Pero, siete meses después, los resultados de cinco estados compartidos con 窪蹋勛圖厙 News muestran que las revisiones han encontrado poca evidencia de que este sea un problema generalizado.

Solo los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos y algunos inmigrantes con presencia legal pueden acceder a Medicaid, que cubre costos de atención médica para personas con bajos ingresos y discapacidades, así como al Programa de Seguro Médico Infantil (CHIP, por sus siglas en inglés). Ambos programas son administrados por los estados.

Voceros de las agencias de Medicaid de Pennsylvania y Colorado dijeron que, hasta marzo, los estados no habían encontrado a nadie que debiera ser dado de baja de Medicaid. Esto después de revisar un total combinado de 79.000 nombres.

A solicitud de la administración Trump, Texas revisó los registros de más de 28.000 inscritos en Medicaid y canceló la cobertura de 77, según Jennifer Ruffcorn, vocera del Departamento de Servicios Humanos de Texas.

Ohio ha revisado 65.000 inscritos en Medicaid, de los cuales 260 personas fueron dadas de baja del programa, dijo Stephanie O’Grady, vocera del Departamento de Medicaid de ese estado.

En Utah, 42 de los 8.000 inscritos identificados por la administración Trump perdieron su cobertura de Medicaid, dijo Becky Wickstrom, vocera del Departamento de Servicios Laborales estatal.

Al anunciar las revisiones, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretario del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), dijo: “Estamos reforzando la supervisión de las inscripciones para proteger el dinero de los contribuyentes y garantizar que estos programas vitales sirvan solo a quienes realmente cumplen con los requisitos de la ley”.

Leonardo Cuello, profesor de investigación en el Centro para Niños y Familias de la Universidad de Georgetown, indicó que las revisiones ordenadas por los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS) eran innecesarias porque los estados verifican el estatus migratorio cuando las personas se inscriben.

“Es totalmente predecible que todas estas revisiones, que imponen una carga a los estados por parte del gobierno federal, no arrojen resultados”, dijo Cuello. “Los estados ya habían hecho las revisiones una vez, y los CMS solo los estaba obligando a verificar de nuevo la misma información. Hacer que los estados pasen por el mismo proceso burocrático dos veces es increíblemente ineficiente y una manera de malgastar dinero”.

Chris Krepich, vocero de los CMS, dijo en un comunicado a 窪蹋勛圖厙 News que las verificaciones en curso están confirmando la elegibilidad “de ciertos inscritos cuyo estatus no pudo ser confirmado mediante fuentes de datos federales”.

“Los CMS proporcionan a los estados informes periódicos para revisiones de seguimiento, y los estados son responsables de verificar de forma independiente la elegibilidad y tomar las medidas apropiadas de acuerdo con los requisitos federales”, agregó.

Sin embargo, los hallazgos compartidos con 窪蹋勛圖厙 News también sugieren que muchos de los inscritos, cuyo estatus la administración Trump dijo no poder confirmar, son ciudadanos de Estados Unidos.

O’Grady dijo que Ohio encontró que, de los 65.000 nombres enviados por el gobierno federal, el estado ya tenía información sobre 53.000 que confirmaba que eran ciudadanos y otros 11.000 con estatus migratorio adecuado para Medicaid.

Luego, los trabajadores de casos revisaron los 1.000 nombres restantes para evaluar su información o solicitar más detalles, dijo.

Los CMS no respondieron preguntas sobre los hallazgos de los estados analizados por 窪蹋勛圖厙 News ni proporcionaron información sobre las respuestas recibidas de los 50 estados y el Distrito de Columbia, a los que se les ordenó realizar las verificaciones.

La agencia tampoco respondió a una pregunta sobre si está enviando los nombres de las personas cuya cobertura de Medicaid fue cancelada a las autoridades federales de inmigración.

En junio, asesores de Kennedy ordenaron a los CMS compartir información sobre los inscritos en Medicaid con el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS), lo que provocó una demanda de algunos estados preocupados de que la administración usara la información para su campaña de deportaciones contra personas que viven en Estados Unidos sin autorización.

Un juez federal que los trabajadores del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) podían acceder solo a información sobre personas en el país sin autorización en las bases de datos de Medicaid de los estados que presentaron la demanda.

Los CMS siguen enviando a los estados listas de nombres al menos cada pocos meses, aunque funcionarios estatales dicen que las cifras han disminuido desde la primera tanda de envíos el verano pasado.

Las personas sin estatus legal no pueden acceder a cobertura de salud financiada con fondos federales, incluyendo Medicaid, Medicare y los planes de los mercados de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA). Medicaid sí reembolsa a los hospitales por brindar atención de emergencia a personas sin papeles si cumplen con los requisitos de ingresos y otros criterios del programa.

Siete estados y el Distrito de Columbia ofrecen cobertura de salud sin importar el estatus migratorio, financiando los programas con sus propios recursos.

En marzo de 2025, los CMS iniciaron revisiones financieras de esos programas. “Los CMS han identificado más de $1.800 millones en fondos federales que están siendo recuperados mediante devoluciones voluntarias y aplazamientos de pagos federales futuros de Medicaid”, dijo Krepich. No respondió cuánto se ha recuperado hasta ahora ni de qué estados.

El gasto total de Medicaid superó los $900.000 millones en el año fiscal 2024.

窪蹋勛圖厙 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).

Ollie’s parents, who adopted her in 2020, tried to sign her up for a clinical trial using ��� which genetically reprograms a patient’s white blood cells to help them fight cancer ��� at UNC Health in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, an hour-and-a-half drive from their home in Eden.

Her mother, Britany Super, described it as Ollie’s “last option.”

But in early March, Super recalled, UNC Health’s financial office told them the bad news: The state’s new insurance for kids in foster care wasn’t going to pay for the treatment.

In December, Ollie became one of hundreds of thousands of kids nationwide enrolled in a special kind of public health insurance for people served by the foster care system. That insurance, known as a specialized managed care plan, is part of Medicaid, the federal-state program that covers health costs for people with low incomes or disabilities.

North Carolina is one of 14 states with such specialized foster care plans, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy. The plans differ by state, but each is meant to expand coverage for children in the foster care system ��� and for kids who were adopted out of it, such as Ollie and her siblings.

Yet, as in other states that have struggled when adding such plans, North Carolina families have faced hurdles obtaining care. Thousands of doctors whose services were covered under Medicaid were not included in the specialized plan ��� which is costing the state $3.1 billion over four years ��� when it rolled out on Dec. 1. That left guardians and parents of kids adopted out of the system scrambling to figure out whether they would have to find new health care providers or new insurance.

In North Carolina, the insurance plan’s stumbles have added another layer of complication around health care issues. The state ��� like many others ��� is already over expected Medicaid cuts in the wake of congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. A separate Medicaid funding shortfall also prompted a push to cut care providers’ reimbursement rates.

Texas, which established its plan 18 years ago, that its foster families also had a hard time finding doctors on the insurance. In Florida, researchers for the state reported as early as 2016 that there was .

Illinois’ plan by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over a lack of access to care. Research concluded that California’s plan children with adequate mental health services. Georgia’s access problems alarmed state officials enough to calling for children to be removed from the plan and put back on other Medicaid plans.

But such specialized plans for kids in foster care continue to gain traction. Four states have started their own plans in the past five years, said , the senior director of children and family health at the National Academy for State Health Policy, and she said it’s likely more will adopt them soon.

showing how these programs are faring, Medicaid policy analysts said. It’s therefore difficult to know why they’ve run into rollout problems or whether they’ve improved access to care. That makes the plans risky, said , a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families.

“The states that are going in this direction, unless they have data to support it, are experimenting,” Schneider said. “They’re putting all their eggs in one basket, so they need to pay close attention.”

Rough Rollout

North Carolina’s specialized insurance plan for foster kids experienced problems the day it rolled out.

The state automatically enrolled Ollie and about 32,000 other people in , called . North Carolina officials had said the program would improve health care access for foster children, who often have medically complex needs and move frequently.

But foster families quickly began hearing that their health care providers were not taking the insurance, according to several families who recounted their experiences fighting to get their children’s procedures covered under the plan.

UNC Health, a state-run health system that is , with nearly 4,400 physicians, initially, which is why it told Super that Ollie’s CAR T-cell treatment wouldn’t be covered.

After more than two months of limbo for families, UNC Health ultimately in mid-March with Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, which runs the plan.

But some North Carolina doctors still don’t accept Healthy Blue insurance.

, interim deputy secretary for North Carolina’s Medicaid program, said her office to expand its network, even though it already has what she called an “adequate” number of providers. North Carolina’s health department and Blue Cross Blue Shield did not answer 窪蹋勛圖厙 News’ questions about how many providers are covered by the new insurance.

“We welcome qualified providers who want to join,” said Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina spokesperson Sara Lang.

Other problems . As thousands of health care records move over to a statewide database managed by Healthy Blue, children’s doctors are struggling to track their patients’ medical histories, said foster care advocates and pediatricians. Parents reported problems seeing health records, finding themselves locked out of online portals. Others couldn’t access prescriptions. Surgeries got delayed. Appointments were canceled.

“Network management for any plan is an ongoing process,” Lang said.

All this meant added red tape and heartache for the caregivers of children like Ollie with complex medical needs ��� those the .

Gearing Up

Cancer has been part of Ollie’s life since she was 2. She was in the process of getting adopted out of foster care when she began chemotherapy and radiation treatments, then received two stem cell transplants, Super recalled.

Surgeons installed temporary tubes in a vein near her heart and a feeding tube in her abdomen. Her hair fell out as the treatment intensified, and a thin layer of skin peeled off, forcing her new family to wear surgical gowns and gloves when they wanted to be close.

“She doesn’t remember life outside of going to doctors and being in a hospital,” Super said.

Ollie still has a port in her chest ready for whenever she needs intravenous medicine, and her monthly doctor appointments are about to become weekly. During an emergency room visit in mid-March, doctors told Super her daughter’s cancer had spread. Ollie will need more chemotherapy before her body is ready for the more advanced treatment.

But the Supers, thrown into uncertainty for more than two months, still feel some relief. They’re preparing for back-and-forth drives for the CAR T-cell therapy treatments in Chapel Hill. And they’re grateful, even if it means Ollie will spend at least five more weeks in and out of a hospital.

Reliable health insurance will be vital for Ollie, and Healthy Blue leaders said they are talking with doctors, parents, and others to make sure the plan is working. Her procedures carry multimillion-dollar price tags, her mother said, but having her bills seamlessly covered allows the family to focus on Ollie’s treatment.

“The biggest challenges for her will be in the first few months of the study,” said Super, who knows the therapy’s side effects include fever, fatigue, and confusion. “But I’m hoping that after that, the CAR T-cells will do their job and fight the cancer and she can continue to have a playful, active life.”

That means, they hope, the girl could be at home more often with her five siblings and the three family dogs, including Remy, a border collie mix who is Ollie’s favorite.

Super relishes those precious moments for her daughter ��� “being a kid and doing kid things.”

窪蹋勛圖厙 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 CDC withheld the data for months as a team hit hard by mass layoffs and resignations sorted through the information. But now that scientists at the agency have posted their first batch of whole measles genomes ��� the genetic blueprint of the viruses ��� the rest should “start flowing more smoothly at a more rapid cadence,” said Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary virologist at the Scripps Research Institute who isn’t involved with the CDC’s effort but is following it.

The CDC did not answer queries from 窪蹋勛圖厙 News on its timeline for publishing measles data or analyses. However, once all the data is public, researchers can run that will signal whether outbreaks across the U.S. last year resulted from the continuous spread of the disease between states, rather than separate introductions from abroad. If there was continuous transmission for a year, that means the U.S. has lost its status as a country that has eliminated measles. That status, which the U.S. has held since 2000, reflects a country’s vaccination rates: Two doses of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine prevent most infections and so stop outbreaks from growing.

More careful analyses take weeks.

“We should see a report in April,” Andersen said, “assuming no political interference.”

This is the first time that the U.S. has applied sophisticated genomic techniques to measles, which largely disappeared from the country a quarter-century ago because of broad vaccine uptake.

Declining , misinformation, and the Trump administration’s lagging response to outbreaks have fueled a resurgence of the disease. With at least 2,285 cases in 44 states, 2025 was the worst year for measles in more than three decades. This year is on track to surpass that, with 1,575 cases as of late March.

While welcoming the science, researchers say the government’s top priority should be to stop the virus from spreading.

“I think it’s incredibly important to do whole genome sequencing for outbreaks,” Andersen said, “but we shouldn’t need to do this for measles in the first place, because we have an extremely effective and safe vaccine.”

“That we’re even talking about this is nuts,” he added.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other government officials should sound an alarm about measles’ comeback and launch nationwide vaccine campaigns, said Rekha Lakshmanan, executive director of , a nonprofit in Houston that advocates for vaccine access.

“I applaud the science,” she said, “but the more urgent need is to get measles under control as quickly as possible.”

Top officials have instead downplayed the seriousness of the disease, and false notions about vaccines have been granted new life in Kennedy’s CDC. This includes abrupt changes to vaccine information on CDC websites that medical say aren’t based on evidence and endanger lives.��

Kennedy continues to promote unproven remedies that could mislead parents into believing that they can avoid vaccines without consequence. On the podcast in late February, Kennedy spoke at length about measures to improve America’s health but didn’t mention vaccines. He said preventive measures could entail “holistic medicine, or take vitamins, or take vitamin D, which is, as you know, it’s kind of miraculous.”

“The risk of measles remains low for most of the United States,” HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard wrote. “CDC has made $8.5 million available to address measles response activities in 7 jurisdictions experiencing outbreaks,” she wrote. “The CDC, HHS principles, and the Secretary have been vocal that the MMR vaccine is the best way to protect yourself against measles.”

1,000 Genomes

In December, the CDC enlisted the help of one of the country’s leading centers for virus sequencing, the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Major outbreaks in Texas, Utah, and South Carolina had been fueled by the same type of measles virus, labeled D8-9171. But since that type also circulates in Canada and Mexico, researchers need more data to discern whether it spread among states or entered the U.S. multiple times.

Whole genome sequencing provides that information because viruses evolve over time. The measles virus acquires a mutation every two to four transmissions between people, said Bronwyn MacInnis, director of pathogen surveillance at the Broad.

“There is enough signal in this data to tease apart questions at hand,” MacInnis said, “the main one being sustained transmission within this country.”

MacInnis’ team worked overtime to sequence the entire genomes of inactivated measles viruses that had been collected from states in 2025 and 2026.

“We’ve done about 1,000 samples and delivered the genome data back to the CDC,” sending it on a rolling basis since December, MacInnis said. “This is the CDC’s data to publish.”

The CDC didn’t post a single one of those genomes until late March, when eight appeared on a public database hosted by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By April 1, an additional 154 had gone online.

“It should be on NCBI within a couple of weeks of being produced,” Andersen said, “and certainly not take longer than a month when you have an active outbreak.”

Genomic data holds clues about how outbreaks start and spread. It allows researchers to develop tests, treatments, and vaccines ��� and detect variants that might evade them.

Such data was critical in the covid pandemic. Chinese and Australian scientists online on Jan. 10, 2020, of sequencing it. “It definitely shouldn’t take the CDC months,” said Eddie Holmes, the Australian virologist who helped publish the first coronavirus sequence.

One reason for the delay is that the CDC’s measles lab has been sorely understaffed amid mass layoffs and other turmoil at the agency over the past year, a CDC scientist told 窪蹋勛圖厙 News. Another reason, the researcher added, is a learning curve: The CDC and health departments haven’t needed to sequence hundreds of whole measles genomes before now. (窪蹋勛圖厙 News agreed not to identify the scientist, who feared retaliation.)

In contrast with the CDC, the Utah Public Health Lab has shared measles genomes rapidly. Most of some 970 measles genomes posted online since Jan. 1, 2025, were sequenced by the state, hailing from Utah, Arizona, South Carolina, and other states willing to share them.

“We’ve only got a handful of samples from Texas that were collected kind of in the middle of their outbreak,” said Kelly Oakeson, a genomics researcher at the Utah Department of Health and Human Services. The genomes of the Texas and Utah measles viruses are similar but distinct, Oakeson said, meaning that intermediate versions of the virus are missing.

If the genetic code of viruses collected late in the Texas outbreak are a closer match to those from Utah’s, that will suggest that spread was continuous and the country has lost its measles-free status. The hundreds of genome sequences still sitting at the CDC probably hold the answer.

Waiting on the CDC

The CDC expected to finish its analysis before April, said Daniel Salas, executive manager of the immunization program at the Pan American Health Organization, which works with the World Health Organization. That’s when PAHO was slated to evaluate the United States’ measles status.

He said PAHO delayed its evaluation until the organization’s annual meeting in November, partly because the CDC needed more time to do the genomic analysis and partly because the measles status of Mexico, Bolivia, and other countries is also under review, and holding staggered meetings for each country is inefficient.

The U.S. is the only country using whole genome sequencing to answer the elimination question, Salas said. Typically, countries classify measles viruses according to a tiny snippet of genes, then assume that large outbreaks caused by the same type are linked. Whole genomes provide a more accurate view.

“If the U.S. can fill in the blanks with genomic data, that’s a sort of breakthrough,” Salas said. “That doesn’t mean other countries are going to be able to pull off this kind of analysis,” he added. “It takes a lot of specialized knowledge and resources.”

Equipment to sequence and analyze genomes costs upward of $100,000, and the cost to process each sample, including paying the researchers involved, typically ranges from $100 to $500 per sequence.

“I’m pro-science, but we shouldn’t have to do this,” said Theresa McCarthy Flynn, president of the North Carolina Pediatrics Society. “We don’t have to have a measles epidemic.”

Flynn said she regularly fields questions from parents concerned by misinformation spread by Kennedy and anti-vaccine groups, including the one he founded before joining the Trump administration. Parents have also pointed to changes in the CDC’s recommendations and to its websites that are at odds with the scientific consensus.

Before Kennedy took the helm, a said “Vaccines do not cause autism” in prominent type, and listed in premier scientific journals that refuted a link between vaccines and developmental disorders.

Last year, shifted to saying, “Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.” The high-quality studies were replaced with a report from a single investigator who has ties to anti-vaccine groups. In an email to 窪蹋勛圖厙 News, HHS spokesperson Hilliard echoed the altered website’s claims about vaccines, disregarding extensive studies on the topic.

Flynn, of the pediatrics association, said, “The CDC itself is spreading misinformation about vaccines. I cannot overstate the seriousness of this.”

Although the acting director of the CDC, Jay Bhattacharya, says vaccines are the best way to prevent measles, he too has undermined vaccine policy. He said the controversial to reduce the number of vaccines recommended to children was based on “gold standard science.” In fact, the new schedule makes the among peer nations. Hilliard wrote that the updated schedule was “aligning U.S. guidance with international norms.”

A federal court temporarily invalidated the change last month in a lawsuit brought by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups.

Bhattacharya hasn’t held briefings with the public or the press on the surge of measles this year or activated the CDC’s emergency capabilities.

“Normally, we’d have a big push to get vaccination rates up in areas where it’s low. We’d do a big social media push, put out ads on getting vaccinated,” said another CDC scientist whom 窪蹋勛圖厙 News agreed not to identify, because of fears of retaliation. “People at the CDC want to do this, but political leadership at the agency has not allowed the CDC to do it.”

Further, the Trump administration’s cuts and delays to public health funds have made it hard for local health officials to protect communities. Philip Huang, director at Dallas County Health and Human Services in Texas, said the department lost over $4 million when the administration clawed back about $11 billion from health departments early last year as a measles outbreak surged in the state.

“We lost 27 staff and had to cancel over 20 of our community vaccination efforts, including to schools identified as having low vaccination rates,” he said. “There are simultaneous attacks on immunizations that are making our jobs harder.”

窪蹋勛圖厙 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).

But seven months later, findings from five states shared with 窪蹋勛圖厙 News show that the reviews have uncovered little evidence of a widespread problem.

Only U.S. citizens and some lawfully present immigrants are eligible for Medicaid, which covers health care costs for people with low incomes and disabilities, and the closely related Children’s Health Insurance Program. Both programs are administered by states.

Spokespeople from Pennsylvania’s and Colorado’s Medicaid agencies said, as of March, the states had found no one who needed to be terminated from Medicaid. That was after checking a combined 79,000 names.

Texas has reviewed records of more than 28,000 Medicaid enrollees at the Trump administration’s request and terminated coverage for 77 of them, according to Jennifer Ruffcorn, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Human Services.

Ohio has checked 65,000 Medicaid enrollees, of which 260 people were disenrolled from the program, said Stephanie O’Grady, a spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Medicaid.

In Utah, 42 of the 8,000 enrollees identified by the Trump administration had their Medicaid coverage terminated, said Becky Wickstrom, a spokesperson for the state’s Department of Workforce Services.

In announcing the reviews, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: “We are tightening oversight of enrollment to safeguard taxpayer dollars and guarantee that these vital programs serve only those who are truly eligible under the law.”

Leonardo Cuello, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said the reviews ordered by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were unneeded because states check immigration status when people sign up.

“It is entirely predictable that all of these burdensome reviews that the federal government is forcing upon states would yield no pay dirt,” Cuello said. “The states had already done the reviews once, and CMS was just making them reverify the same information they had already checked. Making states go through the same bureaucratic process twice is incredibly wasteful and inefficient.”

CMS spokesperson Chris Krepich said in a statement to 窪蹋勛圖厙 News that the ongoing checks are verifying eligibility “for certain enrollees whose status could not be confirmed through federal data sources.”

“CMS provides states with regular reports for follow-up review, and states are responsible for independently verifying eligibility and taking appropriate action consistent with federal requirements,” he said.

But the findings shared with 窪蹋勛圖厙 News also suggest that many of the enrollees whose eligibility the Trump administration said it could not confirm are indeed U.S. citizens. O’Grady said Ohio found that, of the 65,000 names referred by the federal government, the state already had information on 53,000 confirming them as citizens and an additional 11,000 showing appropriate immigration status for Medicaid.

Caseworkers then worked on the remaining 1,000 names to review their information or reach out for more details, she said.

CMS did not answer questions about the findings from the states sampled by 窪蹋勛圖厙 News or provide information about responses it received from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, which were instructed to perform verification checks.

The agency also did not respond to a question about whether it’s forwarding the names of those whose Medicaid coverage was terminated to federal immigration officials.

In June, advisers to Kennedy ordered CMS to share information about Medicaid enrollees with the Department of Homeland Security, prompting a lawsuit by some states alarmed that the administration would use the information for its deportation campaign against residents living in the U.S. without authorization.

A federal judge that Immigration and Customs Enforcement workers could access information only about people in the country unlawfully in the Medicaid databases of the states that sued.

CMS continues to send states lists of names at least every few months, though state officials say the numbers have declined since the first batch last summer.

People without legal status are ineligible for federally funded health coverage, including Medicaid, Medicare, and plans through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Medicaid does reimburse hospitals for providing emergency care to people without legal status if they meet income and other program requirements.

Seven states and the District of Columbia provide health coverage regardless of immigration status, funding the programs with their own money.

In March 2025, CMS began financial reviews of those programs. “CMS has identified over $1.8 billion in federal funds that are being recouped through voluntary returns and deferrals of future federal Medicaid payments,” Krepich said. He did not answer how much has been collected so far or from which states.

Medicaid’s overall spending topped $900 billion in fiscal year 2024.

窪蹋勛圖厙 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).

“Se siente como si me estuviera asfixiando dentro de este albergue, atrapado sin salida”, dijo el hijo de Carlos cuando le pidieron describir cómo se sentía luego de meses en la instalación en el área de Houston, según contó uno de los abogados de los adolescentes. “Todos los días, la misma rutina. Todos los días, sintiéndome atrapado. Me hace sentir aterrado y sin esperanza”.

Durante llamadas diarias por video, Carlos, quien tenía estatus de protección temporal (TPS), les pedía a los hermanos que tuvieran paciencia, que confiaran en el proceso.

Funcionarios federales habían evaluado a Carlos antes de otorgarle la custodia y le dijeron que su caso estaba completo. Él creía que pronto estaría de nuevo con sus hijos, quienes, al igual que él, habían llegado a Estados Unidos huyendo de la violencia política en Venezuela.

Un oficial de inmigración llamó a Carlos un viernes y le pidió que fuera el lunes a una reunión en una oficina del ICE para hablar sobre la reunificación con sus hijos. Cuando llegó, los oficiales intentaron obligarlo a firmar documentos que dijo no entender. Cuando se negó, le quitaron la ropa, le confiscaron su identificación y sus pertenencias y lo encadenaron por el cuello, la cintura y las piernas.

“Me engañaron”, dijo Carlos en una llamada telefónica desde un centro de detención migratoria en El Paso, Texas, donde estuvo retenido durante varios meses. “Usaron a mis hijos para atraparme”, agregó.

Durante la cobertura de esta historia, 窪蹋勛圖厙 News revisó documentos judiciales, habló con los abogados de inmigración de la familia, entrevistó a Carlos y revisó declaraciones de sus hijos, traducidas del español.

Carlos es un seudónimo que se ha usado a pedido de los abogados: les preocupa que hablar públicamente pueda poner en riesgo el caso o retrasar aún más la reunificación familiar.

Usar a los hijos para arrestar a los padres

Desde 2003, la Oficina de Reasentamiento de Refugiados del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) ha cuidado a niños migrantes menores de 18 años que llegan al país sin sus padres, a menudo huyendo de la violencia, el abuso o el tráfico humano. La oficina, que en febrero tenía más de 2.300 niños en albergues o con familias temporales en todo el país, se supone que debe liberarlos rápidamente con cuidadores evaluados, generalmente padres u otros familiares que ya viven en el país.

El Congreso asignó esta responsabilidad a la agencia de salud hace más de 20 años para priorizar el bienestar de los niños no acompañados y separar su cuidado de las prioridades de control migratorio.

Ahora, la segunda administración de Trump está usando a niños migrantes bajo custodia de la agencia para atraer a padres, como Carlos, tengan o no antecedentes penales.

Una investigación de 窪蹋勛圖厙 News encontró que la oficina de reasentamiento, , coordina con el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) el arresto de personas que buscan la custodia de niños migrantes.

Documentos de arrestos muestran que Investigaciones de Seguridad Nacional (HSI), la división de la agencia que normalmente se enfoca en el crimen organizado y en traficantes, entrevista a padres u otros cuidadores y luego los arresta si están en el país sin autorización legal.

Antes del regreso de Donald Trump a la Casa Blanca, la oficina de reasentamiento prohibía compartir datos y colaborar con las autoridades migratorias y no negaba la custodia de niños únicamente por el estatus migratorio de los cuidadores. el año pasado.

No está claro cuántos cuidadores han sido atraídos bajo falsos pretextos para ser arrestados. que indican que más de 100 fueron detenidos mientras intentaban sacar a sus hijos de la detención, pero 窪蹋勛圖厙 News no pudo verificar de manera independiente esa cifra con agencias federales.

El HHS, el DHS y el Departamento de Justicia (DOJ) no han respondido a preguntas sobre arrestos de cuidadores que se les han remitido desde febrero.

Antes de dejar el DHS el mes pasado, la subsecretaria Tricia McLaughlin dijo que la administración protege a los niños de ser entregados a personas que no deberían cuidarlos. Andrew Nixon, vocero del HHS, remitió las preguntas relacionadas con la aplicación de leyes migratorias al DHS.

Al mismo tiempo, la oficina de reasentamiento que dificultan que los cuidadores obtengan la custodia de niños no acompañados. Estas incluyen reducir el tipo de documentos que se aceptan, exigir verificaciones de antecedentes con huellas dactilares para todos los adultos que vivan en el hogar y para otros cuidadores, y requerir citas en persona para verificar documentos de identidad, a veces con agentes del ICE presentes. Estos requisitos mantienen a los “niños seguros de traficantes y otras personas peligrosas”, dijo Nixon.

Hasta enero, la agencia había retenido a al menos 300 niños que ya habían sido ubicados con patrocinadores evaluados y había pedido a sus cuidadores que volvieran a solicitar la custodia, según el National Center for Youth Law y la Democracy Forward Foundation. Estos dos grupos presentaron calificando estas acciones como “una nueva forma silenciosa de separación familiar”.

Separación a la inversa

Dulce, una madre guatemalteca en Virginia, dijo que a su hijo de 8 años lo enviaron a un albergue del gobierno después de ser detenido durante una parada de tráfico el verano pasado, mientras visitaba a familiares en otro estado.

Al principio, Dulce esperaba recuperar a su hijo en pocos días: había cumplido con los requisitos de patrocinio del gobierno en 2024 y se había reunido con él tres semanas después de que el niño cruzara la frontera. Pero funcionarios de la agencia de reasentamiento le pidieron repetir todo el proceso y volver a presentar documentos, dijo Dulce. Tardó ocho meses en recuperarlo.

Dulce es un seudónimo utilizado a petición suya porque teme que hablar públicamente la ponga en riesgo de deportación.

En un momento, le pidieron que fuera a una entrevista en una oficina del ICE para mostrar su identificación como parte del proceso de reunificación con su hijo. Ella se negó por miedo a que la detuvieran, ya que no tiene estatus legal. Cree que agentes del ICE visitaron su casa en algún momento.

“Dejé de ir a mi casa”, dijo Dulce. “Viví con algunos de mis amigos por días”.

Aunque vivía a solo 45 minutos, a Dulce solo se le permitió visitar a su hijo dos veces al mes.

Hasta hace poco, la mayoría de los niños no acompañados llegaban a la custodia del gobierno luego de ser detenidos en la frontera. Pero los cruces fronterizos comenzaron a disminuir en 2024 y el número de personas que llegan a Estados Unidos ha caído de forma importante durante el segundo mandato del presidente Trump.

Ahora, cientos de niños han sido llevados a albergues del gobierno después de ser detenidos dentro del país, en general durante redadas migratorias o paradas de tráfico, según la demanda de los grupos defensores. Muchos ya vivían con familiares, incluidos tutores previamente evaluados por la agencia de reasentamiento.

Ya casi no hay liberaciones. Según la oficina de reasentamiento, en 2024 los niños bajo su custodia permanecían en albergues o en cuidado temporal por un promedio de un mes. En febrero, ese tiempo había aumentado a más de medio año.

Generalmente se libera a los niños solo después de que sus abogados presentan una demanda en un tribunal federal impugnando su detención como inconstitucional.

Las autoridades liberaron al hijo de Dulce en febrero después de que los abogados del niño presentaron una petición de este tipo. La mujer dijo que se siente aliviada de tenerlo de vuelta, pero sigue con miedo de que el ICE pueda llegar a su casa.

Inmigrantes en riesgo

Durante el primer mandato de Trump, su administración fue criticada por de niños que habían sido liberados de custodia. El presidente Joe Biden fue cuestionado por la forma en que su administración manejó el aumento de niños no acompañados, que alcanzó un pico en 2021 con alrededor de 22.000 bajo custodia de la oficina de reasentamiento.

Aunque la mayoría fueron recibidos por patrocinadores legítimos, algunos fueron entregados a personas que no habían pasado , lo que los puso en .

La administración Trump dice que está verificando y el Departamento de Justicia ha procesado de .

El 1 de marzo, la secretaria de Seguridad Nacional, Kristi Noem, quien a finales de mes, destacó un , incluida la oficina de reasentamiento, que, según el DHS, había localizado a 145.000 niños no acompañados que habían sido entregados a cuidadores durante el mandato de Biden.

Sin embargo, informes internos del HHS sobre esa iniciativa obtenidos por 窪蹋勛圖厙 News muestran que casi 11.800 de esos niños migrantes y cerca de 500 de sus cuidadores habían sido arrestados hasta el 29 de enero. Solo 125 de esos niños y 55 de esos cuidadores fueron arrestados por presunta actividad criminal, lo que sugiere que la mayoría fue detenida por violaciones migratorias.

El HHS remitió preguntas sobre esas cifras al DHS, que no respondió a solicitudes de comentarios. Michelle Brané, quien fue funcionaria del DHS durante la administración Biden, dijo que las cifras muestran que la mayoría de los arrestos fueron para detener y deportar migrantes. Anteriormente, que la administración apuntó a padres y cuidadores que habían pagado para que los niños cruzaran la frontera, intentando presentar cargos de tráfico de personas contra ellos.

“Han abandonado esa estrategia en muchos sentidos y ahora van tras cualquiera abiertamente”, dijo Brané. “Estas cifras reflejan claramente que esto no se trata de seguridad pública ni de la seguridad de los niños”.

Caso en espera

Carlos salió de Venezuela en 2022 debido a amenazas de muerte y, como miles de otros que huían de ese país, recibió lo que se conoce como estatus de protección temporal durante la administración Biden. Esa protección fue para la mayoría de los venezolanos por el gobierno de Trump.

En enero de 2025, días antes de que Trump asumiera su segundo mandato, los hijos de Carlos cruzaron la frontera desde México hacia Estados Unidos, se entregaron a las autoridades fronterizas y fueron puestos de inmediato bajo custodia de la agencia de reasentamiento.

Carlos pasó meses enviando documentos para reunirse con ellos. Dijo que es su único padre, ya que la madre los abandonó cuando eran pequeños.

Funcionarios visitaron su casa dos veces y determinaron que era apto para cuidarlos, según documentos judiciales que solicitaban su liberación. Pasó pruebas de ADN que confirmaron que es el padre biológico, dijo uno de sus abogados. Sus documentos indican que no tiene “antecedentes penales”. En julio, a Carlos le dijeron que su caso de reunificación estaba completo y en proceso de aprobación. Pero luego, sin explicación, el caso fue puesto en espera.

Antes de que el ICE lo arrestara, Carlos dijo que manejaba 14 horas de ida y 14 de vuelta desde su casa para visitar a sus hijos. Solo podía verlos durante una hora. Cuando estaba detenido, dijo que hablaba con ellos aproximadamente cada dos semanas en llamadas breves y supervisadas.

Intenta mantenerse la esperanza, pero es difícil.

Según documentos redactados por oficiales del ICE durante su arresto y presentados en su caso judicial, Carlos fue detenido bajo una iniciativa llamada Operation Guardian Trace, que exige a los oficiales migratorios detener a posibles cuidadores si están en el país sin autorización legal y recomendar su deportación.

“Esta operación está diseñada para obligar a los padres a tomar una decisión imposible entre reunirse con sus hijos y buscar seguridad”, dijo una de las abogadas de Carlos, Chiqui Sanchez Kennedy, del Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, una organización sin fines de lucro que ayuda a inmigrantes de bajos recursos.

“Voy a esperar”

En marzo, un juez federal determinó que Carlos había sido detenido de manera ilegal y fue liberado bajo fianza.

Pero sus hijos aún enfrentan un futuro incierto. muestran que los albergues del gobierno a menudo carecen de suficientes recursos y trabajadores sociales dicen que estadías prolongadas en estos lugares pueden causar más trauma.

“No solo es malo, sino que cuanto más tiempo estás allí, peor se vuelve”, expresó Jonathan Beier, director asociado de investigación y evaluación del programa para niños no acompañados del Acacia Center for Justice, que coordina servicios legales para estos menores.

Los hijos de Carlos también podrían ser enviados de regreso al país del que huyeron. Debido a su detención, Carlos tendrá que repetir gran parte del proceso para reunirse con ellos, según una abogada de los niños, Alexa Sendukas, también del Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project.

En declaraciones compartidas a través de Sendukas, la hija de Carlos dijo que ya no quiere estar con otras personas y pasa la mayor parte del tiempo en su habitación. Su hijo, ahora de 15 años, describió tener ataques de pánico y sentir que se está perdiendo la vida, ya sean las oportunidades con las que sueña ��� aprender inglés, estudiar ciencia ��� o ver baloncesto con su familia.

“Recuerdo cuando llegué por primera vez a este albergue; tenía mucha esperanza y fe en que pronto me reuniría con mi papá”, dijo.

La hija de Carlos pasó el día llorando en la cama cuando los hermanos se enteraron de que su padre había sido detenido. Durante días, no supieron dónde estaba. Ahora, temen que la única salida sea la adopción o el cuidado temporal.

“Tengo miedo”, dijo. “Voy a esperar a mi papá siempre”.

窪蹋勛圖厙 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).

“I feel like I’m suffocating inside this shelter, trapped with no way out,” Carlos’ son said, according to one of the teens’ attorneys, when asked to describe how he felt after months at the Houston-area facility. “Every day, the same routine. Every day, feeling stuck. It makes me feel hopeless and terrified.”

During daily video calls, Carlos, who had temporary protected status, urged the siblings to be patient, to trust the process. Federal officials had vetted Carlos before he could be granted custody and told him his case was complete. He believed he would soon be back with his children, who, like him, had sought refuge from political violence in Venezuela. ��

An immigration officer called Carlos on a Friday and asked him to attend a meeting at an ICE office the following Monday to discuss reunification with his children. Once Carlos arrived, officers tried to force him to sign documents he said he didn’t understand. When he refused, they stripped off his clothes, seized his ID and belongings, and chained him by the neck, waist, and legs.

“They tricked me,” Carlos said in a phone call from an immigration detention center in El Paso, Texas, where he was held for several months. “They used my children to grab me,” he said. ��

In reporting on the family’s story, 窪蹋勛圖厙 News reviewed court documents, spoke with the family’s immigration attorneys, interviewed Carlos, and reviewed statements from his children, translated from Spanish. Carlos is a pseudonym, being used at the request of attorneys concerned that speaking out could jeopardize Carlos’ immigration case or further delay his reunion with his family.

Using Children to Arrest Parents

Since 2003, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement has cared for immigrant children under 18 who arrive in the country without their parents, often fleeing violence, abuse, or trafficking. The office, which in February had more than 2,300 children in shelters or with foster families across the country, is supposed to promptly release them to vetted caregivers, typically parents or other family members already living in the country.

Congress placed this responsibility with the health agency over 20 years ago to prioritize the well-being of unaccompanied children and separate their care from immigration enforcement priorities.

Now the second Trump administration is using migrant children held by the resettlement office to lure their parents, such as Carlos, whether or not they have a criminal record. A 窪蹋勛圖厙 News investigation found the resettlement office, , coordinates with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest people seeking custody of migrant children.

Arrest documents show Homeland Security Investigations, the arm of the agency that normally focuses on organized criminals and traffickers, will interview parents or other caregivers then arrest them if they are in the country illegally. Before Donald Trump returned to the White House, the resettlement office prohibited data sharing and collaboration with immigration enforcement, and it did not deny caregivers custody of children solely because of their immigration status. Those last year.

It’s unclear exactly how many caregivers have been baited into arrest. LAist indicating more than 100 have been arrested while trying to get their kids out of detention, but 窪蹋勛圖厙 News could not independently verify that number with federal agencies.

Since February, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and Justice Department have not responded to questions about caregiver arrests. Prior to leaving DHS last month, Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the administration protects children from being released to people who shouldn’t care for them. Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, referred questions related to immigration enforcement to DHS.

At the same time, the resettlement office has that make it harder for caregivers to gain custody of unaccompanied children. These include narrowing the range of accepted documents, requiring fingerprint-based background checks for every adult in the home and backup caregivers, and requiring in-person appointments to verify identification documents, sometimes with ICE agents present. The requirements keep “children safe from traffickers and other bad, dangerous people,” Nixon said.

As of January, the agency had detained at least 300 children already placed with vetted sponsors and asked their caregivers to reapply, according to the National Center for Youth Law and the Democracy Forward Foundation. The advocacy groups filed calling these actions “a quieter, new form of family separation.”��

Reverse Separation

Dulce, a Guatemalan mother in Virginia, said her 8-year-old son was sent to a government shelter after he was detained during a traffic stop last summer while visiting family members in a different state.

At first, Dulce expected to get her son back within days ��� she had passed the government’s sponsorship requirements in 2024 and was reunited with him three weeks after he first crossed the border. But resettlement agency officials asked her to repeat the entire process and resubmit documents, Dulce said. It took eight months to get him back.

Dulce is a pseudonym being used at her request because she fears speaking out could get her deported.

At one point, Dulce was told to attend an interview at an ICE office to show her identification as part of the process of reuniting with her son. She refused out of fear that she too might be detained, because she doesn’t have legal status. She believes ICE agents visited her home at one point.

“I stopped going home,” Dulce said. “I lived with some of my friends for days.”

Even though she lived just 45 minutes away, Dulce was allowed to visit her son only twice a month.

Until recently, most unaccompanied children landed in government custody after being detained at the border. But border crossings started to fall in 2024, and the number of people coming to the U.S. has dropped precipitously in President Trump’s second term.

Now, hundreds of kids have been taken to government shelters after being swept up inside the country, often during immigration raids or traffic stops, according to the advocates’ lawsuit. Many were already living with relatives, including guardians already vetted by the resettlement agency.

Releases have grinded nearly to a halt. According to the resettlement office, children in its custody stayed in government shelters or foster care for an average of one month in 2024. As of February, that had jumped to more than half a year.

When children do get released, it’s often only after their attorneys file a lawsuit in federal court challenging their detention as unconstitutional.

Authorities released Dulce’s son to her in February after the boy’s attorneys filed such a petition. Dulce said she’s relieved to have him back but still anxious that ICE could show up at their house.

Immigrants at Risk

During Trump’s first term, his administration was criticized for of children who had been released from custody. President Joe Biden was blamed for how his administration processed a surge of unaccompanied children that peaked in 2021 with about 22,000 in the resettlement office’s custody. Though most children were placed with legitimate sponsors, some were placed with people who hadn’t cleared , putting them at risk of .

The Trump administration says it is checking on those , and the Justice Department has prosecuted . On March 1, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who is set to leave her role at the , touted a , including the resettlement office, that DHS said had tracked down 145,000 unaccompanied children who had been placed with caregivers during Biden’s term.

Yet internal HHS reports about that initiative obtained by 窪蹋勛圖厙 News show that nearly 11,800 of those migrant children and nearly 500 of their caregivers were arrested as of Jan. 29. Only 125 of those migrant children and 55 of those caregivers were arrested for alleged criminal activity, suggesting the majority were for immigration violations.

HHS referred questions about the figures in the reports to DHS, which did not respond to requests for comment about the data. However, Michelle Brané, who was a DHS official in the Biden administration, said the figures show that most of the arrests were to detain and deport migrants. Previously, the administration targeted parents and caregivers who had paid for children to cross the border, trying to levy smuggling charges against them.

“They have really dropped that pretense in a lot of ways, and they are going for anyone openly,” Brané said. “These numbers clearly reflect that this is not about public safety or about safety of the children.”

Case on Hold

Carlos left Venezuela in 2022 because of death threats and, like thousands of others fleeing that country, was granted what’s called temporary protected status under the Biden administration. That protection for most Venezuelans by the Trump administration.

In January 2025, days before Trump was sworn in for his second term, Carlos’ children crossed the border from Mexico to the U.S., turned themselves over to border authorities, and were immediately placed in the resettlement agency’s custody. Carlos spent months submitting paperwork to reunite with them. He said he’s their only parent, because their mother left when they were toddlers. ��

Officials visited his home twice and determined he was fit to care for them, according to court documents petitioning for his release from detention. He passed DNA testing, proving he’s the biological father, one of his attorneys said. His arrest documents show he has “no criminal history.” In July, Carlos was told his reunification case was complete and being sent for approval. But then, with little explanation, the case was put on hold.

Before his arrest by ICE, Carlos said, he drove 14 hours each way from his home to visit his children. Once there, he could see them for only one hour. When he was in detention, he said, he spoke to them about every two weeks in quick, monitored phone calls.

He’s trying to stay hopeful, but it’s hard.

According to documents completed by ICE officers during his arrest and submitted in his court case, Carlos was arrested under an initiative called Operation Guardian Trace, which requires immigration officers to detain potential caregivers if they are in the country without legal authorization and recommend that they be deported.

“This operation is designed to force parents to make an impossible choice between reuniting with their children and seeking safety,” said one of Carlos’ attorneys, Chiqui Sanchez Kennedy of the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, a nonprofit that helps low-income immigrants.

���I’m Going to Wait’

In March, a federal judge said officials had unlawfully detained Carlos and he was released on bond.

But his children still face an uncertain future for now. Government shelters often lack sufficient resources, , and social workers say lengthy stays in these facilities can result in additional trauma.

“Not only is it bad, full stop, but the longer you’re there, the worse it gets,” said Jonathan Beier, associate director of research and evaluation for the Acacia Center for Justice's Unaccompanied Children Program, which coordinates legal services for unaccompanied minors.

Carlos’ children could also be sent back to the country they fled. Because of his detention, Carlos will have to redo much of the process to reunite with them, according to an attorney for the children, Alexa Sendukas, also with the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project.

In statements shared through Sendukas, Carlos’ daughter said she no longer wants to be around others and spends most of the time in her room. His son, now 15, described having panic attacks and feeling that he’s missing out on life, whether it’s the opportunities he longs for ��� to learn English, to study science ��� or watching basketball with his family.

“I remember when I first arrived at this shelter, I was so hopeful and had faith that I would be reunited with my dad soon,” he said.

Carlos’ daughter spent the day crying in bed when the siblings learned their father had been detained. For days, they didn’t know where he was. Now, they fear the only way out is through adoption or foster care.

“I am afraid,” she said. “I’m going to wait for my dad forever.”

窪蹋勛圖厙 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).

“La semana pasada me hicieron un tratamiento de conducto (endodoncia) que costó unos $500”, dijo. “Antes me colocaron una corona que me costó varios cientos de dólares. Y ahora mismo tengo un diente roto, así que tengo que ir al dentista pronto”.

En total, Anthony calcula que pagará alrededor de $2.000 por esta atención este año, aunque tiene seguro dental.

“Tratar de evaluar el costo de cuándo ir a recibir atención dental y pagar por ello, frente a otras necesidades que tengo, es algo muy importante”, agregó Anthony.

La Asociación Dental Estadounidense (American Dental Association, ADA) informó que el tenía seguro dental en 2021. Pero esa cobertura no protege necesariamente contra facturas elevadas.

De hecho, 1 de cada 4 adultos con seguro dental reportó que el costo es una barrera para recibir atención, de KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro de información de salud que incluye 窪蹋勛圖厙 News.

Aquí hay tres cosas que debes saber para entender mejor tu plan dental y mantener los costos lo más bajos posible:

1. Incluso con seguro dental, tendrás que pagar por procedimientos

Los planes dentales suelen cubrir completamente la atención de rutina, pero solo pagan una parte del trabajo adicional. Los beneficios varían, pero muchos planes siguen la regla “100/80/50”: cubren el 100% de la atención preventiva, como limpiezas y exámenes, el 80% en el caso de procedimientos básicos, como empastes y endodoncias, y el 50% de otros procedimientos mayores.

Además, los planes dentales suelen tener un límite máximo anual de pago, por lo general, de entre $1.000 y $2.000. Los pacientes deben pagar cualquier costo que supere ese límite. Por ejemplo, si tu plan tiene un máximo de $1.500 y necesitas $4.000 en tratamientos dentales, tendrás que pagar la diferencia de $2.500.

1. 聶Enfrentas una factura dental alta? Tienes opciones

Puede resultar incómodo hablar de dinero directamente con un dentista, pero es útil ser claro sobre lo que puedes pagar.

Muchas clínicas odontológicas ofrecen opciones de financiamiento para ayudar a los pacientes a manejar el costo de la atención, incluyendo estimaciones previas al tratamiento y planes de pago. Si recibes un presupuesto que parece muy alto, revisa los detalles y considera buscar una segunda opinión. También puedes preguntar si ofrecen algún descuento.

Si necesitas una opción de menor costo, puedes considerar las escuelas de odontología, que a menudo ofrecen atención con descuento, o los , que ajustan los precios según los ingresos del paciente.

1. Visitar al dentista con regularidad puede ayudar a mantener bajos los costos

Sarah Olim, dentista generalista en Katy, Texas, recomienda a sus pacientes hacer cita cada seis meses.

“Lo mejor que puede hacer para reducir el costo de ir al dentista es asegurarse de ir con regularidad y tratar los problemas a tiempo”, dijo.

Olim atiende a pacientes sin importar cuánto tiempo haya pasado desde su última visita. Pero advirtió que quienes esperan varios años entre consultas pueden encontrar que sus citas son más costosas y más incómodas.

聶La razón? Los problemas dentales generalmente no se resuelven por sí solos. Por ejemplo, una caries pequeña que requiere un empaste rápido puede costar $200. Si no se trata, puede convertirse en un problema mayor que requiera un tratamiento de conducto o endodoncia y una corona, con un costo de miles de dólares.

Tu dentista también te recomendará seguir medidas preventivas básicas: cepillarte los dientes durante dos minutos, dos veces al día. Olim aconseja a sus pacientes tomarse el tiempo o escuchar una canción que les guste para asegurarse de cepillarse el tiempo suficiente.

Personas y políticas

Los legisladores federales han intentado aumentar el acceso de los niños al seguro dental. Bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA), la atención dental se considera un , por lo que los planes de salud en el mercado individual deben ofrecer cobertura dental para menores de 18 años.

Los programas estatales de Medicaid también .

Emily Siner, de Nashville Public Radio, contribuyó con este informe.

窪蹋勛圖厙 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).

Russell Anthony made eight trips to the dentist last year. The 65-year-old retiree in Nashville, Tennessee, hopes to go less often in 2026, but he’s already made a few visits.

“I had a root canal just last week that was like $500,” he said. “The week before that, I had a crown that cost me several hundred dollars. And as we speak, I have a broken tooth, and I have to go and see the dentist soon.”

In all, Anthony ��� uncle of HealthQ host Cara Anthony ��� expects to pay about $2,000 for dental care this year, even though he has dental insurance.

“Trying to weigh the cost of when to go to get dental care and paying for it, versus the other needs that I have, is something that’s very important,” Russell Anthony said.

The American Dental Association reported that had dental insurance in 2021. But that coverage does not necessarily protect against large bills. In fact, 1 in 4 adults with dental insurance reported costs as a barrier to care, according to a by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes 窪蹋勛圖厙 News.

Here are three things to know to better understand your insurance plan and keep your dental costs as low as possible:

1. Even With Dental Insurance, You’ll Have To Pay for Procedures

Dental plans typically cover routine care in full but pay only a portion of additional work. Benefits vary, but many plans follow the “100/80/50” rule, covering 100% of preventive care like cleanings and exams, 80% of basic procedures like fillings and root canals, and 50% of other major procedures.

Plus, dental plans often have a maximum annual payout, usually between $1,000 and $2,000. Patients are responsible for any costs above that. For example, if your plan maxes out at $1,500 and you need $4,000 of dental treatments, you will be on the hook for the difference of $2,500.

2. Facing a Big Dental Bill? You Have Options

It might feel uncomfortable to talk about finances directly with a dentist, but it’s helpful to be up-front about what you can afford.

Many dentist offices offer financial options to help patients manage the cost of care, including pretreatment estimates and payment plans. If you get an estimate that seems especially high, talk through the items and consider getting a second opinion. It never hurts to ask the office for a discount.

If you need a lower-cost alternative, consider looking into dental schools, which often offer discounted care, or , which use sliding scales based on a patient’s income.

3. Seeing Your Dentist Regularly Can Help Keep Costs Low

Sarah Olim, a general dentist in Katy, Texas, encourages her patients to come in for visits every six months.

“The best thing that you can do to mitigate the cost of going to the dentist is make sure that you are going regularly and trying to take care of things early,” she said.

Olim welcomes patients no matter how long it’s been since their last visit. But she cautioned that patients who wait a few years between visits may find their appointments are more expensive and more uncomfortable.

The reason? Dental problems often don’t resolve on their own. For example, a small cavity that needs a quick filling might cost $200. If left untreated, it could turn into a larger issue requiring a root canal and crown ��� and cost thousands.

Your dentist will also encourage you to follow the best preventive maintenance: brushing your teeth for two minutes twice a day. Olim tells her patients to use a timer or listen to a favorite song to make sure they brush long enough.

People and Policy

Federal lawmakers have tried to increase children’s access to dental insurance. Under the Affordable Care Act, dental care is considered , so health insurance plans on the individual marketplace must offer dental coverage for those 18 or younger. State Medicaid programs are also for children.

Emily Siner at Nashville Public Radio contributed to this report.

HealthQ is a health series from reporters Cara Anthony and Blake Farmer, approachable guides to an unapproachable health care system. It’s a collaboration between Nashville Public Radio and 窪蹋勛圖厙 News.

窪蹋勛圖厙 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).

La legislación prohibiría que los gobiernos estatales y locales obligaran a estos centros a practicar abortos. También a derivar o informar a pacientes sobre estos servicios o a explicar opciones de anticoncepción. Y permitiría que estas organizaciones demandaran a la entidad gubernamental que violara la ley.

Los legisladores de Wyoming el 4 de marzo una ley llamada Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act (). Propuestas similares se presentaron este año en y . En una norma de este tipo ya fue promulgada en 2025.

La Ley CARE es una “legislación modelo” creada por la , un grupo de defensa legal cristiano conservador y antiabortista.

Una legislación similar, la , fue presentada en el Congreso el año pasado, pero no ha avanzado fuera del Comité de Energía y Comercio de la Cámara de Representantes.

El proyecto de ley de Wyoming considera que los centros de embarazo, muchos vinculados a organizaciones religiosas, necesitan protección legal porque enfrentan “ataques sin precedentes” después de que la Corte Suprema anulara Roe vs. Wade, la decisión judicial de 1973 que protegía el derecho al aborto en todo el país. Según el texto, varias legislaturas estatales han presentado proyectos de ley que de libertad de expresión y asociación de estos centros.

Sin embargo, quienes los critican afirman que los centros de crisis de embarazo se presentan falsamente ante los consumidores como clínicas médicas, aunque no están sujetos a las leyes estatales y federales que regulan los centros de salud y protegen a los pacientes.

“En todo el país, los funcionarios del gobierno apuntan cada vez más, cada vez más, contra los centros de atención para embarazadas”, argumentó Valerie Berry, directora ejecutiva de en Cheyenne, durante una audiencia en la Legislatura sobre el proyecto de ley de Wyoming. “Esta legislación no busca crear división. Busca proteger las libertades constitucionales, la libertad de expresión y la libertad de conciencia”.

Por su parte, durante la audiencia, el expresó su preocupación por otorgar a los centros de embarazo un nivel de protección que otras empresas privadas no tienen.

“Ya cuentan con medidas de protección”, reflexionó. “Lo que me preocupa es que se les otorguen medidas de protección adicionales”.

En 2022, Wellspring Health Access, la única clínica en Wyoming que realiza abortos, en un ataque intencional.

“Nosotros somos los que proporcionamos información precisa sobre salud reproductiva y por eso sufrimos las consecuencias”, dijo a 窪蹋勛圖厙 News Julie Burkhart, presidenta y fundadora de Wellspring Health Access.

, profesora de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de California en Davis, dijo que la legislación propuesta eximiría a los centros de crisis de embarazo de tener que cumplir con los estándares a los que están obligadas las organizaciones médicas. También borraría la línea entre la defensa de una causa y la práctica médica, agregó. Y agregó que iniciativas de este tipo pueden ofrecer a los republicanos un mensaje de campaña potencialmente útil de cara a las elecciones legislativas de mitad de mandato.

“El Partido Republicano necesita una estrategia de comunicación para mostrar que se preocupa por las mujeres, incluso si prohíbe el aborto y aunque no quiera destinar recursos estatales a ayudar a las personas antes y después del embarazo”, explicó Ziegler. “La estrategia consiste en delegar eso en los centros de asesoramiento sobre el embarazo, lo que, por supuesto, aumenta el incentivo para protegerlos”.

Legislación modelo

La Alliance Defending Freedom es el mismo grupo que , que desde 1973 protegía el derecho al aborto a nivel nacional. El grupo redactó la , una legislación modelo para prohibir el aborto desde las 15 semanas, que fue la base de una ley de Mississippi de 2018 que condujo al caso Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization a partir de la cual la Corte Suprema anuló el fallo Roe.

La alianza dijo que sus abogados no estaban disponibles para comentar la estrategia de la organización respecto al CARE Act. En el proyecto de ley, el grupo afirmó que los esfuerzos federales, estatales y locales están apuntando contra los centros de atención del embarazo en un “claro intento de socavar y obstaculizar” su trabajo y cerrarlos.

En los últimos años, algunos han sido blanco de vandalismo y amenazas.

Pero los ataques que la legislación modelo se propone abordar principalmente son los esfuerzos legales y regulatorios de algunos estados que buscan mayor supervisión de estos centros, incluida una ley de California que exige que informen claramente a los pacientes sobre sus servicios. Esa ley fue anulada cuando la Corte Suprema falló a favor de los centros de crisis, avalando el argumento de que la norma violaba sus derechos de la Primera Enmienda.

Este año, la Corte Suprema que decidirá si los estados pueden citar a estas organizaciones para obtener información sobre donantes y datos internos.

De todos modos, es poco probable que los centros de crisis de embarazo enfrenten ese tipo de medidas regulatorias en los estados conservadores donde se está considerando esta legislación. Un legislador de Wyoming lo reconoció durante la audiencia del comité en febrero.

Diferentes servicios

En esa misma audiencia, quien encabeza el comité que patrocina el proyecto de ley, presentó la medida como “muy importante, especialmente con nuestro ���desierto de maternidad’”, refiriéndose a la falta de acceso a servicios de atención de salud materna.

Algunos centros de crisis de embarazo pueden contar con pocos profesionales con licencia, pero son la minoría. Muchos ofrecen recursos gratuitos, como pañales, ropa para bebé y otros artículos, a veces a cambio de aceptar asesorías o clases de crianza.

Las clínicas de Planned Parenthood, en contraste, ofrecen una variedad de servicios de salud, como pruebas y tratamiento para infecciones de transmisión sexual, atención primaria y exámenes para detectar cáncer cervical. Además, están reguladas como organizaciones con licencia médica.

Desde que el fallo Roe fue anulado, el movimiento por el derecho al aborto ha enfrentado desafíos importantes. La ley de los republicanos, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, que el presidente Donald Trump promulgó el verano pasado, a proveedores de abortos. Esa medida contribuyó a que Planned Parenthood tuviera que cerrar el año pasado.

Para 2024, operaban en todo el país, según un mapa creado por investigadores de la Universidad de Georgia, en comparación con las que ofrecían abortos a finales de 2025.

, una organización de investigación afiliada a la organización contra el aborto SBA Pro-Life America, ha sugerido que los centros de embarazo podrían ayudar a llenar el vacío dejado por el cierre de clínicas de Planned Parenthood.

Ziegler aseguró que eso dejaría a las pacientes expuestas a riesgos médicos.

El creciente poder de los centros

Las iniciativas anteriores en , Colorado y Vermont para regular los centros de crisis de embarazo surgieron a raíz de la preocupación por denuncias de , y dudas sobre la .

En 2024, un en cinco estados que investigaran si los centros estaban engañando a las pacientes haciéndoles creer que su información personal estaba protegida bajo la Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), y que averiguaran�� cómo estaban utilizando la información de los pacientes.

Los tribunales, incluida la Corte Suprema, han fallado con frecuencia que argumentan que estos intentos de regulación violan sus derechos de la Primera Enmienda a la libertad de expresión y la libertad religiosa.

Los centros de crisis para embarazadas también han recibido una avalancha de fondos desde que se revocó Roe.

Al menos incluidos centros de crisis de embarazo, según el Lozier Institute.

Seis estados distribuyen una parte de sus fondos federales del programa Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) ���pagos en efectivo destinados a familias de bajos ingresos con niños��� a centros de crisis de embarazo. Texas, Florida, Tennessee y Oklahoma han proporcionado decenas de millones de dólares para estas organizaciones.

Un análisis encontró que los centros de crisis de embarazo también recibieron entre 2017 y 2023, incluidos fondos del paquete de ayuda de 2020 promulgado como ley durante el primer mandato de Trump en medio de la pandemia de covid.

A pesar de los desafíos que enfrentan las clínicas que ofrecen abortos, Burkhart, directora del centro Wellspring en Wyoming, dijo que es importante seguir garantizando la atención a quienes la necesitan. Ella ha ayudado a abrir clínicas en zonas rurales de otros estados conservadores y ha señalado que esas clínicas siguen recibiendo pacientes.

“Eso me demuestra que, sin importar tu religión o tu partido político, hay momentos en la vida de las personas en los que necesitan atención de salud reproductiva brindada por profesionales calificados”, dijo. “Eso incluye el aborto”.

窪蹋勛圖厙 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 legislation would prohibit state and local governments from requiring crisis pregnancy centers to perform abortions, provide referrals for abortion services, or inform patients about such services or contraception options. It also would allow crisis pregnancy centers to sue the violating government entity.

Wyoming lawmakers of the Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act, or , on March 4. Other versions have advanced in and this year. One was in 2025. The CARE Act is “model legislation” created by the , an anti-abortion, conservative Christian legal advocacy group.

A similar proposal, the , was introduced in Congress last year but hasn’t moved out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

窪蹋勛圖厙 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).