HEALTH TRAIN EXPRESS
Mission: To promulgate health education across the internet:
Follow or subscribe to Health Train Express as well as Digital Health Space for all the updates for health policy, reform, public health issues. Health Train Express is published several times a week.Subscribe and receive an email alert each time it is published. Health Train Express has been published since 2006.
Finnish scientists trucked in real forest dirt and grass and laid it over the gravel at four daycare yards. They let the kids dig around in it for a month. The blood tests came back with changes the researchers hadn’t expected to see so fast or so clear.
The study was run at ten daycares in two Finnish cities with 75 kids aged three to five. Four of the yards got the forest treatment: about a tennis court worth of soil and grass laid over the gravel, plus planters and peat blocks the kids could dig and climb on. Three others stuck with their normal gravel yards. The last three were daycares where the kids were already visiting real forests every day.
After one month, the variety of bacteria living on the kids’ skin shot up, and the kind that helps train the skin’s immune defenses jumped the most. Their gut bacteria started to look like the gut bacteria of the forest-visiting kids. Their blood showed more of the immune cells whose job is to keep the body from freaking out at harmless stuff like pollen and peanuts, and overall inflammation dropped. The kids on the plain gravel yards showed none of this.
Childhood asthma in the US doubled between 1980 and 1995. Food allergies in kids jumped 50 percent between 1997 and 2011, then jumped another 50 percent between 2007 and 2021. And peanut allergies in one-year-olds tripled between 2001 and 2017.
The Finnish researchers think one of the reasons is simple: kids today don’t get dirty enough. 37 percent of American preschoolers now spend an hour or less outside on a normal weekday. Their immune systems are getting trained in environments stripped of the bacteria humans have always lived around.
Aki Sinkkonen, who led the study, put it in plain words: “It would be best if children could play in puddles and everyone could dig organic soil.” The Finnish government is now helping pay for daycares across the country to make the same changes.
Obesity is a complex, chronic disease characterized by an abnormal or excessive accumulation of body fat that poses a significant risk to health. It is much more than a cosmetic concern; it is a progressive medical condition that can negatively affect nearly every organ system in the human body. Clinically, an adult is diagnosed with obesity when their Body Mass Index (BMI)—a standard measurement calculating weight relative to height—is 30 or higher. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Class 1 Obesity (Low-Risk): BMI between 30.0 and 34.9
Class 2 Obesity (Moderate-Risk): BMI between 35.0 and 39.9
Class 3 Obesity (Severe/Morbid): BMI of 40.0 or higher [7, 8]
While BMI is a useful, quick screening tool, medical experts at institutions like Yale Medicine look beyond the scale. They factor in an expanded waistline (abdominal fat) and weight-related biomarkers, as fat carried around the abdomen poses a significantly higher risk for metabolic disease than fat stored around the hips. [4, 9]
Core Causes
Obesity is a multi-factorial condition, meaning it is rarely caused by a single lifestyle factor. The major driving components include: [10, 11, 12, 13, 14]
Energy Imbalance: Consuming more calories through food and sugary drinks than the body burns via metabolic functions and daily physical movement.
Genetics and Biology: Inherited traits that govern your metabolic speed, how your brain signals hunger or fullness (satiety), and how efficiently your body stores fat.
Environment and Socioeconomics: Limited local access to affordable, nutrient-dense whole foods versus easy access to cheap, heavily processed, energy-dense foods.
Medications and Medical Conditions: Certain health conditions (like hypothyroidism) or prescription drugs (such as certain antidepressants and steroids) that can cause weight gain as a side effect.
Lifestyle Disruption: Chronic high stress, poor sleep quality, and a sedentary routine or urban design that limits walking. [1, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18]
Health Complications
Carrying excessive body fat functions as a core driver for many severe, long-term health problems: [19, 20]
Cardiovascular Disease: Elevates blood pressure and cholesterol levels, sharply increasing risks for heart attacks and strokes.
Type 2 Diabetes: Promotes insulin resistance, making it the leading risk factor for elevated blood sugar and its related nerve and organ damages.
Joint and Muscle Strain: Puts heavy mechanical pressure on bones and joints, commonly accelerating the breakdown of cartilage and causing osteoarthritis.
Respiratory Issues: Increases the presence of neck fat tissue that blocks airways during sleep, leading to obstructive sleep apnea.
Cancer Risks: Strongly associated with an increased likelihood of developing certain cancers, including colon, breast, kidney, and liver cancer. [1, 3, 9, 19, 21]
Prevention and Management
Because obesity is a progressive disease, early treatment is critical. The medical community recommends custom care strategies ranging from dietary adjustments to advanced medical interventions: [2, 9, 19, 22]
Lifestyle Modifications: Shifting toward a heart-healthy diet rich in vegetables, fruits, and whole grains while striving for at least 150 minutes of moderate cardiovascular exercise per week.
Behavioral Therapy: Working with therapists or support groups to identify psychological triggers for overeating and build healthier habits.
Prescription Medications: Utilizing FDA-approved medical weight-loss treatments (such as GLP-1 receptor agonists) under strict medical supervision to help regulate appetite and digestion.
Bariatric Procedures: Opting for endoscopic treatments or metabolic surgeries (like gastric bypass) for patients with severe obesity or related chronic illnesses to physically restrict food intake and alter metabolic signaling. [1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 17, 23]
If you are researching this for a specific reason, please let me know. I can provide more details on how BMI is calculated, elaborate on specific treatment options, or share insights on how obesity affects a specific organ system.
Wegovy and Ozempic are breaking all records for weight loss. Of course, that would bring attention to it by the 40% of Americans who are categorized as obese in America.
Peptide Rx refers to prescription-only therapeutic peptides regulated by medical authorities for targeted health treatments. Unlike over-the-counter collagen supplements or unregulated research chemicals bought online, an "Rx" peptide must be evaluated and prescribed by a licensed healthcare provider. Peptides themselves are short chains of amino acids that mimic the body's natural signaling molecules to trigger specific cellular responses, such as cellular repair, hormone regulation, or metabolic changes. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
Common Prescription Peptides (Peptide Rx)
The landscape of prescribed peptides ranges from life-saving classics to cutting-edge metabolic medications:
Insulin: The most widely utilized prescription peptide in history, vital for blood sugar control in diabetes management.
GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: Heavily prescribed modern medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) or tirzepatide (Mounjaro and Zepbound). They mimic gut hormones to suppress appetite, slow digestion, and manage weight or diabetes.
Teriparatide: A synthetic parathyroid hormone approved by the FDA to treat osteoporosis by promoting new bone formation.
Growth Hormone Secretagogues: Compounds like Sermorelin or Tesamorelin, which are prescribed to stimulate the body's natural production of growth hormone for fat loss, muscle tone, or body composition.
Bremelanotide: An approved peptide used specifically to treat low sexual desire in premenopausal women. [1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]
Why the "Rx" Matters: Safety vs. Risks
While the trend of "peptide therapy" has exploded in longevity and wellness clinics, getting a legitimate prescription is essential for several safety reasons: [1, 15, 16]
Regulated Quality: True prescription peptides undergo rigorous clinical trials and manufacturing oversight. Unregulated products sold online often carry incorrect dosing or hidden contaminants.
Targeted Screening: Because therapeutic peptides can have "pleiotropic" effects—meaning they activate multiple pathways at once—they can impact blood pressure, fatigue, or hormone levels.
Medical Oversight: Certain peptides (like those stimulating growth hormones) require professional tracking because they carry potential theoretical risks, such as accelerating the growth of existing tumors. A doctor can evaluate your medical history and run necessary blood panels. [1, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20]
If you are considering peptide therapy, it is vital to consult a healthcare provider rather than purchasing unregulated compounds online. [17, 20]
Are you looking into prescription peptides for a specific health goal, such as weight management, injury recovery, or anti-aging? Let me know so I can share more detailed information on relevant protocols.
When Congress packaged $50 billion for rural healthcare inside HR 1, it offered a number large enough to generate headlines and excitement. But the distribution of funds, planned over five years, has raised questions.
The Rural Health Transformation Program arrived during a challenging period. Last year, at least 15 rural hospitals closed and hundreds more are at risk of doing so this year. At the time, critical access hospitals considered a 4% operating margin a stretch goal, and where the loss of Medicaid funding, state directed payments, and ACA subsidies are all hitting simultaneously.
The money was welcomed. The mandate attached to it is generating considerably more skepticism due to the lack of standard federal guidance for states administering the funds.
“Each state is translating how to implement this Rural Health Transformation fund,” Sommer Kleweno Walley, associate vice president of medical affairs at the University of Washington and CEO of Harborview Medical Center, both based in Seattle, said during a panel discussion at Becker’s 16th Annual Meeting in April. “I’m very much worried that it’s not going to be transformative in nature. There are so many hospitals that are in so much trouble from a stability standpoint. I’m not sure it’s going to do what it’s trying to do because they can’t transform right now when they can’t pay the payroll.”
Transformation requires stability to build from and most rural hospitals are in the black. Across conversations with rural health leaders this at the conference, a consistent concern emerged: The hospitals most in need of the fund’s dollars are the least positioned to access them, because the transformation the program envisions — alternative payment models, value-based care contracts, digital infrastructure — assumes organizational capacity that financially distressed rural providers don’t have.
Medicaid cuts also unveiled as part of the HR 1 legislation last year will hit rural healthcare facilities hard, as many rural communities have a high percentage of people on government payers.
“I feel like it was kind of a cherry that was put out there,” Ms. Kleweno Walley said. “Put the cherry on top of a healthcare bill, and now there’s not good oversight of it.”
One in 3 rural hospitals is at risk of closure right now, and many don’t have an immediate lifeline to keep operations running. Leaders are used to thin margins, but they’re nervous about the future and searching for additional revenue streams.
“The reality is that the rural transformation fund does not make up for the loss of state directed payments, MCO taxes and provider taxes,” said Stephen Parodi, MD, executive vice president of external affairs, communications and brand at The Permanente Federation and The Permanente Medical Group. “We’re talking about orders of magnitude of billions of dollars of cuts. I’m extremely worried about the rural safety net in this country writ large.”
If hospitals can’t make payments, their closures have a ripple effect on the community; patients lose close access to care and employees lose their jobs. Rural hospitals are often an economic force in their communities but don’t have the funding sources to withstand upcoming cuts.
“In a state where we’ve got a footprint, we’re seeing significant risk for hospital closures regardless of what this rural transformation fund’s about,” Dr. Parodi said. “There’s no way the states can make that up. There’s a bunch of advocacy that’s going to need to occur from the healthcare industry and that needs to come from multiple sectors, whether you’re talking about plans, hospitals or provider groups.”
One of the biggest challenges for rural healthcare is tackling the digital divide. There are areas of the country without strong internet access and bandwidth to connect people virtually to their healthcare providers. Hospitals are operating on aging EHR systems and unable to make routine updates, let alone incorporate advanced AI into their operations.
“A lot of the things in rural healthcare rely on technology, but when you get into rural areas, the technology is not available,” said Craig Glover, EdD, president and CEO of Family Health Centers in Charleston, W.Va. “I live in Charleston, the capital city. I have gig internet to my house, but if I get in my car and drive 15 or 20 minutes, I’ll get to some places where my cellphone doesn’t work. I would like to see policies around building the technology infrastructure in rural areas so that we can take advantage of some of those things. “
Van Loskoski, CEO of Stevens County Hospital in Toccoa, Ga., said the state is using about one-quarter of the funds in a single year to provide technical support to move providers to an alternative payment model. Other states are taking different routes, prioritizing certain projects to build for the future or upgrading technology.
But there’s also no guarantee that the funds go to rural hospitals or health centers.
“There’s a big opportunity there, but there’s also a big opportunity for assistance to be missed,” Mr. Loskoski said. “Make no mistake; it is not called the Rural Hospital Stabilization Program. It’s called the Rural Health Transformation Program, and that means, in title and intention, that pool of funds is intended to change the way that healthcare is delivered in rural areas.”
At the Becker's 11th Annual IT + Revenue Cycle Conference: The Future of AI & Digital Health, taking place September 14–17 in Chicago, healthcare executives and digital leaders from across the country will come together to explore how AI, interoperability, cybersecurity, and revenue cycle innovation are transforming care delivery, strengthening financial performance, and driving the next era of digital health. Apply for complimentary registration now.
Cedars-Sinai gives clinicians enterprise access to OpenEvidence. Los Angeles-based Cedars-Sinai has deployed the OpenEvidence systemwide, giving clinicians access to patient-specific medical literature within its EHR.
The clinical reference tool links peer-reviewed evidence to patient data — including prior procedures, medications, allergies and comorbidities — to support diagnosis and treatment decisions. Cedars-Sinai also plans to integrate its own care pathways and protocols into the platform, according to a May 20 news release.
The integration gives clinicians “a more complete and actionable understanding at the moment of care,” Cedars-Sinai Chief Health Informatics Officer Shaun Miller, MD, said in the release.
The deal follows a similar partnership announced March 31 between OpenEvidence and New York City-based Mount Sinai Health System, which the AI company described as its first enterprise deal with a health system.
OpenEvidence raised $250 million at a $12 billion valuation in January, up from $1 billion just over a year prior. The platform, which is free for physicians and trained solely on medical journals and data, says it was used by roughly 65% of U.S. physicians across nearly 27 million clinical encounters in April, according to NBC News.
At the Becker's 11th Annual IT + Revenue Cycle Conference: The Future of AI & Digital Health, taking place September 14–17 in Chicago, healthcare executives and digital leaders from across the country will come together to explore how AI, interoperability, cybersecurity, and revenue cycle innovation are transforming care delivery, strengthening financial performance
A woman in her fifties survived thyroid cancer. Then lost part of her windpipe to the surgery that saved her. Breathing became a daily struggle. Traditional repairs are complex, often fail, and she faced the prospect of ongoing airway issues with no good long-term fix. In August 2023, a Korean team tried something different.They took her own cells, ran them through a 3D bioprinter, and built a trachea designed for her body—layer by layer—so her immune system would treat it as its own.
Six months later: ↳ The airway held its shape ↳ New blood vessels had formed ↳ No immunosuppressants required ↳ Natural breathing restored
Professor Nam In-cheol, who led the surgery after a decade of research, put it simply: "I feel rewarded to be able to provide new hope for treatment to patients suffering from intractable airway diseases." This is still one patient. Durability, repeatability, and long-term safety need more data.
But the shift is real. Donor transplants depend on scarce tissue and lifelong drugs. This approach uses the patient's own cells plus a scaffold that lets the body heal around it.
If this scales: 1 patient shows it can be done. 10 patients show it holds up. 100 patients could change how we treat organ damage after cancer. We've spent decades fighting rejection. The better play is building parts the body accepts from day one. This content is for informational and educational purposes only.
According to leading radiologists, elective MRI screenings are not recommended and can do more harm than good. In a new editorial in JAMA, experts from the University of Michigan Health and the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health outline the downsides of these increasingly popular scans.
Three years after a warning that evidence did not support such elective screenings, the commercial popularity of whole-body MRI has only increased—despite a lack of endorsements from relevant professional organizations.
This most recent opinion piece cites a total of over 100,000 elective MRI customers to date, as offerings from major hospital systems and specialized companies proliferate.
Alongside co-author Scott B. Reeder, M.D., Ph.D., Chair of Radiology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Michigan Medicine radiologist Matthew Davenport, M.D., MBA, outlines why these screenings can be harmful, in addition to being expensive.
Downsides of detection
One of the points made in this latest JAMA editorial is counterintuitive for many patients: Detecting certain cancers early is not always beneficial. Many slow-progressing diseases can resemble each other on an MRI scan, requiring further diagnostic procedures, such as surgery, which contain their own risks.
Even when not dealing with false positives, however, types of cancer—and the benefits of early, aggressive interventions—vary greatly.
"Although established, evidence-based screening saves lives, not all screening improves health," Davenport said.
"In one study attempting to demonstrate the benefit of ovarian cancer screening, 212 women in the screening group were diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Compared to the group that did not get screened, however, there was no mortality benefit. Additionally, more than 1,000 patients underwent unnecessary surgery."
The authors observe that many incidentally detected cancers and cancers detected by screening of low-risk patients are slow-moving, and mortality is often not improved from their early detection. And the more aggressive cancers progress so quickly that MRI screening provides no measurable benefit.
Common extant cancer screening programs, like colonoscopies for patients over 45, were only arrived at after carefully studying the risks and benefits for the most affected populations.
A psychological cost. While the desire to undergo elective screening may stem from a patient's anxieties, an MRI may only worsen these fears.
The authors cite a 30% chance that something uncertain shows up on the scan, which can exacerbate worries and lead to additional anxiety associated with the risks and costs of diagnostic surgery.
"These nonspecific findings can cause emotional harm as you wait for a more specific diagnosis," Davenport said. "But that specific diagnosis may not come for many years, if ever. This process can profoundly affect self-image. You begin to view yourself as a patient with a problem, even if what was detected ultimately proves benign or very low risk."
The authors emphasize that in addition to the above harms, there exists no evidence that elective MRI extends or improves a person's quality of life.
The emergency room at Madera Community Hospital on March 18, 2025. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
A $25 million grant to cash-strapped hospitals became law less than a week after it was introduced — so fast that it caught some hospitals, their advocates, and even some lawmakers, off guard.
It also left a litany of unanswered questions: who came up with the narrow criteria, how many hospitals would qualify and whether the funding will be enough to prevent hospital closures in the near term.
Assembly Bill 108, signed into law last week, will provide grants to public and nonprofit hospitals that meet several criteria, including having less than 10 days of cash on hand and having more than half of their patients on government-funded insurance programs or uninsured. The goal is to tide eligible hospitals over until July 1, when the new fiscal year begins, said Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the Senate Budget Committee and championed the funding bill.
The measure, put in print on May 4, flew through both legislative chambers in just three days before Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it within hours. By Monday, the program was up and running and hospitals had just a week to apply. The Department of Health Care Access and Information will announce recipients May 26.
“It is a rare occurrence for bills to go from the starting block to the finish line in just a few days,” said veteran lobbyist and Capitol watcher Chris Micheli, who said the speed reflects the urgent need of hospitals and a consensus among leaders.
Hospital leaders interested in applying said they were pleased the Legislature acted so quickly, though some are scrambling to meet the application deadline after learning about it just a week ago.
Laird told CalMatters that he knows of two to three hospitals that will likely qualify but declined to name them, arguing that doing so could scare off vendors and hospital staff.
When pressed, he acknowledged that potential recipients include Watsonville Community Hospital in his own district.
“This bill comes at a completely inopportune time in the budget process, and the time was not dictated by us,” Laird said during a budget hearing last Tuesday. “It was dictated by a few hospitals going under.”
The criteria are so narrow and the bill moved in such an “expedited fashion” that it seems tailored to the needs of a specific hospital, said Assembly Budget Committee Vice Chair David Tangipa, a Fresno Republican, who voted for the bill nonetheless.
“It says 10 days. Why not put it at 30 days?” he said. “They needed to make sure that even though it appears to be a general fund that all of these other hospitals could apply for, that probably only one hospital met all of those qualifications.”
Neither Laird nor the finance department staff was able to explain how they came up with the criteria, including why they picked 10 days — instead of any other number — of cash on hand to indicate a dire enough financial situation. Hospital administrators said the typical goal is at least 90 days of cash on hand.
The ambiguity frustrated some state lawmakers, who repeatedly pressed for clarity during the budget hearing. Sen. Chris Cabaldon, a Napa Democrat, called the lack of answers “profoundly disturbing.”
“It’s been one long ‘I said what I said’ hearing,” he said. Still, he voted for it.
Others lamented that the criteria, especially the 10-day threshold, should have been expanded to allow more hospitals to compete for the funding.
“Right now, it’s far too narrow, and really by this time the hospital has gone over the cliff,” Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, a Los Angeles Democrat, told CalMatters in an interview. She, too, voted for it. “We want to figure out who's standing on the cliff, who's a few feet from the cliffs, who's a mile from the cliff.”
The $25 million grant comes as hospitals across California, particularly in rural areas, say they are at risk of dropping services or shutting their doors due to rising labor costs and federal Medi-Cal funding cuts.
The funding woes sparked calls for renewed funding for the state’s Distressed Hospital Loan Program, which in 2023 gave 16 financially distressed hospitals nearly $300 million. Of those, 15 have asked for more time to repay the debt, and nine of them have also applied for loan forgiveness, according to the California Health Facilities Financing Authority.
The California Hospital Association, which represents nearly 400 hospitals, is sponsoring a bill to put another $300 million into the loan program. Senate Democrats proposed $200 million in funding in mid-April but have not specified if the dollars would be a loan or a grant.
Newsom proposed up to $50 million toward hospitals in “immediate and significant financial distress” in 2026-27 in his budget revision Thursday.
A few hospitals plan to apply
Watsonville Community Hospital, which has publicly shared its financial struggles, reported having 8 days of cash on hand in the last quarter of 2025, according to the most recent financial records collected by the state. The hospital received an $8.3 million state loan in 2023 as part of the distressed hospital program lawmakers passed that year. When asked about the hospital, Laird said the hospital is “quite likely” to be eligible.
“This is critically important for the hospital as we navigate fiscal challenges brought on by funding delays and cutbacks at the federal level,” hospital spokesperson Jennifer Murray said in an email.
State Sen. John Laird at the state Capitol in Sacramento, on Jan. 22, 2026. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters
Hospitals in the Central Valley and rural Southern California also could benefit from the grant, according to Laird.
Madera Community Hospital told CalMatters it intends to apply for a slice of the grant money. The hospital reopened its doors in March 2025 after closing at the start of 2023. American Advanced Management, the company that took over the hospital, received $57 million from the state to reopen it. State data show the hospital ended 2025 with two days of cash on hand.
Delays in reimbursements and low patient volume in its outpatient clinics are contributing to Madera Community’s slower-than-expected recovery, said Matthew Beehler, a spokesperson for the hospital. He said Madera Community is still working on contracting with some insurers and is not yet receiving funds from the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee, a state-federal supplemental payment program for hospitals that serve a high number of Medi-Cal and uninsured patients. State data show that in 2022, before the hospital closed, it relied on more than $16 million in supplemental payments.
The $57 million from the state, Beehler said, helped cover the hospital’s first six months of operations. Beyond that, American Advanced Management has covered the shortfalls.
“I think that we are headed towards the path of real sustainability for the hospital,” Beehler said. “It just takes time to have all that sort of reach its state of equilibrium.”
In the Eastern Sierra, Dr. Kevin Flanigan, CEO of the Southern Inyo Healthcare District, said he, too, plans to apply for the state’s emergency grant. He said his hospital needs about $1 million to get through 2026. However, he does not know if his hospital will qualify given the 10 days of cash on hand criteria. He said Southern Inyo’s cash balance fluctuates anywhere between 18 to 20 days of cash to 8 to 10 days — grim in either case.
If his hospital doesn’t qualify for a grant? “Then God willing, we find money elsewhere. If not, we begin the process of closing certain things,” Flanigan said. Southern Inyo is a small hospital, with only four acute care beds, 30 skilled nursing beds and an outpatient clinic; there isn’t much to cut from, he said.
“We are clearly one of the most precarious hospitals in the state.”
Unanswered questions
Laird told CalMatters he is confident the $25 million will be enough to save hospitals facing the most imminent threat of closure.
But it’s unclear how he and the finance department arrived at the dollar amount. Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer said the figure represents the administration’s “best assessment of potential funding needs” and is partly based on the Distressed Hospital Loan Program, which gave 16 hospitals an average of $19 million each to keep them afloat for several years.
Laird said the amount was based on the number of hospitals legislators “informally” think would be eligible. Whatever is left untapped by June 30 would revert back to the state, he said, and legislators could add more funding if it runs out.
“It is what we think is necessary now,” Laird said.
The Department of Health Care Access and Information collects and publishes financial data from hospitals quarterly, but that data lags. Which hospitals qualify for the grant will depend largely on their self-reported finances as of April 15, the department said.
Many state lawmakers want more answers, too. Sen. Shannon Grove, a Bakersfield Republican, grilled finance department staff over the bill details.
“How long is this lifeline going to last? Is it even going to save the people who are in the 10-day timeframe?” she asked.
“That is the intent,” said Lupe Manriquez of the Department of Finance.
“I know it’s the intent. Is it going to save them?” Grove pressed.
“That’s the goal,” Manriquez answered.
Cabaldon told the staff he wouldn’t even bother asking about the criteria because “I already know what the answer is going to be.”
“It is incumbent on this committee to be able to have real answers to the questions that are posed about the why and the evidence,” Cabaldon said. “We are not having a conversation. We are asking questions of fulfilling our constitutional role in this process and getting zero answers.”
Palmer called the heat on his staff “undignified sniping and sarcasm,” noting that the bill originated from the same legislative chamber that’s now questioning it.
“They asked for our assistance in the expedited consideration of the bill outside of the regular budget process — and we complied and cooperated,” Palmer said in an email. “If members were either unable or unwilling to do some basic homework on their own bill that they wanted to be put on a fast track, then that’s a question that’s better posed to them — not us.”
How long a lifeline?
But throwing money at hospitals to keep them afloat is not the answer, some lawmakers argued.
“We can’t just keep giving $25 million handouts over 10 days where a hospital is looking to close,” Smallwood-Cuevas said, noting that President Donald Trump’s H.R. 1, which sharply reduces federal spending on Medicaid, could devastate hospitals.
“What is the state doing to identify and support vulnerable safety net hospitals before they reach the point of fiscal crisis? That is an answer I want to hear.”
Some hospital administrators also called for longer-term solutions. Katherine Burnworth, board president of the Imperial Valley Healthcare District, which oversees Imperial County’s two hospitals, told CalMatters that while she appreciates state action, $25 million statewide “is a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of the problem.”
“That may help a small number of hospitals avoid a near-term emergency, but it does not address the ongoing instability that communities like ours live with year after year,” Burnworth said.
While acknowledging the importance of emergency grants, Republicans on the committee argued that California has shortchanged hospitals’ Medi-Cal reimbursements. The California Hospital Association estimates that hospitals are reimbursed 74 cents for each dollar they spend on Medi-Cal patients. Hospitals that see a high share of Medi-Cal patients do get supplemental payments to help offset some of the gaps in reimbursement.
The GOP lawmakers also said that some state regulations, such as a minimum wage hike for health care workers and the requirement that all hospitals comply with new seismic safety requirements by 2030, will burden hospitals with high costs.
“We are throwing Band-Aids on everything, when really we need to just get together and fix the issues of what are the unfunded state mandates that are on our hospitals right now,” Tangipa said.
