Millions of Americans who have waited decades for fast internet connections will keep waiting after the Trump administration threw a $42 billion high-speed internet program into disarray.

The Commerce Department, which runs the massive Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, announced new rules in early June requiring states — some of which were ready to begin construction later this year — to solicit new bids from internet service providers.

The delay leaves millions of rural Americans stranded in places where health care is hard to access and telehealth is out of reach.

“This does monumental harm to rural America,” said Christopher Ali, a professor of telecommunications at Penn State.

The Biden-era program, known as BEAD, was hailed when created in 2021 as a national plan to bring fast internet to all, including millions in remote rural areas.

A yearlong KFF Health News investigation, with partner Gray Media’s InvestigateTV, found nearly 3 million people live in mostly rural counties that lack broadband as well as primary care and behavioral health care providers. In those same places, the analysis found, people live sicker and die earlier on average.

The program adopts a technology-neutral approach to “guarantee that American taxpayers obtain the greatest return on their broadband investment,” according to the June policy notice. The program previously prioritized the use of fiber-optic cable lines, but broadband experts like Ali said the new focus will make it easier for satellite-internet providers such as Elon Musk’s Starlink and Amazon’s Kuiper to win federal funds.

“We are going to connect rural America with technologies that cannot possibly meet the needs of the next generation of digital users,” Ali said. “They’re going to be missing out.”

Republicans have criticized BEAD for taking too long, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick vowed in March to get rid of its “woke mandates.” The revamped “Benefit of the Bargain BEAD Program,” which was released with a fact sheet titled “Ending Biden’s Broadband Burdens,” includes eliminating some labor and employment requirements and obligations to perform climate analyses on projects.

The requirement for states to do a new round of bidding with internet service providers makes it unclear whether states will be able to connect high-speed internet to all homes, said Drew Garner, director of policy engagement at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society.

Garner said the changes have caused “pure chaos” in state broadband offices. More than half the states have been knocked off their original timeline to deliver broadband to homes, he said.

The change also makes the program more competitive for satellite companies and wireless providers such as Verizon and T-Mobile, Garner said.

Garner analyzed in March what the possible increase in low-Earth-orbit satellites would mean for rural America. He found that fiber networks are generally more expensive to build but that satellites are more costly to maintain and “much more expensive” to consumers.

Commerce Secretary Lutnick said in a June release that the new direction of the program would be efficient and deliver high-speed internet “at the right price.” The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Commerce Department agency overseeing BEAD, declined to release a specific amount it hopes to save with the restructuring.

The NTIA also declined to respond on the record to questions about program revisions and delays.

More than 40 states had already begun selecting companies to provide high-speed internet and fill in gaps in underserved areas, according to an agency dashboard created to track state progress.

In late May, the website was altered and columns showing the states that had completed their work with federal regulators disappeared. Three states — Delaware, Louisiana, and Nevada — had reached the finish line and were waiting for the federal government to distribute funding.

The tracker, which KFF Health News saved in March, details the steps each state made in their years-long efforts to create location-based maps and bring high-speed internet to those missing service. West Virginia had completed selection of internet service providers and a leaked draft of its proposed plan shows the state was set to provide fiber connections to all homes and businesses.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) praised removal of some of the hurdles that delayed implementation and said she thought her state would not have to make very many changes to existing plans during a call with West Virginia reporters.

West Virginia’s broadband council has worked aggressively to expand in a state where 25% of counties lack high-speed internet and health providers, according to KFF Health News’ analysis.

In Lincoln County, West Virginia, Gary Vance owns 21 acres atop a steep ridge that has no internet connection. Vance, who sat in his yard enjoying the sun on a recent day, said he doesn’t want to wait any longer.

Vance said he has various medical conditions: high blood sugar, deteriorating bones, lung problems — “all kinds of crap.” He’s worried about his family’s inability to make a phone call or connect to the internet.

“You can’t call nobody to get out if something happens,” said Vance, who also lacks running water.

KFF Health News, using data from federal and academic sources, found more than 200 counties — with large swaths in the South, Appalachia, and the remote West — lack high-speed internet, behavioral health providers, and primary care doctors who serve low-income patients on Medicaid. On average, residents in those counties experienced higher rates of diabetes, obesity, chronically high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease.

The gaps in telephone and internet services didn’t cause the higher rates of illness, but Ali said it does not help either.

Ali, who traveled rural America for his book “Farm Fresh Broadband: The Politics of Rural Connectivity,” said telehealth, education, banking, and the use of artificial intelligence all require fast download and upload speeds that cannot always be guaranteed with satellite or wireless technology.

It’s “the politics of good enough,” Ali said. “And that is always how we’ve treated rural America.”

Fiber-optic cables, installed underground or on poles, consistently provide broadband speeds that meet the Federal Communications Commission’s requirements for broadband download speed of 100 megabits per second and 20 Mbps upload speed. By contrast, a national speed analysis, performed by Ookla, a private research and analytics company, found that only 17.4% of Starlink satellite internet users nationwide consistently get those minimum speeds. The report also noted Starlink’s speeds were rising nationwide in the first three months of 2025.

In March, West Virginia’s Republican governor, Patrick Morrisey, announced plans to collaborate with the Trump administration on the new requirements.

Republican state Del. Dan Linville, who has been working with Morrisey’s office, said his goal is to eventually get fiber everywhere but said other opportunities could be available to get internet faster.

In May, the West Virginia Broadband Enhancement Council signaled it preferred fiber-optic cables to satellite for its residents and signed a unanimous resolution that noted “fiber connections offer the benefits of faster internet speeds, enhanced data security, and the increased reliability that is necessary to promote economic development and support emerging technologies.”

KFF Health 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 KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post Trump Team’s Reworking Delays Billions in Broadband Build-Out appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article adopts a generally critical stance toward the Trump administration’s handling of the broadband program, emphasizing delays and negative consequences for rural communities. It highlights concerns from experts and advocates for fiber-optic technology, portraying the Biden-era BEAD program positively while critiquing the Trump-era restructuring as harmful to rural Americans. The tone and framing focus on social equity and government responsibility to underserved areas, which align with Center-Left perspectives prioritizing infrastructure investment and rural access. However, the article also presents viewpoints from Republican officials and notes bipartisan concerns, maintaining a level of balance overall.

When Alyne Diamond fell off a horse in August 2023 and broke her back, her employer-based health plan through UnitedHealthcare covered her emergency care in Aspen, Colorado. It also covered related pain management and physical therapy after she returned home to New York City. The bills totaled more than $100,000.

The real estate lawyer, now 67, was eligible for Medicare at the time but hadn’t enrolled. Since she was still working, she thought her employer health insurance plan would cover her.

That misunderstanding has had financial repercussions that she continues to deal with today.

More than a year after her riding accident, Diamond was back at the emergency room after she tripped on a step while entering a New York restaurant. Her face covered in blood, Diamond was examined by staff, who did multiple CT scans. The bill for that care: $12,000.

This time, though, the insurance coverage wasn’t routine. Nearly all her claims were denied.

Diamond was caught in a fairly common coverage snag: People who have group health insurance when they become eligible for Medicare sometimes find themselves on the hook for their medical bills because their group plan stops paying.

Diamond contacted several people at UnitedHealthcare before she found out why the insurer refused to pay her claims.

When Diamond turned 65 in 2022, Medicare — unbeknownst to her — became the “primary payer” for her claims, meaning the federal health program for older or disabled people was supposed to take the lead in covering her medical bills, before other insurers paid anything. (As secondary payer, Diamond’s employer policy picked up 20% of what Medicare would have paid.)

Had she signed up for the government insurance plan when she turned 65, Diamond could have avoided a financially perilous situation that left her unexpectedly responsible for the medical costs she incurred during that time.

She began to understand what had happened as she made inquiries about the denied claims.

Diamond said she was told that UnitedHealthcare audited her claims last year and determined it had been improperly paying for her care, perhaps because her pricey medical claims after her fall from the horse raised a red flag.

The insurer not only stopped paying current claims but also moved to claw back tens of thousands of dollars it had paid to providers in the two years since she turned 65. Some of those providers are now seeking payment from her.

“It’s horrifying,” she said. “For about two months I was devastated. I thought, ‘Where am I going to get the money to pay all these people? There goes my retirement.’”

The mistake has already cost her $25,000 and may cost her much more if providers continue to bill her for amounts that UnitedHealthcare has clawed back for care she received before signing up for Medicare in February.

A UnitedHealthcare spokesperson declined to provide an on-the-record statement, citing safety concerns.

Patient advocates say they frequently hear from people who, like Diamond, thought they didn’t need to sign up for Medicare upon turning 65 because they had group health coverage.

That assumption is generally correct if they or their spouse is working at a company with at least 20 employees. In that case, employer coverage is considered primary and they can delay signing up for Medicare as long as they or their spouse continues to be employed there.

But if someone has employer coverage through a company with fewer than 20 workers, Medicare generally becomes the primary payer when they turn 65. The real estate law firm at which Diamond is a partner has a handful of employees.

Similarly, if someone is older than 65 and has retiree health coverage or has left their job and opted to continue their employer coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, also known as COBRA, Medicare pays first. The issue can also arise for people who are younger than 65 if they are eligible for Medicare because of a disability. In those instances, Medicare pays first if they or their family member works at a company with fewer than 100 employees.

If people in these groups don’t sign up for Medicare when they become eligible, they can find themselves responsible for all their medical bills for years. (They may also owe a penalty for late enrollment in the Medicare program.)

“It’s very alarming and there’s no current fix to the situation,” said Fred Riccardi, president of the New York-based Medicare Rights Center, a national patient advocacy organization.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services did not respond to a request for comment.

Mark Scherzer, a lawyer in Germantown, New York, who helps people with insurance problems, and who advised Diamond, said he gets calls a couple of times a month from people who face this issue.

“What I see constantly now is that insurers go back and they claw back the money from the doctor and the doctor then claws the money back from the patient,” he said.

Costly claims may trigger an insurer to examine someone’s coverage.

Those big claims “seem to get on the insurer’s radar,” said Casey Schwarz, senior counsel for education and federal policy at the Medicare Rights Center.

UnitedHealthcare has recouped over $50,000 in medical bills from some of the providers who treated Diamond in New York after her riding accident. She’s paid them about $25,000 so far. Some have agreed to let her pay the amount Medicare would have paid.

But there may be more bills to come. Under New York law, health plans have two years after claims are paid to claw back payments from providers, and providers have three years to sue patients for medical debt. So, while there is still time for Diamond to be billed, the clock will eventually run out.

Diamond plans to sue the broker who manages her company’s health plan and other benefits for negligence.

“The Medicare secondary payment rules basically say that if you didn’t sign up because you didn’t know Medicare was supposed to be primary, that’s on you,” said Melanie Lambert, senior Medicare advocate at the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Connecticut.

Lambert said she has seen the issue “many, many times.” In some instances, if a beneficiary can demonstrate they were misled by an employer or a federal employee, they may qualify for relief or a special enrollment period, she said.

In a 2023 letter to the acting secretary of the Department of Labor, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners advocated applying a “commonsense rule to COBRA plans, individual health insurance, and other coverage sources: those entitled to Medicare Part B but not enrolled in it should not lose benefits they pay for from a non-Medicare coverage source.”

The Department of Labor didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In earlier times, people started collecting Social Security benefits then automatically got Medicare when they turned 65.

Now, enrolling in Medicare is more complicated for many people, said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president and the executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“As more people are delaying going on Social Security and delaying going on Medicare, there’s more opportunities for people to make mistakes, and those mistakes are costly,” Neuman said.

Coverage experts say there are no clear requirements for insurers, employers, or the federal government to notify people about how the payment rules governing coordination of benefits between health plans may change when they become eligible for Medicare.

The information appears in a chart in the government’s “Medicare & You” handbook, if someone knows to look for it. But it is not easy to find.

A straightforward fix could solve many of the problems people face in this area, Scherzer said. Since every health plan knows its enrollees’ ages, why not require them to notify people approaching 65 of possible benefit coordination issues with Medicare? “It’s so simple and such a no-brainer.”

KFF Health 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 KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post Have Job-Based Health Coverage at 65? You May Still Want To Sign Up for Medicare appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

This content provides a detailed and fact-based account of the complexities and pitfalls associated with Medicare enrollment and coordination of benefits with employer health plans. The tone is neutral, focusing on patient experiences, insurance practices, and systemic challenges without advocating for specific partisan policies. It presents information from multiple stakeholders, including patient advocates, insurers, and government entities, aiming to inform readers rather than promote a political agenda. Such balanced reporting aligns with a centrist perspective that highlights practical issues in healthcare administration without ideological bias.

MIAMI — Josefina Muralles works a part-time overnight shift as a receptionist at a Miami Beach condominium so that during the day she can care for her three kids, her aging mother, and her brother, who is paralyzed.

She helps her mother feed, bathe, and give medicine to her adult brother, Rodrigo Muralles, who has epilepsy and became disabled after contracting covid-19 in 2020.

“He lives because we feed him and take care of his personal needs,” said Josefina Muralles, 41. “He doesn’t say, ‘I need this or that.’ He has forgotten everything.”

Though her husband works full time, the arrangement means their household income is just above the federal poverty line — too high to qualify for Florida’s Medicaid program but low enough to make Muralles and her husband eligible for subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, also known as Obamacare.

Next year, Muralles said, she and her husband may not be able to afford that health insurance coverage, which has paid for her prescription blood thinners, cholesterol medication, and two surgeries, including one to treat a genetic disorder.

Extra subsidies put in place during the pandemic — which reduced the premiums Muralles and her husband paid by more than half, to $30 a month — are in place only through Dec. 31. Without enhanced subsidies, Affordable Care Act insurance premiums would rise by more than 75% on average, with bills for people in some states more than doubling, according to estimates from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Florida and Texas would be hit especially hard, as they have more people enrolled in the marketplace than other states. Some of their congressional districts alone, especially in South Florida, have more people signed up for Obamacare than entire states.

Like many of the more than 24 million Americans enrolled in the insurance marketplace this year, Muralles was unaware that the enhanced subsidies are slated to expire. She said she cannot afford a premium hike because inflation has already eaten into her household’s budget.

“The rent is going up,” she said. “The water bill is going up.”

Low-income enrollees like the Muralles couple would see the biggest percentage increases in premiums if enhanced subsidies expire.

Middle-income enrollees who earn more than four times the federal poverty line would no longer be eligible for subsidies at all. Those middle-income enrollees (who earn at least $62,600 for a single person in 2025) are disproportionately older, self-employed, and living in rural areas.

Julio Fuentes, president of the Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said many of his organization’s members are small business owners who rely on Obamacare for health coverage.

“It’s either this or nothing,” he said.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that letting the enhanced subsidies expire would, by 2034, increase the number of people without health insurance by 4.2 million. In tandem with changes to Medicaid in the House of Representatives’ reconciliation bill and the Trump administration’s proposed rules for the marketplace, including toughening income verification and shortening enrollment periods, it would increase the number of uninsured people by 16 million over that time period.

A study by the Urban Institute, a nonprofit think tank, found that Hispanic and Black people would see greater coverage losses than other groups if the extra subsidies lapse.

Fuentes noted that about 5 million Hispanics are enrolled in the ACA marketplace, and that Donald Trump won the Hispanic vote in Florida in 2024. He hopes the president and congressional Republicans see extending the enhanced subsidies as a way to hold on to those voters.

“This is probably a good way, or a good start, to possibly grow that base even more,” he said.

Enrollment in the marketplace has grown faster since 2020 in the states won by Trump in 2024. A recent KFF survey found that 45% of Americans who buy their own health insurance identify as or lean Republican, including 3 in 10 who identify as Make America Great Again supporters. Smaller shares identify as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents (35%) or do not lean toward either party (20%).

Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, said the rules proposed by the Trump administration, combined with the provisions in the House-passed budget bill, would “strengthen the ACA marketplace.” He noted that the CBO projects the legislation would reduce premiums for some plans about 12% on average by 2034 — but out-of-pocket costs would rise or remain the same for most subsidized ACA consumers.

“Democrats know Americans broadly support ending waste, fraud, and abuse, as The One, Big, Beautiful Bill does, which is why they are desperately trying to change the conversation,” Desai said.

But Lauren Aronson, executive director of Keep Americans Covered, a group in Washington, D.C., representing health insurers, hospitals, physicians, and patient advocates, said it is critical to raise awareness about the likely impact of losing the enhanced subsidies, which are also known as advanced premium tax credits. She is encouraged that Democrats have proposed legislation to extend the enhanced tax credits, and that some Republican senators have voiced support.

What worries Aronson most is that the Republican-controlled Congress is more focused on extending tax cuts than enhanced subsidies, she said. The current bill extending the 2017 tax cuts would increase the federal deficit by about $2.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the CBO, while making the enhanced subsidies permanent would increase the deficit by $358 billion over roughly the same period.

“Congress is moving forward on a tax reconciliation package that purports to benefit working families,” Aronson said. “But if you don’t take care of the tax credits, working families will be left holding the bag.”

Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, a conservative health policy think tank, said the enhanced subsidies were supposed to be a temporary measure during the covid-19 pandemic to help people at risk of losing coverage.

Instead, he said, the enhanced subsidies facilitated fraud because enrollees did not need to verify their income eligibility to receive zero-premium plans if they reported incomes at or near the federal poverty level.

The enhanced subsidies also worsen health inflation, discourage employers from offering health insurance benefits, and crowd out alternative models, such as short-term insurance and Farm Bureau plans, Blase said.

“Permitting these subsidies to expire would just be going back to Obamacare as it was written,” Blase said. “That is a more efficient program than the program that we have now.”

New rules for the marketplace proposed by the Trump administration in March are already designed to address fraud, said Anna Howard, a policy expert with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, which advocates for increased health insurance coverage. Howard said extending the enhanced tax credits would help ensure that people who are legitimately eligible for coverage can get it.

“We don’t want to see over 5 million people be kicked off their health insurance coverage out of fears of fraud when the policies being proposed don’t necessarily address fraud,” she said.

Without affordable premiums, many consumers will turn to short-term health plans, health care cost-sharing ministries, and other forms of coverage that do not have the benefits or protections of the health law, she said.

“These are plans that don’t provide coverage for prescription drugs, or they have lifetime and annual limits,” she said. “For a cancer patient, those plans don’t work.”

Though the enhanced subsidies do not expire until the end of the year, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association would prefer Congress to act by fall to avoid confusion during open enrollment, said David Merritt, a senior vice president. Insurers are preparing rates to meet state deadlines. By October, consumers will receive 60-day plan renewal notices with their 2026 premiums.

Without enhanced subsidies, Merritt said, competition in the marketplace will wither, leading to fewer coverage options and higher prices, especially in states that have not expanded Medicaid eligibility and where Obamacare enrollment spiked during the past four years, like Florida and Texas. “Voters and patients are really going to see the impact,” he said.

Republican and Democratic representatives for some of the Florida congressional districts with the highest numbers of people in the marketplace did not respond to repeated interview requests.

Muralles, of North Miami, Florida, said she wants her representatives to work in the interest of constituents like herself, who need health insurance coverage to care for their families.

“Now is the time to prove to us that they are with us,” Muralles said. “When everybody’s healthy, everybody goes to work, everybody can pay taxes, everybody can have a better life.”

KFF Health 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 KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post The Price You Pay for an Obamacare Plan Could Surge Next Year appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The content primarily advocates for the continuation of enhanced subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, highlighting the potential negative impacts on low- and middle-income Americans if these subsidies expire. It includes voices concerned about healthcare affordability and coverage losses, emphasizing the human and economic consequences. While it does present perspectives from conservative sources criticizing the subsidies and noting fraud concerns, the overall tone and framing favor sustaining or expanding government healthcare support, which aligns with center-left policy priorities. The article avoids overt partisan rhetoric, aiming for a balanced but slightly progressive leaning on health policy matters.