logo
In Southern California, many are skipping health care out of fear of ICE operations

In Southern California, many are skipping health care out of fear of ICE operations

Miami Herald7 days ago

LOS ANGELES – Missed childhood vaccinations. Skipped blood sugar checks. Medications abandoned at the pharmacy.
These are among the health care disruptions providers have noticed since Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations began in Southern California earlier this month.
Across the region, once-busy parks, shops and businesses have emptied as undocumented residents and their families hole up at home in fear. As rumors of immigration arrests have swirled around clinics and hospitals, many patients are also opting to skip chronic-care management visits as well as routine childhood check-ups.
In response, local federally qualified health centers — institutions that receive federal funds and are required by law to provide primary care regardless of ability to pay — have been scrambling to organize virtual appointments, house calls and pharmacy deliveries to patients who no longer feel safe going out in public.
'We're just seeing a very frightening and chaotic environment that's making it extremely difficult to provide for the health care needs of our patients,' said Jim Mangia, president of St. John's Community Health, which offers medical, dental and mental health care to more than 100,000 low-income patients annually in Southern California.
Prior to the raids, the system's network of clinics logged about a 9% no-show rate, Mangia said. In recent weeks, more than 30% of patients have canceled or failed to show. In response, the organization has launched a program called Healthcare Without Fear to provide virtual and home visits to patients concerned about the prospect of arrest.
'When we call patients back who missed their appointment and didn't call in, overwhelmingly, they're telling us they're not coming out because of ICE,' said Mangia, who estimates that 25% of the clinic's patient population is undocumented. 'People are missing some pretty substantial health care appointments.'
A recent survey of patient no-shows at nonprofit health clinics across Los Angeles County found no universal trends across the 118 members of the Community Clinic Assn. of L.A. County, President Louise McCarthy said. Some clinics have seen a jump in missed appointments, while others have observed no change. The data do not indicate how many patients opted to convert scheduled in-person visits to telehealth so they wouldn't have to leave home, she noted.
Patients have also expressed concerns that any usage of health services could make them targets. Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shared the personal data of Medicaid enrollees with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, including their immigration status. No specific enforcement actions have been directly linked to the data.
'The level of uncertainty and anxiety that is happening now is beyond the pale,' McCarthy said, for patients and staff alike.
County-run L.A. General Medical Center issued a statement on Thursday refuting reports that federal authorities had carried out enforcement operations at the downtown trauma center. While no immigration-related arrests have been reported at county health facilities, 'the mere threat of immigration enforcement near any medical facility undermines public trust and jeopardizes community health,' the department said in a statement.
Los Angeles County is among the providers working to extend in-home care options such as medication delivery and a nurse advice line for people reluctant to come in person.
'However, not all medical appointments or conditions can be addressed remotely,' a spokesperson said. 'We urge anyone in need of care not to delay.'
Providers expressed concern that missing preventative care appointments could lead to emergencies that both threaten patients' lives and further stress public resources. Preventative care 'keeps our community at large healthy and benefits really everyone in Los Angeles,' said a staff member at a group of L.A. area clinics. He asked that his employer not be named for fear of drawing attention to their patient population.
Neglecting care now, he said, 'is going to cost everybody more money in the long run.'
A patient with hypertension who skips blood pressure monitoring appointments now may be more likely to be brought into an emergency room with a heart attack in the future, said Dr. Bukola Olusanya, a medical director at St. John's.
'If [people] can't get their medications, they can't do follow-ups. That means a chronic condition that has been managed and well-controlled is just going to deteriorate,' she said. 'We will see patients going to the ER more than they should be, rather than coming to primary care.'
Providers are already seeing that shift. When a health team visited one diabetic patient recently at home, they found her blood sugar levels sky-high, Mangia said. She told the team she'd consumed nothing but tortillas and coffee in the previous five days rather than risk a trip to the grocery store.
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

ELV Deadline: Rosen Law Firm Urges Elevance Health, Inc. (NYSE: ELV) Stockholders with Losses in Excess of $100K to Contact the Firm for Information About Their Rights
ELV Deadline: Rosen Law Firm Urges Elevance Health, Inc. (NYSE: ELV) Stockholders with Losses in Excess of $100K to Contact the Firm for Information About Their Rights

Business Wire

time3 hours ago

  • Business Wire

ELV Deadline: Rosen Law Firm Urges Elevance Health, Inc. (NYSE: ELV) Stockholders with Losses in Excess of $100K to Contact the Firm for Information About Their Rights

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Phillip Kim, or give us a call at 866-767-3653. The Allegations: Rosen Law Firm is Investigating the Allegations that Elevance Health, Inc. (NYSE: ELV) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Operations. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that, with the Medicaid redetermination process nearly complete, defendants represented to investors that they were closely monitoring cost trends associated with the redetermination process and that the premium rates Elevance was negotiating with states were sufficient to address the risk and cost profiles of those patients staying on Medicaid programs. While defendants acknowledged that Medicaid expenses were rising, they repeatedly assured investors that this was adequately reflected in Elevance's guidance for the year. These representations were materially false or misleading. In truth, the redeterminations were causing the acuity and utilization of Elevance's Medicaid members to rise significantly, as the members being removed from Medicaid programs were, on average, healthier than those who remained eligible for the programs. This shift was occurring to a degree that was not reflected in Elevance's rate negotiations with the states or in its financial guidance for 2024. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Elevance Health, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by July 11, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Rosen Law Firm: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions. Rosen Law Firm does. Rosen Law Firm is a recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improving corporate governance structures, and holding company executives accountable for their wrongdoing. Since its inception, Rosen Law Firm has obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: on Twitter: or on Facebook: Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

California Closes $12 Billion Budget Deficit With Hit to Migrants
California Closes $12 Billion Budget Deficit With Hit to Migrants

Newsweek

time4 hours ago

  • Newsweek

California Closes $12 Billion Budget Deficit With Hit to Migrants

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a $321 billion budget on Friday that closes a $12 billion deficit by scaling back several progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for undocumented immigrants. Newsweek reached out to the governor's office via email on Saturday for comment. Why It Matters The budget agreement between Newsom and Democratic leaders marks the third consecutive year the nation's most populous state has been forced to reduce funding for programs championed by Democratic leadership. The governor and legislative leaders framed the budget as a response to what they describe as economic challenges stemming from President Donald Trump's tariff policies, immigration crackdowns and rising costs tied to increased enrollment in Medi-Cal, California's state-funded healthcare program for low-income residents that was expanded last year to include undocumented adults as part of the state's universal healthcare goals. The cuts to immigrant health services represent a significant retreat from California's universal healthcare ambitions, affecting hundreds of thousands of residents. With projected annual deficits of $17-24 billion in coming years and potential federal revenue losses of $16 billion, the state faces sustained financial pressure that could force deeper cuts to essential services. What To Know The budget addresses the deficit primarily through state savings withdrawals, borrowing from special funds, and payment delays rather than implementing new taxes on families or businesses. The most significant immigrant health program changes target Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program. Starting next year, the Golden State will halt new enrollments for undocumented adults in Medi-Cal, effectively capping the program's growth. Additionally, beginning July 2027, the state will implement a $30 monthly premium for immigrants currently enrolled in the program, including some with legal status, affecting adults under 60 years old. These changes represent a scaled-back version of Newsom's original proposal from May, which would have imposed deeper cuts to the landmark program that began just last year. The Medi-Cal modifications mark a retreat from California's ambitious universal healthcare expansion, which had made the state a national leader in providing comprehensive health coverage regardless of immigration status. The program cuts come despite California's role as home to the nation's largest immigrant population, with undocumented residents comprising a significant portion of essential workers in agriculture, construction, and hospitality sectors. Healthcare cuts extend beyond immigrant services, eliminating $78 million in mental health phone line funding that served 100,000 people annually and removing dental service funding for low-income residents in 2026. However, lawmakers successfully preserved funding for in-home care services, Planned Parenthood, and reproductive health programs. A Napolitan News/RMG Research poll released in May, conducted between February 10–12 among 800 registered California voters, found that 60 percent of Californians think illegal immigrants living in America should not be provided with taxpayer funded health care. The poll also found that 72 percent believe illegal immigration is harmful to the country. The poll had a margin of error of ±3.5 percentage points. RMG Research is a Republican-leaning pollster. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at Gemperle Orchard on April 16 in Ceres, California. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at Gemperle Orchard on April 16 in Ceres, People Are Saying Governor Gavin Newsom in Friday's press release announcing the balanced budget: "As we confront Donald Trump's economic sabotage, this budget agreement proves California won't just hold the line — we'll go even further. It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians — slashing red tape and catapulting housing and infrastructure development, preserving essential healthcare services, funds universal pre-K, and cuts taxes for veterans." Speaker of the California State Assembly Robert Rivas in Friday's press release: "This is an incredibly difficult time for Californians. Trump is undermining our economy with reckless tariffs, harsh cuts, and ICE agents terrorizing our communities. At a moment when so many are already struggling, he's adding fear and instability. In contrast, Democrats have delivered a budget that protects California. It cuts red tape to build more housing faster — because housing is the foundation of affordability and opportunity." He added: "It preserves critical investments in health care, women's health, education, and public safety. And it honors our commitment not to raise taxes on families, workers, or small businesses. In unprecedented times, under painful circumstances, Democrats are delivering for Californians." Republican state Senator Tony Strickland told reporters prior to the vote on Friday: "We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending." He added: "And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California." Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire in Friday's press release: "The State is delivering a responsible on-time budget in a challenging year focused on fiscal restraint and investing in the people and programs that make this State great. This budget prioritizes record funding for our kids and public schools, protects access to health care for millions of the most vulnerable, and will create more housing at a scale not seen in years." He added: "Thanks to this budget agreement, the state will help get more folks off the streets and into permanent shelter, and we'll expand the ranks of CalFire, deploying hundreds of additional full-time CalFire firefighters, which will save lives and make us all more wildfire safe. And this agreement helps prepare our state for the ongoing chaos and massive uncertainty caused by the Trump administration. Thank you to our Senate Budget Chair Scott Wiener, Speaker Rivas and Governor Newsom and their staffs for their hard work for the people of California." Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state Democrat, wrote on X in May: "Immigrants aren't making health care more expensive – Republicans are. Trans people aren't making health care more expensive – Republicans are. Poor people aren't making health care more expensive – Republicans are." What Happens Next The budget's implementation depends entirely on lawmakers passing housing legislation (AB 131 or SB 131) by Monday's deadline, or the entire spending plan becomes void. Reporting from the Associated Press contributed to this article.

Supreme court paves way for South Carolina and other states to defund Planned Parenthood
Supreme court paves way for South Carolina and other states to defund Planned Parenthood

Yahoo

time8 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme court paves way for South Carolina and other states to defund Planned Parenthood

The US supreme court has paved the way for South Carolina to kick Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program over its status as an abortion provider, a decision that could embolden red states across the country to effectively 'defund' the reproductive healthcare organization. The case, Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, centers around a 2018 executive order from South Carolina's governor, Henry McMaster, that blocked clinics that provide abortions from receiving Medicaid reimbursements. Medicaid is the US government's main health insurance program for low-income people. About 80 million people rely on it. 'Payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life,' McMaster said at the time, even though the reimbursements could not be used for abortions. Abortions are also now banned in South Carolina after six weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a Planned Parenthood affiliate that operates two clinics in South Carolina, and Julie Edwards, a patient who sought birth control, sued over McMaster's order, arguing that it flew in the face of a federal provision known as the 'free choice of provider' clause. That provision guarantees that people insured by Medicaid can freely choose their own providers as long as they accept the program and are qualified to provide care. Lower courts have repeatedly sided with Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and Edwards, keeping McMaster's order from taking effect. The case in front of the supreme court did not directly deal with the question of whether South Carolina could legally remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid. Instead, the justices were asked to weigh in on a highly technical question: do Medicaid beneficiaries have the right to sue if they believe their right to a free choice of provider has been violated? In a 6-3 decision joined by every member of the court's conservative supermajority, the justices ruled that, essentially, individuals do not possess that 'enforceable right'. 'The decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy,' Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. 'New rights for some mean new duties for others. And private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force governments to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation.' He continued: 'The job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people's elected representatives, not unelected judges charged with applying the law as they find it.' These technicalities cloaked the potentially sweeping consequences of the case. If people can't sue when they believe a state is violating Medicaid, it is far harder to stop states from discriminating against controversial care, such as abortion, Nicole Huberfeld, a health law professor at Boston University's School of Public Health, told the Guardian ahead of oral arguments. The Thursday ruling marks a major victory for the rightwing legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented South Carolina in the case, and for its fellow anti-abortion allies. The case is part of a longstanding effort by anti-abortion activists to 'defund' Planned Parenthood by cutting it out of Medicaid. Of the 2.4 million people treated at Planned Parenthood each year, almost half use Medicaid. The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – dissented from the majority. In her dissent, Jackson argued that Thursday's ruling not only undercuts the rights of Medicaid beneficiaries, but also participates in a 'project of stymying one of the country's great civil rights laws' by hollowing out the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which strengthens people's ability to go to court when a state violates their federal rights. 'Today's decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people,' Jackson wrote. 'At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians – and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country – of a deeply personal freedom: the 'ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable'.' Reproductive rights supporters also decried the Thursday ruling. 'Today's decision is a direct attack on reproductive health care, and it is a dangerous green light for politicians to target any providers they don't like,' said Jennifer Driver, senior director of reproductive rights at State Innovation Exchange, in a statement. 'This ruling will deepen health inequities, strip people of their freedom to choose, and put basic services like birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing further out of reach.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store