The Trump Administration yanked more than $65 million in Title X funding from clinics nationwide in April, and some of that funding is still frozen, leaving clinics struggling to offer free or low-cost contraception and other family planning services. Some states are suing to get the funding back, but Idaho officials chose to forego it due to a conflict with state law. (Getty Images)

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare quietly declined the entirety of its annual $1.5 million federal Title X funding, leaving patients statewide without free and low-cost contraception and reproductive health care services from a key family planning program. 

Though thousands of Idahoans relied on the health care provided through Title X for over 50 years, the state made no public announcements as the decision took effect in April, leading to the closure of 28 out of 43 — about 65% — Title X-funded family planning clinics in public health districts throughout the state, according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. 

After turning down the Title X money entirely, Health and Welfare said there are no plans for the state to make up the difference by increasing the family planning budget. 

In one district, Eastern Idaho Public Health, spokesperson Brenna Christofferson said contraception services are no longer available at all, which has only been communicated to existing Title X patients. Sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, and breast and cervical cancer screenings are still provided using different funding sources.

Many of the clinics closed in eastern Idaho, including more populated cities such as Twin Falls and Idaho Falls, and more rural areas such as Salmon, Rexburg and Rigby. Title X services also ended at clinics like Terry Reilly Health Services in one of southwestern Idaho’s most populous areas of Nampa and Caldwell. 

The decision to forego the funds came at the same time the Trump administration yanked more than $65 million in Title X funding from Planned Parenthood clinics and some independent reproductive health clinics across the country, much of which is still frozen, including for Idaho’s last remaining Planned Parenthood in Meridian. Spokesperson Nicole Erwin said Planned Parenthood continues to fundraise to help offset costs and keep family planning services affordable on a sliding scale.

Although Idaho’s move came at the same time national attention was focused on the frozen funds, it was a separate decision, according to Health and Welfare.

“The discontinuation of Title X funding … was not related to the federal administration’s Title X policy changes earlier this year,” said AJ McWhorter, spokesperson for the Health and Welfare Department. “The department made the decision to decline the funding to remain compliant with current Idaho laws concerning parental rights and counseling on pregnancy options.”

Nationally, seven out of 16 grantees have had their funding restored, while others have been waiting nearly seven months for resolution, said Clare Coleman, president and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

“For Idaho to walk away from the money doesn’t just disadvantage and imperil young people, it imperils all the people in the state,” she said. “It hurts women, it hurts men, and it hurts young people.”

Coleman’s organization sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the frozen funds, and the case is still pending. A coalition of 20 Democratic-led states sued federal government agencies in July to halt its actions related to several social safety net programs, including Title X. That case is paused while the government is shut down.

In 2023, U.S. Health and Human Services reported Title X provided care to nearly 3 million people nationwide, a 7% increase from the prior year. Under the program guidelines, people with family income levels at or below 100% of the federal poverty level can receive services free of charge, while those making up to 250% of the federal poverty level pay a discounted rate on a sliding scale.  

The program, established by Congress and signed by former Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970, is intended to prioritize low-income or uninsured people, including those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, who may not otherwise have access to family planning and reproductive health services. Abortion services cannot be covered by Title X dollars.

Pregnancy options and parental consent 

The federal statute guiding the administration of Title X funds includes a section on adolescent services that says grantees cannot require the consent of parents or guardians before or after the minor has requested or received family planning services. Another section directs grantees to allow pregnant patients the opportunity to receive information and counseling regarding prenatal care and delivery, infant care, foster care, adoption and pregnancy termination. Idaho has a near-total abortion ban with few exceptions.

Idaho’s Legislature passed Senate Bill 1329 in 2024, requiring parental consent for “the furnishing of health care services” to a child, with the exception of lifesaving care. Idaho Capital Sun reported the law has also created difficulties for the state’s suicide hotline, because some minors need permission from a parent to receive certain services.

Coleman said the adolescent and pregnancy options requirements have long been part of Title X guidance, and it has not conflicted with state law because federal law should take precedence under the U.S. Constitution.

Idaho is one of at least two states that currently has no Title X funding, Coleman said, after Utah lost all of its Title X money when the Trump administration withheld funding from Planned Parenthood clinics, which were the only places offering those low-cost or free services. Planned Parenthood of Utah closed two of its centers — in Logan and St. George — in the wake of the decision to freeze funding. Logan is less than an hour away from eastern Idaho’s border.

Some states were temporarily left without Title X providers after the Trump administration’s actions in April, but the funding was restored at later dates for certain states, including Missouri and Mississippi. The federal health agency also restored funds in May for two states with abortion bans, Tennessee and Oklahoma, whose grants were revoked under Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration because of their refusal to include abortion among the options during pregnancy counseling. 

In a letter from HHS to Tennessee state officials providing notice of the award, the acting chief grants management officer wrote, “Tennessee is one of only two states to have lost funding for failure to comply with the Title X 2021 regulations requiring counseling and referral for abortion. The department is declining to enforce this provision against the state, and you may rely on this letter to that effect.” 

A total of 7,528 Title X clients were served across Idaho in 2024, McWhorter said. The 15 remaining family planning clinics are supported by other funds, and additional service sites may be added as funding becomes available. Those clinics are in two out of the state’s seven public health districts, which served about 1,400 people combined in 2024. 

The closures add another challenge in an already difficult landscape for sexual and reproductive health care in Idaho. A recent study found that 94 of 268 practicing OB-GYNs left Idaho between August 2022 and December 2024, and care is becoming harder to obtain, according to residents, who say wait times are longer and certain treatment is unavailable locally. 

Coleman said under Biden’s administration, when an entity lost Title X dollars for noncompliance or other reasons, there was an effort to reallocate the funding to another willing participant. Without that action, it would revert back to the U.S. Treasury, and the next opportunity for another Idaho entity to apply for Title X funding will be late 2026. 

Preventing unplanned pregnancies 

Amy Klingler, a clinician in rural eastern Idaho, told States Newsroom she was devastated by the closure of Eastern Idaho Public Health’s family planning clinic. She worked there in addition to another clinical job since 2006 and said there aren’t many other options for family planning care in that area of the state.

“Idahoans don’t trust doctors, but they trust their doctor,” Klingler said. “So when we see rural health care being eroded and doctors leaving Idaho or not coming to Idaho, I think that is really going to impact the health of people in our communities.”

The additional cuts to Planned Parenthood through Medicaid, along with overall Medicaid cuts that may force the closure of more rural hospitals and clinics, will force people to delay care until they are sicker and require more expensive medical care, Klingler said.

The minor consent for treatment bill had good intentions, she said, and in an ideal world, every child would feel comfortable talking to their family members about birth control. But she said she is confident there are young women who don’t get birth control because they don’t want to have that conversation with their parents. 

And with Idaho’s abortion ban, unplanned pregnancies either have to be carried to term or the person must go to another state where abortion is legal. It’s also a felony in Idaho for someone to take a minor to another state for an abortion without parental permission.

“Providing free birth control is really powerful if you’re trying to prevent unplanned pregnancies,” Klingler said.

On her last day at the family planning clinic in June, Klingler said the staffers cried together.

“We often ended the day by saying, ‘We did some really good work today,’” she said. “And to not be able to do that good work kind of hurts the heart.”

Robert Thornton received personalized hospital care for COVID-19 and pneumonia in his Belvidere, Ill., home in 2024 as part of a Medicare in-home care program that expired October 1. (Photo courtesy of OSF Healthcare)

The federal government shutdown is forcing a reckoning for two remote health care programs because they automatically expired Oct. 1.

The telehealth and in-home hospital care programs were both temporary — but increasingly popular — options for Medicare recipients. They allowed doctors and hospitals to bill Medicare for telehealth appointments and in-home visits from nurses to provide care that is generally only available in hospitals.

The shutdown has prevented Congress from extending them.

More than 4 million Medicare beneficiaries used telehealth services in the first half of the year, according to Brown University’s Center for Advancing Health Policy through Research.

As of last fall, 366 hospitals had participated in the hospital-at-home program, serving 31,000 patients, according to a federal report. The program, officially called Acute Hospital Care at Home, allows patients who would otherwise be hospitalized to get inpatient care at home with a combination of nurse visits, monitoring equipment and remote doctor visits.

The programs have their roots in the pandemic, when doctors and hospitals wanted to keep patients safe from the risks of travel and hospital stays. Both are for Medicare recipients, generally people over 65 or who are disabled. But since many private insurers follow federal guidelines, some physicians have stopped booking telemedicine appointments for non-Medicare patients, rather than risk a change in insurance coverage.

Alexis Wynn, who is in her mid-30s and covered by private insurance through her employer, tried to switch an in-person doctor appointment in Pennsylvania to a video visit last week. The office told her that “all telemedicine is uncovered by insurance as of Oct. 1” — so she had to cancel the routine appointment.

“It was just a follow-up appointment  to make sure the dosing of my medication was still accurate, nothing that was pertinent to being face-to-face,” Wynn said. Her health insurance company later told her it still covered telehealth visits.

There have been other reports of insurers turning down non-Medicare telehealth appointments, said Alexis Apple, director of federal affairs for the American Telemedicine Association, a trade group.

“It’s a misunderstanding,” Apple said. “I’m not really sure what’s happening, but it’s unfortunate and very scary. There’s so much uncertainty out there now, and we see insurance payers start to pull back.”

Both telehealth and home hospital services can be a lifeline for older people, especially in rural areas, where residents may struggle to travel long distances for health care in person.

“In rural America, it’s often telemedicine or no medicine at all,” said Dr. David Newman, chief medical officer of virtual care at Sanford Health in South Dakota, in a September statement supporting congressional action to make Medicare telehealth permanent. Bipartisan bills that would have allowed telehealth to continue stalled in committee earlier this year in the Senate and House.

There’s an exception for telehealth rural residents — but only if they travel to a brick-and-mortar health care facility to get the remote health care service.

“The patients have to go to a clinic to receive that telehealth visit from a provider in a different location,” Apple said. “It kind of defeats the purpose.”

According to the Brown University report, California had the highest rate of Medicare telehealth usage in the first six months of this year, with 26% of beneficiaries using at least one telehealth appointment, followed by 23% in Massachusetts and 21% in Hawaii.

There’s no reason for non-Medicare insurers to stop covering any telehealth visits during the shutdown, and even most Medicare Advantage programs will continue to cover telehealth, according to Tina Stow, a spokesperson for AHIP, a health industry trade association.

Nevertheless, at least some health care centers are refusing to take new telehealth appointments or are converting existing ones to office visits.

“This is causing a lot of confusion. We are still working with our members who are insurers and providers to get a gauge on what folks are doing — because at this point reports we’ve seen seem to suggest it is company by company, provider by provider,” said Sean Brown, a spokesperson for the Health Leadership Council, representing CEOs of health care firms and insurers.

The hospital-at-home program serves a smaller number of patients but its pause has caused more disruption: The federal government required patients to be discharged from the program or transferred to a brick-and-mortar hospital by Oct.1.

The Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic had 30 patients in the program in Arizona, Florida and Wisconsin — all of whom either had to be released from the program or sent to brick-and-mortar hospitals. One of Mayo’s hospitals in Florida was already over capacity and had no room for transfers, according to reporting by Becker’s Hospital Review.

In Massachusetts, which requires commercial insurers to follow Medicare guidelines, all insured patients had to leave the program. Mass General Brigham, which operates many hospitals in the state, has rejiggered its plans to create more home care without relying on the hospital-at-home program, according to the Becker’s report.

Congress was unable to avert a shutdown by late September, and some individual providers and patients were caught unawares.

Nurses on social media discussed losing home-care jobs or being reassigned overnight when the hospital-at-home program closed Oct. 1. They worried about patients being taken away from children at home, or placed in hallway beds at overcrowded emergency rooms because of the abrupt change.

“Management scheduled a random call this morning with a super vague title. Then drop the bomb on us,” wrote one poster in Texas. “So no job. Perfect!”

In a direct message, the poster, who didn’t want their name used for fear of getting in trouble at their hospital, told Stateline, “This obviously wasn’t ideal for the patients. One of them had four children and now could no longer be home with them. Some didn’t even get to have a bed in the hospital because there were none available and had to stay in the ER in a hallway bed.”

Parkland Health System in Dallas started tapering off its hospital-at-home program in September because of the impending shutdown, and the last patients were discharged from the program by Sept. 30 without returning to the hospital, spokesperson Wendi Hawthorne said.

“We are hopeful that Congress will renew this innovative model of care in the future,” Hawthorne said.

Likewise, OSF Healthcare in Peoria, Illinois, had started to wind down its hospital-at-home program “to avoid needing to return multiple patients to a very crowded facility,” said Jennifer Junis, president of OSF OnCall, which handles home hospital care.

There were only three patients in the program Sept. 30, all of whom were ready to be discharged without returning to the hospital, Junis said. Since the program’s start in 2020, it has helped 980 patients with home care through OSF’s Saint Francis Medical Center in Peoria.

“It is unfortunate that we will not be able to benefit by treating qualifying patients at home, where they are most comfortable and recover faster,” Junis said. “Our digital hospital program has allowed us to free up beds for our sickest patients who need them most.”

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.