaving families unsure who is in control if and when conflicts arise.

The Kinsers, for instance, felt their daughter would not have wanted to go through the donation process, but, at the time, had no evidence. Jaime remembers telling her husband that Raven would have been mad at them for letting it happen. In an effort to stop it, Jaime inquired about whether she would be asked to sign a consent form. But a LifeNet staff member told her that wasn’t an option because donation was Raven’s “living will,” Jaime said. Meanwhile, Raven’s parents said, her personal effects, including her Virginia driver’s license, which bore no donor designation, had not yet been turned over to the family, leaving them no meaningful way to challenge LifeNet’s determination in real time.

Jaime struggled with this outcome, even mentioning in Raven’s obituary that she was an organ donor. “How would you try to make peace with something that you felt was so wrong but had no proof?” Jaime said.

Two months passed before the Kinsers gained possession of the license, which, as they had expected, showed that Raven had not opted to be an organ donor.

According to the Kinsers, LifeNet staff told them that Raven’s status as a registered donor was established by her designation on her older Michigan license.

An emailed statement attributed to Douglas Wilson, LifeNet executive vice president, said the OPO follows federal law on organ donation, the , and queries applicable state donor registries, relying on time stamps and governing law to determine the , legally valid expression of intent. Under that framework, a prior donor authorization remains enforceable unless a valid revocation is recorded in the regional OPO’s donor registry.

Because of privacy laws, Wilson said, LifeNet could not comment on the specifics of any individual case.

Raven Kinser’s choice not to be a donor when she applied for a Virginia license in July 2024 was not reflected in the registry LifeNet consulted, according to her parents, who said that is what the organization told them. According to Lara Malbon, executive director of Donate Life Virginia, which manages the state’s organ donor registry, if someone changes their donor status while completing a Virginia driver’s license or ID transaction, “that information is sent to our registry, and the registry is updated daily to reflect those changes.” Malbon also said Virginia’s registry includes only people who have “affirmatively said ‘yes’ to becoming an organ, eye, and tissue donor, and it retains records solely for those who have made that decision.”

The Kinsers said they were never told why Raven’s Virginia DMV record was insufficient, or how an older yes from Michigan could outweigh a newer no in Virginia.

In December, the Kinsers filed a complaint with the Health Resources and Services Administration, urging federal regulators to investigate LifeNet’s actions and require OPOs to provide families with documented proof of the donor’s current status at the time of referral. They also called for OPOs, which operate as federally designated regional monopolies but are structured as private nonprofits, to be made subject to public records laws.

When Opting Out Doesn’t Stick

Such confusion is not unique to the Kinser family. It is a consequence of the organ donation consent process in the United States.

“I have also wondered that: why there’s not just one” registry for organ donation, Jaime said. If you go to get a firearm, you have one federal registry, she said.

Here’s how the system works: Americans typically register their organ donation intentions when they apply for driver’s licenses through state DMVs, and that decision remains governed largely by state law. That has led to 50 different sets of rules and very little federal regulation of what has become an in the U.S.

In some states, a donor checkbox is a binding legal document. In other states, the same choice may have different rules about when it takes effect, what it covers, and how it can be revoked.

Those differences can be big. State rules determine whether a person’s “gift” is limited to transplantation or also includes research and education. They determine whether the donation authorization includes tissue. And they can determine what counts as a valid revocation and when it is legally recognized.

Because of the system’s fragmentation, though, signals can cross when someone changes their mind, like Raven; it’s not always reflected from one state system to another.

Under state versions of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, a donor’s most recent legally valid expression of intent is meant to control.

“Personal autonomy is paramount to everything,” said Adam Schiavi, a neurointensivist who studies end-of-life decision-making. “If I say I want to be a donor, or if I say I don’t want to be a donor, that has to take precedence over everything else.”

But states differ in how revocation must be recorded and which registry is considered authoritative if someone has lived in more than one state. Those inconsistencies can create uncertainty when records conflict across jurisdictions.

“It has to be the most recent expression, not the most recent yes,” Schiavi said.

In Michigan, a change to someone’s donor status is reflected immediately in the secretary of state’s system, but only affirmative “yes” registrations appear in the registry. Removal information remains in internal motor vehicle records. In Virginia, the state registry includes only those who have affirmatively said “yes,” retaining records solely of donors, creating potential gaps if someone believes a DMV change alone is sufficient.

Elsewhere, processes and volumes differ sharply. New Mexico updates driver records in real time but does not transmit status changes to its donor registry. Instead, donor services receive restricted search access. The state logged nearly 15,000 removals in late 2021 and almost 30,000 in 2022. Florida, which maintains formal removal records through weekly DMV data files, reported 356,161 removals in 2020, more than 1.5 million in 2023, and over 1.2 million in 2025. Kentucky processed 847,371 donor registrations from 2020 to 2025, but only 16,043 icon removals, with registry withdrawal handled separately. In 2025, more than 570,000 Texans opted into the registry, while over 31,000 individuals requested removal.

According to a federal official who asked not to be identified for fear of professional repercussions, OPOs have been highly effective at lobbying states to broaden the definition of consent and authorization — shaping how those terms are applied, whether those statuses must be renewed, and how easy or difficult it is for someone to opt out.

In subsequent correspondence with federal officials, the Kinsers have urged reforms to prevent OPOs from relying on older registry entries when a more recent state DMV record exists, and they have called for criminal penalties in cases in which consent is knowingly misrepresented. Federal regulators have not indicated whether such proposals are under consideration.

Congress Takes a Closer Look

Ethicists have long cautioned that consent must be more than a checkbox and must remain grounded in respect for the donor-patient. In an October on organ transplantation, the American College of Physicians emphasized that clinicians’ primary duty is to the patient in their care, and that maintaining trust requires transparency and safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest from blurring that “bright line.”

Advocates say those steps leave unresolved the core problem raised by the Kinser family: the lack of a clear, legally binding way for people to say “no” and for that decision to follow them across state lines.

The said it “supports strengthening donor registries and enhancing registry interoperability to ensure that an individual’s documented donation decision is honored.” But OPOs have also argued that current policies protect donation as a legally enforceable gift and prevent families from overriding a loved one’s “yes” in the midst of grief. They argue that stronger, more durable consent helps reduce missed donations and saves lives.

Congress and federal regulators are considering changes to the nation’s organ donation system, including how consent is recorded and what should happen when a donor changes their mind.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) last year to create new federal standards for patient safety, transparency, and oversight of organ transplants, including a formal authorization for hospital or OPO staff to pause harvesting if there is any “clinical sign of life.”

HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard said the agency is “committed to holding organ procurement organizations accountable” and to “restoring integrity and transparency” to organ donation policy, calling reforms essential to informed consent and protecting donor rights. CMS issued related March 11, but it does not address the problems highlighted by the Kinsers’ case.

Critics of the organ transplant system say it is difficult for families to obtain documentation or independently verify how consent determinations were made in disputed cases.

HRSA has launched a sweeping modernization of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, the national system that oversees organ allocation and transplant policy. Federal officials have described the overhaul as the most significant restructuring of the transplant system in decades, aimed at breaking up a long-standing contractor monopoly, strengthening patient safety oversight, and replacing aging technology infrastructure.

Central to that effort is modernizing the OPTN’s data systems: improving interoperability, audit trails, and transparency in how decisions are documented and reviewed. A more modern federal data architecture could make it easier to trace which registry was queried, what time stamp controlled, and how a consent determination was reached in disputed donations that span multiple states. But the modernization effort would not change the underlying state-by-state legal framework for donor authorization and what counts as a valid “no.”

Meanwhile, Donate Life America, a national nonprofit that supports state donor registries, also runs the , a central database that allows people to sign up as organ donors directly. Unlike many DMV systems, the national registry lets people log in at any time to view, update, or remove their registration and print proof of their decision. The group is also starting a project to let participating states send registrations directly into the national system, creating one place to track donor sign-ups and removals across state lines.

Each of the proposals comes with trade-offs, and both advocates and OPOs have raised concerns about how they would work in practice.

“Just doing a dump truck dump of information is not going to do much unless you really apply it through checking and auditing,” said Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine. “It could be like the IRS. They don’t have to audit everybody. Just do a spot audit once in a while.”

The Kinsers aren’t opposed to organ donation itself. They celebrated Raven’s donation in her obituary, and in their complaint to federal regulators, they wrote, “We are NOT anti-organ donation, and we will never take away the gift of life our oldest daughter gave to others. However, that was not LifeNet’s choice to make.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Después de que Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretario del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS, por sus siglas en inglés), despidiera a Susan Monarez, directora de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglé), por negarse a lo que sus abogados calificaron , Newsom para ayudar a modernizar el sistema de salud pública de California.

También dio trabajo a Debra Houry, ex directora científica y médica de la agencia, quien había renunciado en protesta pocas horas después del despido de Monarez.

Newsom también se asoció con los gobernadores demócratas Tina Kotek, de Oregon; Bob Ferguson, de Washington; y Josh Green, de Hawaii para formar la , una agencia regional de salud pública.

Los gobernadores que sus recomendaciones “defenderán la integridad científica en la salud pública mientras Trump destruye” la credibilidad de los CDC. Newsom argumentó que crear la alianza independiente era vital mientras Kennedy lidera el retroceso de las recomendaciones nacionales de vacunación de la administración Trump.

Más recientemente, California se convirtió en el primer estado en de respuesta a brotes coordinada por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), seguido por Illinois y Nueva York. Colorado y Wisconsin indicaron que planean unirse.

Esto ocurrió después de que el presidente Donald Trump a Estados Unidos de la agencia, argumentando que la OMS “se ha desviado de su misión principal y ha actuado en contra de los intereses de Estados Unidos para proteger al público estadounidense en múltiples ocasiones”.

Newsom dijo que unirse al consorcio liderado por la OMS permitirá a California responder más rápido a brotes de enfermedades contagiosas y a otras amenazas a la salud pública.

Aunque otros gobernadores demócratas y líderes de salud pública han criticado abiertamente al gobierno federal, pocos han sido tan directos como Newsom, quien considera postularse a la presidencia en 2028 y está en su segundo y último mandato como gobernador.

Miembros de la comunidad científica han elogiado su esfuerzo por construir una defensa de salud pública frente a los recortes de financiamiento y la reducción de las recomendaciones de vacunas por parte del gobierno federal.

Lo que está haciendo Newsom “es una gran idea”, dijo Paul Offit, crítico de Kennedy y experto en vacunas que anteriormente formó parte del comité asesor de vacunas de la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA, por sus siglas en inglés), pero fue removido bajo la administración Trump en 2025.

“La salud pública se ha puesto de cabeza”, dijo Offit. “Tenemos a un activista antivacunas y negador de la ciencia al frente del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos. Es peligroso”.

La Casa Blanca no respondió a preguntas sobre la postura de Newsom y el HHS rechazó solicitudes para entrevistar a Kennedy.

En cambio, funcionarios federales de salud criticaron a los demócratas en general y argumentaron que los estados gobernados por demócratas están participando en fraude y mala administración de fondos federales en programas de salud pública.

Emily Hilliard, vocera del HHS, dijo que la administración está actuando contra “estados gobernados por demócratas que impulsaron confinamientos sin base científica, mandatos de máscaras para niños pequeños y estrictas tarjetas de vacunación durante la era del covid”. Señaló que esas medidas “han erosionado completamente la confianza del pueblo estadounidense en las agencias de salud pública”.

Salud pública guiada por la ciencia

Desde que Trump regresó al poder, Newsom ha criticado al presidente y a su administración por impulsar políticas que considera una amenaza para la salud y la seguridad públicas. Ha calificado a los líderes federales como “extremistas” que intentan “usar los CDC como arma y difundir desinformación”.

También a funcionarios federales por vincular erróneamente a las vacunas con el autismo y que la administración está poniendo en peligro la vida de bebés y niños pequeños al reducir las recomendaciones de vacunas infantiles. Además, argumentó que la Casa Blanca está generando “caos” en el sistema de salud pública de Estados Unidos al retirarse de la OMS.

El gobernador rechazó una solicitud de entrevista. Marissa Saldivar, vocera de Newsom, dijo que es una prioridad del gobernador “proteger la salud pública y brindar a las comunidades orientación basada en ciencia y evidencia, no en política ni conspiraciones”.

Las acciones de la administración Trump han generado incertidumbre financiera que, según funcionarios locales, ha reducido la moral dentro de los departamentos de salud pública y ha dejado a los estados menos preparados para brotes de enfermedades y .

El año pasado, la Casa Blanca propuso recortar el gasto del HHS en , incluidos . En enero, el Congreso rechazó en gran medida esos recortes, aunque para programas centrados en determinantes sociales de la salud, como el acceso a alimentos, vivienda y educación.

La administración Trump anunció que retiraría en fondos de salud pública de California, Colorado, Illinois y Minnesota, argumentando que los estados liderados por demócratas financiaban iniciativas “woke” que no reflejaban las prioridades de la Casa Blanca.

En cuestión de días, y un juez el recorte.

“De repente siguen cancelando subvenciones y luego se revierte en los tribunales”, dijo Kat DeBurgh, directora ejecutiva de la Asociación de Oficiales de Salud de California. “Gran parte del daño ya está hecho porque los condados ya dejaron de hacer el trabajo”.

Según un análisis de 2025 de KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro de información sobre salud que incluye a ���ϳԹ��� News, el financiamiento federal representa de los presupuestos de los departamentos de salud estatales y locales en todo el país. Ese dinero se destina a combatir el VIH y otras infecciones de transmisión sexual, prevenir enfermedades crónicas y fortalecer la preparación en salud pública y la respuesta a enfermedades contagiosas.

Los fondos federales representan $2.400 millones del presupuesto de salud pública de $5.300 millones de California, lo que dificulta que Newsom y los legisladores estatales compensen posibles recortes. Ese dinero ayuda a financiar operaciones estatales y es vital para los departamentos de salud locales.

Los recortes afectan a todos

Barbara Ferrer, directora de salud pública del condado de Los Ángeles, dijo que si el gobierno federal logra recortar esos $600 millones, el condado —con casi 10 millones de residentes— perdería unos $84 millones en los próximos dos años, además de otras subvenciones para la prevención del VIH y otras infecciones de transmisión sexual.

Ferrer señaló que el condado depende de casi $1.000 millones en financiamiento federal al año para rastrear y prevenir enfermedades contagiosas y combatir problemas crónicos de salud, incluidos la hipertensión y la diabetes. El condado el cierre de que ofrecían vacunación y pruebas de enfermedades, en gran parte por pérdidas de financiamiento relacionadas con recortes a subvenciones federales.

“Es una estrategia mal informada”, dijo Ferrer. “La salud pública no se preocupa por si tu afiliación política es republicana o demócrata. No se preocupa por tu estatus migratorio ni por tu orientación sexual. La salud pública tiene que estar disponible para todos”.

Un solo caso de sarampión requiere que los trabajadores de salud pública rastreen a unas 200 personas que pudieron haber estado en contacto con el paciente, dijo Ferrer.

Estados Unidos , pero está cerca de perder ese estatus debido al escepticismo sobre las vacunas y a la desinformación difundida por sus críticos. El año pasado hubo , la mayor cifra desde 1991, con un 93% en personas no vacunadas o cuyo estado de vacunación era desconocido.

Este año, la enfermedad altamente contagiosa se ha reportado en , y en .

Funcionarios de salud pública esperan que la West Coast Health Alliance ayude a contrarrestar las políticas de Trump al generar confianza mediante recomendaciones de salud pública basadas en evidencia.

“Lo que estamos viendo del gobierno federal son políticas partidistas en su peor forma y represalias por diferencias sobre políticas públicas; esto pone en un riesgo extraordinario la salud y el bienestar del pueblo estadounidense”, dijo Georges Benjamin, director ejecutivo de la Asociación Estadounidense de Salud Pública (APHA, por sus siglas en inglés), una coalición de profesionales de salud pública.

Un calendario de vacunación más sólido

Erica Pan, principal funcionaria de salud pública de California y directora del Departamento de Salud Pública de California, dijo que la West Coast Health Alliance está defendiendo la ciencia al recomendar un calendario de vacunación más sólido que el del gobierno federal.

California forma parte de una coalición que por su decisión de retirar las recomendaciones de siete vacunas infantiles, incluidas las de la hepatitis A, la hepatitis B, la influenza y covid-19.

Pan expresó una profunda preocupación por la situación de la salud pública, especialmente por el aumento de casos de sarampión.

“Estamos retrocediendo”, dijo Pan sobre las inmunizaciones.

Sarah Kemble, epidemióloga estatal de Hawaii, dijo que el estado se unió a la alianza después de escuchar a residentes que apoyan las vacunas y quieren tener la seguridad de que seguirán teniendo acceso a ellas.

“Recibíamos muchas preguntas de personas con ansiedad que sí entendían las recomendaciones basadas en la ciencia, pero se preguntaban: ‘¿Todavía voy a poder ir a ponerme mi vacuna?’”, dijo Kemble.

Otros estados liderados principalmente por demócratas también han formado alianzas. Pennsylvania, Nueva York, Nueva Jersey, Massachusetts y varios otros estados de la costa este se unieron para crear el .

Hilliard, del HHS, dijo que aunque los gobernadores demócratas establezcan coaliciones asesoras sobre vacunas, el Comité Asesor sobre Prácticas de Inmunización federal “sigue siendo el organismo científico que guía las recomendaciones de vacunación en este país, y el HHS garantizará que la política se base en evidencia rigurosa y ciencia de alto nivel, no en la política fallida de la pandemia”.

Influencia en estados republicanos

Por su parte, Newsom aprobó una asignación anual recurrente de casi $300 millones para apoyar al Departamento de Salud Pública de California, así como a las 61 agencias locales de salud pública en el estado. El año pasado también que autoriza al estado a emitir sus propias recomendaciones de inmunización.

La ley exige que las aseguradoras de salud en California cubran las vacunas recomendadas por el estado, incluso si el gobierno federal no las recomienda.

Jeffrey Singer, doctor y investigador principal del Cato Institute, un centro de pensamiento libertario, dijo que la descentralización puede ser beneficiosa. Esto se debe a que las campañas informativas locales que reflejan distintas ideologías políticas y prioridades comunitarias pueden tener más posibilidades de influir en el público.

Un análisis de KFF encontró que algunos estados republicanos se están sumando a estados demócratas para desvincular sus recomendaciones de vacunación del gobierno federal. Singer dijo que doctores en su estado natal de Arizona están mirando a California, más liberal, para guiarse sobre consejos de vacunación.

“La ciencia nunca está completamente establecida y hay muchas áreas de este país donde existen diferencias de opinión”, dijo Singer. “Esto puede ayudarnos a cuestionar nuestras suposiciones y aprender”.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “,” Newsom to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington, and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the , a regional public health agency, whose guidance would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Donald Trump officially from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and HHS declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the covid era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public Health Guided by Science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request. Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and . The White House last year proposed cutting HHS spending , including . Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing, and education, .

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, and a judge the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Association of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ���ϳԹ��� News.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3 billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding Cuts Hurt All

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the the closure of that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had , the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at , , and .

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust Vaccine Schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, and covid-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and several other East Coast states banding together to create the .

HHS’ Hilliard said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing Red States

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A KFF analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The city’s mobile crisis team had just gotten a call about a man walking around outside without shoes. The man’s family told the team he was having a mental health crisis and wouldn’t come inside.

As they drove down the highway toward the city’s outskirts, team member Evan Thiessen spoke with the relative who had reached out.

“You’re doing the right thing, and we’re going to make sure he gets help today, OK?” he said.

They pulled up the man’s police record on a laptop and saw that he did have a record of some previous encounters with police, including some that had turned violent.

, a licensed therapist, had that in mind as they pulled into a neighborhood of single-family homes. He stepped out of the Ford Bronco and headed toward the front door.

A Funding Problem

Many communities around the country send out teams like this one to help people in psychiatric crisis, rather than dispatching regular police.

A found there were at least 1,800 mobile teams nationwide in 2023. But financial support for them is often inadequate and inconsistent, leaving many communities struggling to keep the teams operating.

Two programs — one in Great Falls, in central Montana, and one in Billings, in south-central Montana — recently shut down. Six units remain in Montana.

The strategy in Eugene, Oregon, but gained momentum nationally over the past 10 years.

Recent about police killing people who are experiencing a psychiatric crisis have sparked conversations about how to safely and effectively respond. Most police officers are not trained to deal with people experiencing delusions or hallucinations, nor to de-escalate situations involving threatening behaviors to themselves or others.

An across 27 states found that about a third of the victims showed signs of being in crisis. Another study found that people with a serious mental illness were at least to experience use of force by police as those without.

By contrast, crisis response teams have been trained to de-escalate such situations and provide appropriate therapeutic care.

When the team arrived at the house in Bozeman, the man had already gone back inside. The team then talked with the man’s family for about half an hour and helped them devise a plan to keep him at home — and safe. Before they left, team members determined the man wasn’t a threat to himself or others.

Also, they planned to follow up within a few days to connect him with ongoing mental health care. After an encounter with the team, some clients might need follow-up therapy, assistance with psychiatric medications, or help finding treatment for substance abuse.

The Bozeman team is available 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and costs roughly $1 million a year to run.

Police departments are generally funded by local taxpayers. Mobile crisis teams don’t have a single, reliable source of funding.

Some, despite successful operations and , are or have closed entirely. One that shuttered was Oregon’s .

Most crisis calls end with people staying where they are, avoiding a trip to the emergency room or going to jail, according to , which runs the mobile crisis program in Bozeman.

Beyond police and firefighters, members of the public can call the team directly.

“I’ve been out on calls where individuals have barricaded themselves in residences or in their vehicles with a firearm. So, helping to assist not only law enforcement, the negotiators, but consulting on the behavioral health side of that,” said Ryan Mattson, who leads the Bozeman crisis team.

The program has reduced the time that Bozeman police officers must spend on mental health calls by nearly 80%, according to Mattson, and prevented unnecessary ER visits.

Residents and political leaders see that value, he said, but finding a way to pay for the service has been difficult.

“I’m confident we’ll be here through next fiscal year. That’s about as confident as I am at this point,” Mattson said.

Mobile crisis programs in Montana, which began operating about five years ago, have cost more than the state originally projected.

Health insurance is sometimes a revenue source for mobile crisis teams. That’s because a crisis call is a type of mental health service, provided by trained professionals such as therapists or crisis intervention specialists. Still, many private insurance companies don’t reimburse for mobile crisis services.

What Medicaid Pays For — And Doesn’t

Medicaid, the government-funded insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans, is another funding source. Two-thirds of states allow Medicaid reimbursement for such calls, but rates vary.

In Montana, Medicaid reimburses the team only for the time they spend responding to a call in the field. Additional time spent on a case — documenting the encounters, or waiting for the next call — isn’t reimbursed.

“You need to pay for the capacity to be at the ready, just like we do with fire or police, regardless of whether somebody is going to be called out,” said of Inseparable, a nonprofit that advocates for mental health policy reform.

It’s not feasible for mobile crisis teams to rely solely on reimbursement from insurance companies, she said.

To deal with the shortfalls, many mobile teams rely on a patchwork of grants and other funding, according to , who studies Medicaid policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ���ϳԹ��� News.

Some state governments have stepped in to help.

Eight states, including New Jersey, California, and Washington, mandate that private insurers cover the cost of mobile crisis calls for people on their plans, according to Kimball. At least 10 states have implemented fees on cellphone bills to help pay for service.

Montana hasn’t followed suit.

The state provides about $2 million annually in supplemental funds to help the mobile teams pay for service calls that aren’t reimbursed through Medicaid, according to an emailed statement from Jon Ebelt, a state health department spokesperson.

But program managers counter that the paperwork to access that funding is complicated and often isn’t worth the staff time.

Will Montana Step In?

Despite this state support, mobile teams are still struggling to stay afloat, Ebelt acknowledged. He said Montana officials are considering boosting what Medicaid reimburses for each service call.

In Missoula, the mobile crisis team turned to local taxpayers for additional help. Their annual expenditure is $1.4 million, but Medicaid reimbursements were covering only about 20% of the cost, according to program manager John LaRocque. Even with local tax dollars, the program faces a $250,000 shortfall, so LaRocque is looking for grants.

Mobile crisis is still a relatively new concept, and growing pains are to be expected, said Sierra Riesberg, director of the .

Still, abrupt closures create instability and lead some patients to the ER, placing financial pressure on another distressed part of the local health system.

“A much-needed service is available and then not available, available and then not available. These things need to be taken into consideration when developing programs in communities,” she said.

If more mobile crisis teams shut down, that might interfere with Montana’s recent efforts to overhaul an outdated and underfunded mental health system. The state’s only psychiatric hospital hasn’t kept up with the to the facility.

Later this year, Montana hopes to join a federal pilot program to open a new type of clinic: , or CCBHCs. Those clinics will receive boosted levels of federal funding, but they are required to offer round-the-clock mobile crisis services as well as other crisis care.

That could be a tall order for rural communities, said , an executive at in Great Falls.

Alluvion used to operate the mobile crisis team in Great Falls before it shuttered the service. One major reason it closed was that the expected Medicaid payments covered less than anticipated. Before Alluvion would consider getting involved again, the state would need to “completely revamp” the way the service is funded, Schreiner said.

“Is it a priority for our state or not?” he asked.

This article is from a partnership with and .

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Millers resettled on Vancouver Island, their scenic refuge accessible only by ferry or plane. Justin went to work in the emergency room at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, where he became one of at least 20 U.S.-trained nurses hired since April.

Fear of Trump, some of the nurses said, was why they left.

“There are so many like-minded people out there,” said Justin, who now works elbow to elbow with Americans in Canada. “You aren’t trapped. You don’t have to stay. Health care workers are welcomed with open arms around the world.”

The Millers are part of a new surge of American nurses, doctors, and other health care workers moving to Canada, and specifically British Columbia, where more than 1,000 U.S.-trained nurses have been approved to work since April. As the Trump administration enacts increasingly authoritarian policies and decimates funding for , insurance, and medical research, many nurses have felt the draw of Canada’s progressive politics, friendly reputation, and universal health care system.

Additionally, some nurses were incensed last year when the Trump administration said it would reclassify nursing as a , which would impose strict federal limits on the loans nursing students could receive.

Canada is poised to capitalize. Two of its most populous provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, have streamlined the licensing process for American nurses since Trump returned to the White House. British Columbia also launched a last year to recruit nurses from California, Oregon, and Washington state.

“With the chaos and uncertainty happening in the U.S., we are seizing the opportunity to attract the talent we need,” Josie Osborne, the province’s health minister, said in a statement announcing the campaign.

Fears Realized

Amy Miller, a nurse practitioner, said she and her husband were determined to move their children out of the country because they felt Trump’s second term would inevitably spiral into violence.

First, the Millers got nursing licenses in New Zealand, but when the job search took too long, they pivoted to Canada.

Justin was offered a job within weeks.

Amy found one within three months.

So they moved. And just a few days later, the Millers watched with horror from afar as their fears came true.

As federal immigration forces clashed with protesters in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, federal agents fatally shot an ICU nurse, Alex Pretti, as he filmed a confrontation and appeared to be trying to shield a woman who was knocked down. Video of the killing showed border agents pinning Pretti to the ground before seizing his concealed, licensed handgun and opening fire on him.

The Trump administration quickly called Pretti a “domestic terrorist” who intended to kill federal agents. That allegation was disputed by eyewitness videos that circulated on social media and spurred widespread outrage, including from nurses and nursing organizations, some of whom invoked the profession’s duty to care for the vulnerable.

“I don’t want to say it was expected, but that’s why we are here,” Amy Miller said. “Even our oldest kid, she was like: ‘It’s OK, Mom, because we are not there anymore. We are safe here.’ So she recognizes that, and she’s not even in middle school yet.”

Both the U.S. and Canada have a severe need for nurses. The U.S. is projected to be short about 270,000 registered nurses, plus at least 120,000 licensed practical nurses, by 2028, according to from the Health Resources and Services Administration. In Canada, nursing job vacancies tripled from 2018 to 2023, when they reached nearly 42,000, according to from the Montreal Economic Institute, a Canadian think tank.

When asked to comment, the White House noted that shows the number of nurses licensed in the U.S. increased in 2025. It dismissed accounts of nurses moving to Canada as “anecdotes of individuals with severe cases of Trump derangement syndrome.”

“The American health care workforce is the finest in the world, and it continues to expand under President Trump,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. “Employment opportunities in the American health care system remain robust, with career advancement and pay that far exceed that of other developed nations.”

‘A Sense of Relief’

It is unknown precisely how many American nurses have moved north since Trump returned to office, because some Canadian provinces do not track or release such statistics.

British Columbia, which has done the most to recruit Americans, approved the licensing applications of 1,028 U.S.-trained nurses from when the province’s streamlined application process took effect in April 2025 through January, according to the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives. In all of 2023, only 112 applicants from the U.S. were approved, the agency said. In 2024, it was 127.

Increased interest from American nurses was also confirmed by nursing associations in Ontario and Alberta, as well as by the nationwide Canadian Nurses Association.

Angela Wignall, CEO of Nurses and Nurse Practitioners of British Columbia, said American nurses used to move north because they had fallen in love with Canada (or a Canadian). But more recently, she said, she had met nurses who feared the White House would spur violence and vigilantism, particularly against families that included same-sex couples.

“Some of them were living in fear of the administration, and they shared a sense of relief when crossing the border,” Wignall said. “As a Canadian, it’s heartbreaking. And also a joy to welcome them.”

Vancouver Island, which has a population of about 860,000, has gained 64 U.S.-trained nurses since April, including those at Nanaimo Regional, said Andrew Leyne, a spokesperson for the island’s health agency.

One of the nurses was Susan Fleishman, a Canadian who moved to the U.S. as a child, then worked for 23 years in American emergency rooms before leaving the country in November.

Fleishman said hateful rhetoric from Trump has fueled an angry division that has permeated and soured American life.

“It wasn’t an easy move — that’s for sure. But I think it’s definitely worth it,” she said, happily back in Canada. “I find there is a lot more kindness here. And I think that will keep me here.”

Brandy Frye, who also worked for decades in American ERs, said she moved to Vancouver Island last year after waiting to see whether Mark Carney would become Canada’s prime minister. Carney’s rise was widely viewed as a rejection of Trumpism.

Meanwhile, Frye said, the California hospital where she worked had been stripping words associated with diversity and equity out of its paperwork to appease the Trump administration. She couldn’t stand it.

“It felt like a step against everything I believe in,” Frye said. “And I didn’t feel like I belonged there anymore.”

Like many of the American nurses who have moved to Vancouver Island, Frye was first wooed to the area by a that was meant to attract tourist dollars but ended up doing much more.

About a year ago, Tod Maffin, a and former CBC Radio host, invited Americans to the port city of Nanaimo for a weekend event designed to offset the impact of Trump’s tariffs on the local economy.

Maffin said about the April event.

“A lot of them were health care workers looking for an escape route,” Maffin said. “They were there to help support our economy but also to look into Canada.”

Maffin saw an opportunity. He repurposed the event website into a recruiting tool and launched a Discord chatroom to help Americans relocate.

Maffin said he believes the campaign helped about 35 health care workers move to Vancouver Island. Volunteers in have since duplicated his website in an effort to attract their own American nurses and doctors.

“There are communities across Canada where the emergency room closes at night because one nurse is out. That’s how thin staffing is,” Maffin said.

“One new nurse in a small town, or in a midsized city like Nanaimo,” he said, “makes a difference.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Ponerlos al tanto de estos riesgos podría disuadirlos de inscribirse en un programa llamado Medicaid de Emergencia, a través del cual el gobierno reembolsa a los hospitales el costo de la atención médica de urgencias a inmigrantes que no califican para la cobertura regular de Medicaid.

Pero si los hospitales no revelan que la información personal de los pacientes se comparte con las autoridades migratorias federales, estos podrían no saber que su cobertura médica los expone al riesgo de ser localizados por el Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE).

“Si los hospitales le dicen a la gente que sus datos de Medicaid de Emergencia se compartirán con el ICE, es previsible que muchos inmigrantes simplemente dejen de buscar tratamiento médico de emergencia”, afirmó , profesor investigador del Centro para Niños y Familias de la Universidad de Georgetown.

“La mitad de los casos de Medicaid de Emergencia son partos de bebés ciudadanos estadounidenses. ¿Queremos que esas madres eviten ir al hospital cuando comienzan el trabajo de parto?”, agregó.

Durante más de una década, hospitales y estados aseguraron a los pacientes que su información personal, incluyendo su estatus migratorio y la dirección de su casa, no sería compartida con funcionarios de inmigración cuando solicitaban cobertura médica federal.

Un garantizaba que la agencia no usaría información de solicitudes de cobertura médica para actividades de control migratorio.

Pero eso cambió el año pasado, luego de que el presidente Donald Trump regresara a la Casa Blanca y ordenara una de las campañas de represión migratoria más agresivas de la historia reciente. Su administración empezó a canalizar datos de varias agencias gubernamentales al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, incluida enviada al Servicio de Impuestos Internos (IRS).

Los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS, por sus siglas en inglés), que forman parte del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos, aceptaron en la primavera pasada darle a ICE acceso directo a una base de datos de Medicaid que incluye las direcciones y el estatus migratorio de las personas inscritas.

Veintidós estados, todos gobernados por demócratas excepto uno, presentaron demandas para de intercambio de datos de Medicaid, que no había sido anunciado formalmente por el gobierno hasta que un juez federal ordenó hacerlo el verano pasado. El juez que, en esos estados, ICE solo podría acceder a la información de la base de datos de Medicaid correspondiente a personas que están en el país de forma irregular.

���ϳԹ��� News contactó a más de una docena de hospitales y asociaciones hospitalarias en estados y ciudades que han sido objeto de operativos del ICE. Muchos se negaron a comentar si, luego del fallo judicial, habían actualizado sus políticas de divulgación.

De los que respondieron, ninguno dijo que estuviera advirtiendo directamente a los pacientes que su información personal podía ser compartida con el ICE si solicitaban cobertura de Medicaid.

“No ofrecemos asesoramiento legal sobre el intercambio de datos entre agencias del gobierno federal”, escribió por correo electrónico Aimee Jordon, vocera del sistema hospitalario M Health Fairview, con sede en Minneapolis. “Recomendamos a los pacientes que tengan preguntas sobre prestaciones o inquietudes relacionadas con temas migratorios que busquen orientación en los recursos estatales adecuados y con asesores legales calificados”.

Información sobre las solicitudes

En algunos estados, las solicitudes de Medicaid de Emergencia  preguntan específicamente por el estatus migratorio del paciente, pero aseguran a las personas que su información se mantendrá protegida y fuera del alcance de los funcionarios de inmigración.

Por ejemplo, hasta el 3 de febrero, la solicitud de California aún incluía un texto en el que se informaba a los solicitantes que su información migratoria era “confidencial”.

“Solo la usamos para determinar si califica para un seguro médico”, explica el formulario de 44 páginas que el programa estatal de Medicaid, conocido como Medi-Cal, publicó en .

Anthony Cava, vocero del Departamento de Servicios de Atención Médica de California, dijo en una declaración que la agencia, que supervisa Medi-Cal, se asegurará de que los californianos tengan información precisa sobre la privacidad de sus datos, “incluyendo, si es necesario, la revisión de otras publicaciones”.

Hasta finales de enero, el sitio web de Medicaid en Utah también aseguraba que el programa de Medicaid de Emergencia no compartía información con funcionarios migratorios. Después de que ���ϳԹ��� News contactara a la agencia estatal, la vocera Kolbi Young anunció el 23 de enero que esa información sería retirada de inmediato. Fue eliminada ese mismo día.

El sistema hospitalario Oregon Health & Science University, con sede en Portland, ofrece a pacientes inmigrantes un documento de desarrollado por el programa estatal de Medicaid para quienes tienen dudas sobre el uso de su información. El documento no indica de manera explícita que la información de quienes se inscriben en Medicaid será compartida con el ICE.

Los hospitales dependen del Medicaid de Emergencia para que les reembolsen el tratamiento de personas que cumplirían con los requisitos para Medicaid si no fuera por su estatus migratorio, ya sea que estén en el país sin papeles o dispongan de una presencia legal temporal, como visas de estudiante o de trabajo. Esta cobertura solo paga por atención médica de urgencia y servicios relacionados con el embarazo. Por lo general, representantes del hospital ayudan a los pacientes a presentar la solicitud mientras están en el hospital.

El programa principal de Medicaid, que cubre una gama mucho más amplia de servicios para más de 77 millones de personas con bajos ingresos o discapacidades, no cubre a quienes están en el país sin autorización.

Por lo tanto, examinar los registros de inscripción en el Medicaid de Emergencia es la forma más efectiva que tienen los funcionarios de deportación para identificar a los inmigrantes, incluidos aquellos que podrían no residir legalmente en los Estados Unidos.

Rich Danker, vocero del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos, dijo por correo electrónico que los CMS —que supervisa Medicaid, un programa conjunto federal y estatal— están compartiendo datos con el ICE tras la decisión del juez. Pero no explicó cómo se asegura de compartir solo información sobre personas sin residencia legal, como exige el fallo judicial.

Dado que el ICE ahora tiene acceso directo a la información personal de millones de personas inscritas en Medicaid, los hospitales —aunque “están en una posición muy difícil”— deberían ser transparentes sobre los cambios, dijo Sarah Grusin, , un grupo de defensa legal.

“Deben decirle a la gente que el juez ha autorizado compartir la información —incluida sus direcciones— en el caso de quienes no residen legalmente en el país”, afirmó. “Una vez enviada, esa información ya no puede protegerse para evitar que sea divulgada”.

Grusin dijo que recomienda a las familias que midan la importancia de buscar atención médica frente al riesgo de que sus datos sean compartidos con el ICE.

“Queremos dar información sincera y honesta, incluso si eso significa que las personas se vayan a ver obligadas a tomar decisiones muy difíciles”, destacó.

Quienes se hayan inscrito anteriormente en Medicaid o cuya dirección pueda encontrarse fácilmente en internet deben asumir que los funcionarios de inmigración ya conocen esos datos, agregó.

Medicaid de Emergencia

La cobertura de Medicaid de Emergencia se estableció a mediados de la década de 1980, cuando una ley federal comenzó a exigir que los hospitales atendieran y estabilizaran a cualquier persona que llegara con una condición que pusiera en riesgo su vida.

En 2023, el gasto del gobierno federal en Medicaid de Emergencia fue de casi $4.000 millones, lo que representa aproximadamente federal en Medicaid.

Los estados envían informes mensuales al gobierno federal con información detallada sobre quiénes se inscriben en Medicaid y qué servicios reciben.

El fallo judicial de diciembre limitó lo que los CMS pueden compartir con el ICE a datos básicos, incluyendo direcciones, de los afiliados a Medicaid en los 22 estados que llevaron a la Justicia el acuerdo de intercambio de datos. El ICE no tiene permitido acceder a información sobre los servicios médicos que reciben las personas, según la orden del juez.

El juez también prohibió a la agencia compartir los datos de ciudadanos estadounidenses o inmigrantes con residencia legal en esos estados.

En los otros 28 estados, los funcionarios de deportación tienen acceso a la información personal de los inscritos en Medicaid.

La agencia federal de salud no ha aclarado cómo garantiza que la información sobre ciudadanos y residentes legales de ciertos estados no sea compartida con el ICE. Pero expertos en Medicaid dicen que sería casi imposible separar esos datos, lo que genera dudas sobre si el gobierno de Trump está cumpliendo con la orden judicial.

Los esfuerzos de la administración Trump por deportar a inmigrantes que viven en el país sin autorización han afectado a familias inmigrantes que buscan atención de salud.

Cerca de un tercio de los adultos nacidos fuera de los Estados Unidos dijeron haber evitado o pospuesto atención médica en el último año, según una encuesta de publicada en noviembre. (KFF es una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a la información sobre salud, que incluye a ���ϳԹ��� News).

Bethany Pray, directora legal y de políticas del Colorado Center on Law and Policy, advirtió que el hecho de compartir datos de Medicaid con funcionarios de deportación obligará a muchas familias a tomar decisiones aún más difíciles.

“Esto es muy preocupante”, opinó Pray. “La gente no debería tener que elegir entre dar a luz en un hospital y preguntarse si eso significa correr el riesgo de enfrentar la deportación”.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Warning patients could deter them from signing up for a program called Emergency Medicaid, through which the government reimburses hospitals for the cost of emergency treatment for immigrants who are ineligible for standard Medicaid coverage.

But if hospitals don’t disclose that the patients’ information is shared with federal law enforcement, they might not know that their medical coverage puts them at risk of being located by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“If hospitals tell people that their Emergency Medicaid information will be shared with ICE, it is foreseeable that many immigrants would simply stop getting emergency medical treatment,” said , a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families. “Half of the Emergency Medicaid cases are for the delivery of U.S. citizen babies. Do we want these mothers avoiding the hospital when they go into labor?”

For more than a decade, hospitals and states have assured patients that their personal information, including their home addresses and immigration status, would not be shared with immigration enforcement officials when they apply for federal health care coverage. guaranteed the agency would not use information from health coverage applications for enforcement activities.

But that changed last year, after President Donald Trump returned to the White House and ordered one of the most aggressive immigration crackdowns in recent history. His administration began funneling data from a variety of government agencies to the Department of Homeland Security, including filed with the IRS.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, agreed last spring to give ICE officials direct access to a Medicaid database that includes enrollees’ addresses and citizenship status.

Twenty-two states, all but one led by Democratic governors, the Medicaid data-sharing agreement, which the administration did not formally announce until a federal judge ordered it to do so last summer. The judge that in those states, ICE could access information in the Medicaid database only about people in the country unlawfully. ���ϳԹ��� News contacted more than a dozen hospitals and hospital associations in states and cities that have been targets of ICE sweeps. Many declined to comment on whether they’ve updated their disclosure policies after the ruling.

Of those that responded, none said they are directly warning patients that their personal information may be shared with ICE when they apply for Medicaid coverage.

“We do not provide legal advice about federal government data-sharing between agencies,” Aimee Jordon, a spokesperson for M Health Fairview, a Minneapolis-based hospital system, said in an email to ���ϳԹ��� News. “We encourage patients with questions about benefits or immigration-related concerns to seek guidance from appropriate state resources and qualified legal counsel.”

Information on Applications

Some states’ Emergency Medicaid applications specifically ask for a patient’s immigration status — and still assure people that their information will be kept secure and out of the hands of immigration enforcement officials.

For example, as of Feb. 3, California’s application still included language advising applicants that their immigration information is “confidential.”

“We only use it to see if you qualify for health insurance,” states the 44-page form, which the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, in January.

California Department of Health Care Services spokesperson Anthony Cava said in a statement that the agency, which oversees Medi-Cal, will “ensure that Californians have accurate information on the privacy of their data, including by revising additional publications as necessary.”

Until late January, Utah’s Medicaid website also claimed its Emergency Medicaid program did not share its information with immigration officials. After ���ϳԹ��� News contacted the state agency, Kolbi Young, a spokesperson, said Jan. 23 that the language would be taken down immediately. It was removed that day.

Oregon Health & Science University, a hospital system based in Portland, offers immigrant patients developed by the state Medicaid program for those with concerns about how their information might be used. The document does not directly say that Medicaid enrollees’ information is shared with ICE officials.

Hospitals rely on Emergency Medicaid to reimburse them for treating people who would qualify for Medicaid if not for their citizenship status — those in the country illegally and lawfully present immigrants, such as those with a student or work visa. The coverage pays only for emergency medical and pregnancy care. Typically, hospital representatives help patients apply while they are still in the medical facility.

The main Medicaid program, which covers a much broader range of services for over 77 million low-income and disabled people, does not cover people living in the country illegally.

Examining Emergency Medicaid enrollment is the most obvious way, then, for deportation officials to identify immigrants, including those who might not reside in the U.S. lawfully.

HHS spokesperson Rich Danker said in an email that CMS — which oversees Medicaid, a joint state-federal program — is sharing data with ICE after the judge’s ruling. But he would not answer how the agency is ensuring it is sharing information only on people who are not lawfully present, as the judge required.

With ICE now getting direct access to the personal information of millions of Medicaid enrollees, hospitals — while “definitely in a tough position” — should be up-front about the changes, said Sarah Grusin, at the National Health Law Program, an advocacy group.

“They need to be telling people that the judge has permitted sharing of information, including their address, for people who are not lawfully residing,” she said. “Once this information is submitted, you can’t protect it from disclosure at this point.”

Grusin said she advises families to weigh the importance of seeking medical care against the risk of having their information shared with ICE.

“We want to give candid, honest information even if it means the decision people have to make is really hard,” she said.

Those who have previously enrolled in Medicaid or can easily search their address online should assume that immigration officials already have their information, she added.

Emergency Medicaid

Emergency Medicaid coverage was established in the mid-1980s, when a federal law began requiring hospitals to treat and stabilize all patients who show up at their doors with a life-threatening condition.

Federal government spending on Emergency Medicaid accounted for nearly $4 billion in 2023, or of total federal spending on Medicaid.

States send monthly reports to the federal government with detailed information about who enrolls in Medicaid and what services they receive. The judge’s ruling in December limited what CMS can share with ICE to only basic information, including addresses, about Medicaid enrollees in the 22 states that sued over the data-sharing arrangement. ICE officials are not supposed to access information about the medical services people receive, per the judge’s order.

The judge also prohibited the agency from sharing the data of U.S. citizens or lawfully present immigrants from those states.

Deportation officials have access to personal Medicaid information of all enrollees in the remaining 28 states.

The federal health agency has not clarified how it is ensuring that certain states’ information on citizens and legal residents is not shared with ICE. But Medicaid experts say it would be nearly impossible for the agency to separate the data, raising questions about whether the Trump administration is complying with the judge’s order.

The Trump administration’s efforts to deport immigrants living in the country illegally have had implications on immigrant families seeking care. About a third of adult immigrants reported skipping or postponing health care in the past year, according to a released in November. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes ���ϳԹ��� News.)

Bethany Pray, the chief legal and policy officer at the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, warned that sharing Medicaid data directly with deportation officials will force even tougher decisions upon some families.

“This is very concerning,” Pray said. “People should not have to choose between giving birth in a hospital and wondering if that means they risk deportation.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

A week earlier, immigration agents had grabbed Julio César Peña from his front yard in Glendale, California. Now, he was in a hospital after suffering a ministroke. He was shackled to the bed by his hand and foot, he told Romero, and agents were in the room, listening to the call. He was scared he would die and wanted his wife there.

“What hospital are you at?” Romero asked.

“I can’t tell you,” he replied.

Viridiana Chabolla, Peña’s attorney, couldn’t get an answer to that question, either. Peña’s deportation officer and the medical contractor at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center refused to tell her. Exasperated, she tried calling a nearby hospital, Providence St. Mary Medical Center.

“They said even if they had a person in ICE custody under their care, they wouldn’t be able to confirm whether he’s there or not, that only ICE can give me the information,” Chabolla said. The hospital confirmed this policy to ���ϳԹ��� News.

Family members and attorneys for patients hospitalized after being detained by federal immigration officials said they are facing extreme difficulty trying to locate patients, get information about their well-being, and provide them emotional and legal support. They say many hospitals refuse to provide information or allow contact with these patients. Instead, hospitals allow immigration officers to call the shots on how much — if any — contact is allowed, which can deprive patients of their constitutional right to seek legal advice and leave them vulnerable to abuse, attorneys said.

Hospitals say they are trying to protect the safety and privacy of patients, staff, and law enforcement officials, even while hospital employees in , , and , cities where Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted immigration raids, say it’s made their jobs difficult. Hospitals have used what are sometimes called blackout procedures, which can include registering a patient under a pseudonym, removing their name from the hospital directory, or prohibiting staff from even confirming that a patient is in the hospital.

“We’ve heard incidences of this blackout process being used at multiple hospitals across the state, and it’s very concerning,” said Shiu-Ming Cheer, the deputy director of immigrant and racial justice at the California Immigrant Policy Center, an advocacy group.

Some Democratic-led states, including California, Colorado, and Maryland, have enacted legislation that seeks to protect patients from immigration enforcement in hospitals. However, those policies do not address protections for people already in ICE custody.

More Detainees Hospitalized

Peña is among arrested by federal immigration authorities since President Donald Trump returned to the White House. As arrests and detentions have climbed, so too have reports of people taken to hospitals by immigration agents because of illness or injury — due to preexisting conditions or problems stemming from their arrest or detention.

ICE has for using and tactics, as well as for and at its facilities. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told reporters at a Jan. 20 news conference outside a detention center he visited in California City that he spoke to a diabetic woman held there who had not received treatment in .

While there are no publicly available statistics on the number of people sick or injured in ICE detention, the agency’s news releases point to who died in immigration custody in 2025. Six more have died this year.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, did not respond to a request for information about its policies or Peña’s case.

According to , people in custody should be given access to a telephone, visits from family and friends, and private consultation with legal counsel. The agency can make administrative decisions, including about visitation, when a patient is in the hospital, but should defer to hospital policies on contacting next of kin when a patient is seriously ill, the guidelines state.

Asked in detail about hospital practices related to patients in immigration custody and whether there are best practices that hospitals should follow, Ben Teicher, a spokesperson for the American Hospital Association, declined to comment.

David Simon, a spokesperson for the California Hospital Association, said that “there are times when hospitals will — at the request of law enforcement — maintain confidentiality of patients’ names and other identifying characteristics.”

Although policies vary, members of the public can typically call a hospital and ask for a patient by name to find out whether they’re there, and often be transferred to the patient’s room, said William Weber, an emergency physician in Minneapolis and medical director for the Medical Justice Alliance, which advocates for the medical needs of people in law enforcement custody. Family members and others authorized by the patient can visit. And medical staff routinely call relatives to let them know a loved one is in the hospital, or to ask for information that could help with their care.

But when a patient is in law enforcement custody, hospitals frequently agree to restrict this kind of information sharing and access, Weber said. The rationale is that these measures prevent unauthorized outsiders from threatening the patient or law enforcement personnel, given that hospitals lack the security infrastructure of a prison or detention center. High-profile patients such as celebrities sometimes also request this type of protection.

Several attorneys and health care providers questioned the need for such restrictions. Immigration detention is civil, not criminal, detention. The Trump administration says it’s focused on , yet most of those arrested have no criminal conviction, according to data compiled by the and several news outlets.

Taken Outside His Home

According to Peña’s wife, Romero, he has no criminal record. Peña came to the United States from Mexico in sixth grade and has an adult son in the U.S. military. The 43-year-old has terminal kidney disease and survived a heart attack in November. He has trouble walking and is partially blind, his wife said. He was detained Dec. 8 while resting outside after coming home from dialysis treatment.

Initially, Romero was able to find her husband through the . She visited him at a temporary holding facility in downtown Los Angeles, bringing him his medicines and a sweater. She then saw he’d been moved to the Adelanto detention center. But the locator did not show where he was after he was hospitalized.

When she and other relatives drove to the detention facility to find him, they were turned away, she said. Romero received occasional calls from her husband in the hospital but said they were less than 10 minutes long and took place under ICE surveillance. She wanted to know where he was so she could be at the hospital to hold his hand, make sure he was well cared for, and encourage him to stay strong, she said.

Shackling him and preventing him from seeing his family was unfair and unnecessary, she said.

“He’s weak,” Romero said. “It’s not like he’s going to run away.”

say contact and visits from family and friends should be allowed “within security and operational constraints.” Detainees have a constitutional right to speak confidentially with an attorney. Weber said immigration authorities should tell attorneys where their clients are and allow them to talk in person or use an unmonitored phone line.

Hospitals, though, fall into a gray area on enforcing these rights, since they are primarily focused on treating medical needs, Weber said. Still, he added, hospitals should ensure their policies align with the law.

Family Denied Access

Numerous immigration attorneys have spent weeks trying to locate clients detained by ICE, with their efforts sometimes thwarted by hospitals.

Nicolas Thompson-Lleras, a Los Angeles attorney who counsels immigrants facing deportation, said two of his clients were registered under aliases at different hospitals in Los Angeles County last year. Initially, the hospitals denied the clients were there and refused to let Thompson-Lleras meet with them, he said. Family members were also denied access, he said.

One of his clients was , a car wash worker injured during a raid in August. Immigration agents surveilled him for over a month at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, a county-run facility, without charging him.

In November, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to of blackout policies for patients under civil immigration custody at county-run hospitals. In a statement, Arun Patel, the chief patient safety and clinical risk management officer for the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, said the policies are designed to reduce safety risks for patients, doctors, nurses, and custody officers.

“In some situations, there may be concerns about threats to the patient, attempts to interfere with medical care, unauthorized visitors, or the introduction of contraband,” Patel said. “Our goal is not to restrict care but to allow care to happen safely and without disruption.”

Leaving Patients Vulnerable

Thompson-Lleras said he’s concerned that hospitals are cooperating with federal immigration authorities at the expense of patients and their families and leaving patients vulnerable to abuse.

“It allows people to be treated suboptimally,” Thompson-Lleras said. “It allows people to be treated on abbreviated timelines, without supervision, without family intervention or advocacy. These people are alone, disoriented, being interrogated, at least in Bayron’s case, under pain and influence of medication.”

Such incidents are alarming to hospital workers. In Los Angeles, two health care professionals who asked not to be identified by ���ϳԹ��� News, out of concern for their livelihoods, said that ICE and hospital administrators, at public and private hospitals, frequently block staff from contacting family members for people in custody, even to find out about their health conditions or what medications they’re on. That violates medical ethics, they said.

Blackout procedures are another concern.

“They help facilitate, whether intentionally or not, the disappearance of patients,” said one worker, a physician for the county’s Department of Health Services and part of a coalition of concerned health workers from across the region.

At Legacy Emanuel Medical Center in Portland, nurses publicly expressed outrage over what they saw as hospital cooperation with ICE and the flouting of patient rights. Legacy Health has to the nurses’ union, accusing it of making “false or misleading statements.”

“I was really disgusted,” said Blaire Glennon, a nurse who quit her job at the hospital in December. She said numerous patients were brought to the hospital by ICE with serious injuries they sustained while being detained. “I felt like Legacy was doing massive human rights violations.”

Handcuffed While Unconscious

Two days before Christmas, Chabolla, Peña’s attorney, received a call from ICE with the answer she and Romero had been waiting for. Peña was at Victor Valley Global Medical Center, about 10 miles from Adelanto, and about to be released.

Excited, Romero and her family made the two-hour-plus drive from Glendale to the hospital to take him home.

When they got there, they found Peña intubated and unconscious, his arm and leg still handcuffed to the hospital bed. He’d had a severe seizure on Dec. 20, but no one had told his family or legal team, his attorney said.

Tim Lineberger, a spokesperson for Victor Valley Global Medical Center’s parent company, KPC Health, said he could not comment on specific patient cases, because of privacy protections. He said the hospital’s policies on patient information disclosure comply with state and federal law.

Peña was finally cleared to go home on Jan. 5. No court date has been set, and his family is filing a petition to adjust his legal status based on his son’s military service. For now, he still faces deportation proceedings.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Una semana antes, agentes de inmigración apresaron a Julio César Peña delante de su casa en Glendale, California, y se lo llevaron. Ahora estaba en un hospital, después de haber sufrido un mini derrame cerebral. Le dijo a Romero que lo tenían esposado a la cama, de una mano y un pie, y que había agentes en la habitación escuchando la llamada. Tenía miedo de morir y quería que su esposa estuviera con él.

“¿En qué hospital estás?”, le preguntó Romero.

“No te puedo decir”, respondió él.

Viridiana Chabolla, abogada de Peña, tampoco pudo obtener una respuesta. El oficial de deportación asignado al caso y la empresa médica contratada en el Centro de Procesamiento del ICE en Adelanto se negaron a decirle dónde estaba internado. Frustrada, intentó llamar a un hospital cercano, el Providence St. Mary Medical Center.

“Me dijeron que aunque tuvieran bajo su cuidado a una persona detenida por el ICE, no podrían confirmar si estaba allí o no, que solo el ICE puede darme esa información”, contó Chabolla. El hospital confirmó esa política a ���ϳԹ��� News.

Familiares y abogados de personas internadas tras ser detenidas por autoridades federales de inmigración dijeron que enfrentan grandes obstáculos para localizar a los pacientes, saber cómo están de salud y brindarles apoyo legal y emocional.

Aseguran que muchos hospitales se niegan a dar información o permitir el contacto con las personas detenidas. En cambio, dejan que los agentes de inmigración decidan cuánto contacto se permite, si es que se permite alguno. Esto, según los abogados, les arrebata a los pacientes su derecho constitucional a recibir asesoría legal, y los deja vulnerables a abusos.

Los hospitales dicen que buscan proteger la seguridad y privacidad de los pacientes, el personal y las autoridades, aunque empleados de centros de salud en , y —ciudades donde el ICE ha realizado redadas— afirman que eso les ha dificultado su trabajo.

Algunos hospitales aplican lo que llaman “procedimientos de apagón” o blackout —a veces llamado “código negro”— que pueden incluir registrar al paciente con un seudónimo, eliminar su nombre del directorio del hospital o prohibir al personal confirmar si la persona está hospitalizada.

“Sabemos de varios casos en los que se usó este procedimiento de apagón en hospitales del estado, y es muy preocupante”, dijo Shiu-Ming Cheer, subdirectora de justicia migratoria y racial en el California Immigrant Policy Center, una organización de defensa de los inmigrantes.

Estados gobernados por demócratas, como California, Colorado y Maryland, han aprobado leyes para proteger a pacientes de operativos de inmigración dentro de hospitales. Sin embargo, esas leyes no cubren a quienes ya están bajo custodia del ICE.

Más detenidos hospitalizados

Peña es una de las por autoridades migratorias desde que el presidente Donald Trump regresó a la Casa Blanca.

A medida que aumentan los arrestos y detenciones, también lo hacen los reportes de personas trasladadas a hospitales por agentes de inmigración debido a enfermedades o lesiones, ya sea por condiciones preexistentes o derivadas del arresto o la detención.

El ICE ha recibido por utilizar tácticas y , y por y en sus centros de detención. El senador Adam Schiff, demócrata de California, dijo el 20 de enero, en una conferencia de prensa, frente a un centro de detención en California City, que habló con una mujer con diabetes detenida allí que .

No hay estadísticas públicas sobre cuántas personas enferman o se lesionan bajo custodia del ICE, pero comunicados de prensa de la agencia indican que murieron bajo custodia migratoria en 2025.

En lo que va del año, han muerto seis más.

El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, que supervisa al ICE, no respondió a solicitudes de información sobre sus políticas ni sobre el caso de Peña.

Según las propias , las personas bajo su custodia deben tener acceso a un teléfono, visitas de familiares y amigos, y consultas privadas con sus abogados.

La agencia puede tomar decisiones administrativas, incluyendo el tema de las visitas,  cuando un detenido está hospitalizado; pero, según las directrices, debe respetar las políticas del hospital para contactar a familiares si la persona está gravemente enferma.

Consultado sobre las prácticas hospitalarias con personas bajo custodia migratoria, y sobre si existen protocolos recomendados, Ben Teicher, vocero de la Asociación Estadounidense de Hospitales, no quiso comentar.

David Simon, vocero de la Asociación de Hospitales de California, expresó que “en algunos casos, a pedido de las autoridades, los hospitales mantienen la confidencialidad de los nombres de los pacientes y otra información que los identifique”.

Aunque las políticas varían, por lo general cualquier persona puede llamar a un hospital y preguntar por un paciente dando su nombre, y con frecuencia se le transfiere la llamada a la habitación, dijo William Weber, médico de emergencias en Minneapolis y director médico de Medical Justice Alliance, una organización que defiende los derechos médicos de personas bajo custodia.

Los familiares y personas autorizadas por el paciente pueden visitarlo. El personal médico también suele llamar a los familiares para informarles que alguien está hospitalizado o para pedir información que ayude en su atención.

Pero cuando se trata de personas bajo custodia de autoridades, los hospitales frecuentemente acceden a restringir el acceso y dar información, señaló Weber.

El argumento es que estas medidas evitan que personas no autorizadas amenacen al paciente o al personal, ya que los hospitales no tienen la infraestructura de seguridad de una cárcel. Algunos pacientes famosos también solicitan este tipo de medidas.

Abogados y trabajadores de salud cuestionan que esas restricciones sean realmente necesarias. La detención migratoria es una detención civil, no criminal. Aunque el gobierno de Trump afirma que su prioridad es , la mayoría de los detenidos no tiene antecedentes penales, según datos del centro y varios medios de comunicación.

Detenido delante de su casa

Según su esposa, Peña no tiene antecedentes penales. Llegó a Estados Unidos desde México cuando cursaba sexto grado, y tiene un hijo adulto en el ejército estadounidense. Tiene 43 años, padece enfermedad renal terminal y sobrevivió a un infarto en noviembre. Camina con dificultad y tiene pérdida parcial de la vista, explicó Romero. Fue detenido el 8 de diciembre, mientras descansaba en el exterior de su casa tras un tratamiento de diálisis.

Al principio, Romero logró ubicar a su esposo con el . Lo visitó en un lugar de detención temporal en el centro de Los Ángeles, donde le llevó sus medicinas y un suéter. Luego vio que lo trasladaron al centro de detención en Adelanto. Pero después de que fue hospitalizado, ya no apareció en la base de datos.

Cuando ella y otros familiares fueron al centro de detención para preguntar por él, les negaron el acceso. Romero recibía llamadas ocasionales de su esposo desde el hospital, pero duraban menos de 10 minutos y estaban monitoreadas por el ICE. Ella quería saber en qué hospital estaba para poder estar con él, tomarle la mano, asegurarse de que lo atendieran bien y darle ánimos.

Dijo que mantenerlo esposado y sin ver a su familia era injusto e innecesario.“Está débil”, dijo Romero. “No existe riesgo de que pueda escaparse”.

indican que debe permitirse el contacto y las visitas de familiares “dentro de las limitaciones de seguridad y operativas”. Las personas detenidas tienen derecho constitucional a hablar en privado con su abogado. Weber explicó que las autoridades migratorias deben informar a los abogados dónde están sus clientes y permitirles hablar con ellos en persona o mediante una línea telefónica sin vigilancia.

Sin embargo, los hospitales están en una zona gris respecto a cómo hacer cumplir estos derechos, ya que su enfoque principal es la atención médica, dijo Weber. Aun así, agregó, deben asegurarse de que sus políticas estén alineadas con la ley.

Familia sin acceso

Varios abogados de inmigración han pasado semanas intentando localizar a clientes detenidos por el ICE, y en ocasiones sus esfuerzos han sido frustrados por los hospitales.

Nicolas Thompson-Lleras, abogado de Los Ángeles  que representa a personas en proceso de deportación, contó que, el año pasado, dos de sus clientes fueron registrados con nombres falsos en distintos hospitales del condado de Los Ángeles. Inicialmente, los hospitales negaron que los pacientes estuvieran ahí y no permitieron que el abogado los viera. También se les negó el acceso a los familiares.

Uno de esos clientes fue , trabajador de un negocio de lavado de autos, que resultó herido durante una redada en agosto. Agentes migratorios lo vigilaron por más de un mes en el hospital Harbor-UCLA, un centro público, sin presentar cargos.

En noviembre, la Junta de Supervisores del condado de Los Ángeles votó a favor de el uso de políticas de apagón en hospitales públicos para pacientes bajo custodia civil de inmigración. En un comunicado, Arun Patel, director de seguridad del paciente y gestión de riesgos clínicos del Departamento de Servicios de Salud del condado, dijo que estas políticas buscan reducir riesgos para pacientes, médicos, enfermeros y agentes.

“En algunos casos, puede haber preocupaciones sobre amenazas al paciente, intentos de interferir con la atención médica, visitantes no autorizados o el ingreso de objetos prohibidos”, dijo Patel. “Nuestro objetivo no es restringir la atención, sino permitir que se brinde de forma segura y sin interrupciones”.

Pacientes más vulnerables

Thompson-Lleras expresó preocupación de que los hospitales estén colaborando con autoridades migratorias a costa de los pacientes y sus familias, lo que los deja vulnerables a abusos.

“Permite que las personas reciban atención deficiente”, dijo. “Permite que los traten de forma acelerada, sin supervisión, sin intervención familiar y sin defensa alguna. Estas personas están solas, desorientadas, siendo interrogadas —al menos en el caso de Bayron— bajo dolor y efectos de medicamentos”.

Estas situaciones también alarman al personal de salud. En Los Ángeles, dos trabajadores de hospitales —que pidieron no ser identificados por temor a sufrir represalias— dijeron a ���ϳԹ��� News que el ICE y administradores de hospitales públicos y privados bloquean con frecuencia el contacto entre el personal médico y los familiares de personas detenidas, incluso para obtener información médica necesaria. Eso, afirmaron, va contra la ética médica.

Los procedimientos de apagón son otra preocupación.

“Facilitan, aunque no sea intencionalmente, la desaparición de pacientes”, dijo una de las personas, médica en el Departamento de Servicios de Salud del condado y parte de una coalición de trabajadores preocupados en la región.

En el Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, en Portland, enfermeras expresaron públicamente su indignación por lo que vieron como cooperación con el ICE y violaciones de los derechos de los pacientes. La red Legacy Health envió una al sindicato de enfermeras para que frenara esto, acusándolo de hacer declaraciones falsas o engañosas.

“Me dio asco”, dijo Blaire Glennon, una enfermera que renunció en diciembre. Afirmó que muchos pacientes fueron llevados por el ICE al hospital con lesiones graves sufridas durante la detención. “Sentí que Legacy estaba cometiendo enormes violaciones a los derechos humanos”.

Esposado estando inconsciente

Dos días antes de Navidad, Chabolla, la abogada de Peña, recibió una llamada de ICE con la información que ella y Romero llevaban semanas esperando. Peña estaba en el hospital Victor Valley Global Medical Center, a unas 10 millas de Adelanto, y estaba a punto de ser dado de alta.

Emocionados, Romero y su familia manejaron más de dos horas desde Glendale hasta el hospital para recogerlo.

Pero al llegar, encontraron a Peña intubado e inconsciente, todavía esposado de un brazo y una pierna a la cama. Había tenido una fuerte convulsión el 20 de diciembre, pero nadie informó a su familia ni a su abogada, dijo Chabolla.

Tim Lineberger, vocero del grupo KPC Health —propietario del hospital—, dijo que no podía comentar sobre casos específicos por razones de privacidad. Afirmó que las políticas del hospital sobre divulgación de información cumplen con las leyes estatales y federales.

Peña fue dado de alta finalmente el 5 de enero. Aún no tiene fecha de audiencia y su familia presentó una petición para modificar su estatus migratorio en función del servicio militar de su hijo. Por ahora, sigue en proceso de deportación.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).