By Sarah Jane Tribble for KFF Health News.
Broadcast version by Eric Tegethoff for Illinois News Connection reporting for the KFF Health News-Public News Service Collaboration

For Cindy Westman, $30 buys a week's worth of gas to drive to medical appointments and run errands.

It's also how much she spent on her monthly internet bill before the federal Affordable Connectivity Program stepped in and covered her payments.

"When you have low income and you are living on disability and your daughter's disabled, every dollar counts," said Westman, who lives in rural Illinois.

More than 23 million low-income households - urban, suburban, rural, and tribal - are enrolled in the federal discount program Congress created in 2021 to bridge the nation's digital connectivity gap. The program has provided $30 monthly subsidies for internet bills or $75 discounts in tribal and high-cost areas.

But the program is expected to run out of money in April or May, according to the Federal Communications Commission. In January, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel asked Congress to allocate $6 billion to keep the program running until the end of 2024. She said the subsidy gives Americans the "internet service they need to fully participate in modern life."

The importance of high-speed internet was seared into the American psyche by scenes of children sitting in parking lots and outside fast-food restaurants to attend school online during the covid-19 pandemic. During that same period, health care providers and patients like Westman say, being connected also became a vital part of today's health care delivery system.

Westman said her internet connection has become so important to her access to health care she would sell "anything that I own" to stay connected.

Westman, 43, lives in the small town of Eureka, Illinois, and has been diagnosed with genetic and immune system disorders. Her 12-year-old daughter has cerebral palsy and autism.

She steered the $30 saved on her internet toward taking care of her daughter, paying for things such as driving 30 minutes west to Peoria, Illinois, for two physical therapy appointments each week. And with an internet connection, Westman can access online medical records, and whenever possible she uses telehealth appointments to avoid the hour-plus drive to specialty care.

"It's essential for me to keep the internet going no matter what," Westman said.

Expanding telehealth is a common reason health care providers around the U.S. - in states such as Massachusetts and Arkansas - joined efforts to sign their patients up for the federal discount program.

"This is an issue that has real impacts on health outcomes," said Alister Martin, an emergency medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital. Martin realized at the height of the pandemic that patients with means were using telehealth to access covid care. But those seeking in-person care during his ER shifts tended to be lower-income, and often people of color.

"They have no other choice," Martin said. "But they probably don't need to be in the ER action." Martin became a White House fellow and later created a nonprofit that he said has helped 1,154 patients at health centers in Boston and Houston enroll in the discount program.

At the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, a federal grant was used to conduct dozens of outreach events and help patients enroll, said Joseph Sanford, an anesthesiologist and the director of the system's Institute for Digital Health & Innovation.

"We believe that telehealth is the great democratization to access to care," Sanford said. New enrollment in the discount program halted nationwide last month.

Leading up to the enrollment halt, Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) led a bipartisan effort to introduce the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act in January. The group requested $7 billion - more than the FCC's ask - to keep the program funded. "Affordability is everything," Welch said.

In December, federal regulators surveyed program recipients and found that 22% reported no internet service before, and 72% said they used their ACP-subsidized internet to "schedule or attend healthcare appointments."

Estimates of how many low-income U.S. households qualify for the program vary, but experts agree that only about half of the roughly 50 million eligible households have signed on.

"A big barrier for this program generally was people don't know about it," said Brian Whitacre, a professor and the Neustadt chair in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University.

Whitacre and others said rural households should be signing up at even higher rates than urban ones because a higher percentage of them are eligible.

Yet, people found signing up for the program laborious. Enrollment was a two-step process. Applicants were required to get approved by the federal government then work with an internet service provider that would apply the discount. The government application was online - hard to get to if you didn't yet have internet service - though applicants could try to find a way to download a version, print it, and submit the application by mail.

When Frances Goli, the broadband project manager for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in Idaho, began enrolling tribal and community members at the Fort Hall Reservation last year, she found that many residents did not know about the program - even though it had been approved more than a year earlier.

Goli and Amber Hastings, an AmeriCorps member with the University of Idaho Extension Digital Economy Program, spent hours helping residents through the arduous process of finding the proper tribal documentation required to receive the larger $75 discount for those living on tribal lands.

"That was one of the biggest hurdles," Goli said. "They're getting denied and saying, come back with a better document. And that is just frustrating for our community members."

Of the more than 200 households Goli and Hastings aided, about 40% had not had internet before.

In the tribal lands of Oklahoma, said Sachin Gupta, director of government business and economic development at internet service provider Centranet, years ago the funding may not have mattered.

"But then covid hit," Gupta said. "The stories I have heard."

Elders, he said, reportedly "died of entirely preventable causes" such as high blood pressure and diabetes because they feared covid in the clinics.

"It's really important to establish connectivity," Gupta said. The end of the discounts will "take a toll."


Sarah Jane Tribble wrote this story for KFF Health News.


get more stories like this via email

Experts warn health insurance premiums could rise an average of $1,000 a year for more than 2 million Californians who buy coverage on the individual marketplace, unless Congress extends subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act.

The nonprofit Health Access California has federal data by congressional district.

Rachel Linn Gish, director of communications for the advocacy group, said for example, 140,000 people in the Central Valley alone benefit from the subsidies.

"As Congress is considering taking action to make these federal subsidies permanent, we want to make sure that Congress members know just how their constituents are going to be impacted by these health care decisions that they're about to make," Gish emphasized.

Linn Gish wants Congress to take up the issue soon because CoveredCA is working now to set rates for 2026. At a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing, Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, criticized the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed without a single Republican vote and said permanently extending the subsidies would contribute $325 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years.

A recent report from the University of California-Berkeley and the University of California-Los Angeles found enhanced tax credits through the Inflation Reduction Act save Californians $1.7 billion per year.

Gish pointed out the federal dollars have allowed state funds to flow toward programs to zero out deductibles and eliminate copays on many CoveredCA plans.

"If we lose the federal support for the premium help, then we may need to shift state dollars to backfill that," Gish cautioned. "Therefore consumers could also see spikes in their deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for health care."

A recent study from UC Berkeley and UCLA predicted an additional 69,000 Californians could become uninsured due to increased premium costs if federal subsidies are allowed to expire next year.

Montana's expanded Medicaid program is set to expire next year. People who rely on it are calling on lawmakers for an extension but opponents argued Medicaid was never meant to be a long-term option for most people.

The Montana Legislature voted during its last session to expand the state's Medicaid program to cover an additional 85,000 people.

Megan Martin, a small-business owner and mother in Helena who relies on Medicaid, said she is out of health care options if the state does not extend it.

"I have looked and have been told that I could get health care off of our federal marketplace, which I don't qualify for," Martin explained. "That's terrifying because I don't make a ton of money, being a small-business owner. So, not having any other option is scary."

Gov. Greg Gianforte has not been clear on whether he supports an expansion but has said Medicaid should be a temporary program to help people get back on their feet. Data from KFF Health News show 9% fewer Montanans are covered under Medicaid now than before the pandemic.

Montana's Medicaid expansion is largely funded under the federal Affordable Care Act but is administered by the state, which is why expansion takes a legislative vote. Martin pointed out like many Montanans, she is working multiple jobs just to keep up with her family's cost of living, let alone being able to afford health care.

"How many more jobs do I have to get? How much more hustling do I have to do? How much more money do I have to put in my pocket, in order to make sure that we're all healthy?," Martin asked. "Nobody should have to worry about that, at the end of the day."

The Legislature is scheduled to consider extending the Medicaid expansion when lawmakers convene in January.


get more stories like this via email

A recent foodborne illness outbreak linked to deli meats is putting the spotlight on how these foods are regulated.

The listeria outbreak in Boar's Head products has led to 10 deaths and at least 59 people sickened across the country.

Jovana Kovacevic, associate professor of food science and technology at Oregon State University, said it is important to know listeria is prevalent in the natural environment. Kovacevic pointed out the United States has a zero-tolerance testing system for listeria, which is different from other countries and, counterintuitively, might do more harm than good than a system testing for certain levels of the bacteria.

"It would encourage industry to sample more," Kovacevic asserted. "And once they find positives, it would help them act before the food becomes contaminated and before any contaminated foods end up in the commerce."

Kovacevic pointed out listeria is most harmful for vulnerable populations, such as pregnant people, older people and those with compromised immune systems. Members of Congress recently wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its concern that the agency wasn't able to prevent the outbreak.

But Kovacevic noted there has been progress on how the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration, which also monitors food safety in some situations, prevent foodborne illnesses. Still, she argued there is room for improvement.

"Standardizing our approach to listeria probably we would benefit from it," Kovacevic contended. "Consumers would benefit and the industry would benefit in terms of having the ability to look openly for listeria as opposed to fearing if they find any positive what's going to happen."

Kovacevic added there are ways consumers can prevent outbreaks, such as storing meats at the proper temperatures and cooking them thoroughly.

"There's just certain foods that are higher risk foods," Kovacevic explained. "If you're in that vulnerable group, you want to avoid those foods. So, we really need to do better to engage consumers in these discussions."


get more stories like this via email