Search This Blog

Friday, April 11, 2025

Is It Asthma or COPD, PCPs?

 Chronic lower respiratory diseases, namely, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are the fifth-leading cause of death in the United States. A contributing factor is diagnostic errors, which can lead to delayed or ineffective treatments and mismanagement.

Telling the difference between these two conditions can be difficult. Not only do they affect broad, diverse populations but also overlapping symptoms and clinical features coupled with a lack of validated screening tools can make diagnosis difficult.

How then, are primary care doctors able to effectively distinguish asthma and COPD, especially given their complexity? 

“Asthma and COPD are conditions that present often with very similar symptoms and patients can have them together; they’re both diseases that affect the airways and cause similar patterns on pulmonary function testing,” said Joseph Skalski, MD, head of the asthma section and an assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. “It often comes down to a patient’s clinical history to distinguish the two. But to know what to look at, you need to understand these diseases.” 

Square Peg, Round Hole

Many pulmonologists acknowledge the “messiness” of these conditions. Not only can they occur together in the same patient but also “there are many different subtypes in which they show up for patients,” said David Beuther, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine at National Jewish Health in Denver.

photo of David Beuther
David Beuther, MD, PhD

“There’s never going to be a ‘one size fits all,” said Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, associate professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

There are, however, certain distinguishing features that can help clinicians develop a more refined idea, said Beuther. For example, asthma is typically best characterized by its variability and COPD by fixed symptoms.

Where to start? A comprehensive medical history is essential.

Time Travel Is Key

Galiatsatos recommended that primary care physicians take a “time travel” with patients to gain important diagnostic clues.

“Were they premature? Did they have any childhood infections that sent them to the hospital? Were they able to keep up with their peers in sports or during recess?” he said. With female patients, he would try to learn if, during pregnancy, they had experienced any breathing issues, which might point to asthma.

“Then we get into adulthood. I ask patients to tell me when they’re breathless, ie, if it’s when they are on flat surfaces (more indicative of conditioning) or when they are climbing stairs (which might indicate that they’re being robbed of blood flow, and more likely have COPD),
he said. Family history is also important.” 

One of the most helpful differences is if the patient has good and bad days (asthma), or constantly live with bad and worse days (COPD), said Galiatsatos, also noting the benefit of the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, which can help classify dyspnea severity in respiratory diseases, especially COPD. Roughly 75% of patients with COPD have also been shown to experience moderate to high chronic cough and/or sputum production.

“The big thing with COPD is the exposure to something that can injure the lungs,” said Mark Yoder, MD, associate professor of medicine, Department of Internal Medicine at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago. “In the United States, that is largely going to be tobacco smoke and certainly, other exposures — mostly occupational — for example, in Chicago where there are large hangers of buses that are warmed up indoors, a bus driver is going to be exposed to high concentrations of diesel fumes.”

Additional occupationally-related exposures include chemicals and fumes that could affect house cleaners, military veterans, firefighters, and others.

Another important consideration is age.

photo of Joseph Skalski
Joseph Skalski, MD

“Almost uniformly, COPD is going to be a disease of patients who are 40 years or older, with the exception of some genetic conditions or maybe some very severe exposures,” said Skalski. “A younger patient with obstruction is likely to have asthma and an older patient with obstruction, COPD. But you can’t distinguish based on age alone,” he emphasized, which is where spirometry can help.

On the other hand, for asthma, “you want to look for clues that support the diagnosis, for example, dermatitis, allergic nose and sinus disease, childhood history, etc.,” said Skalski. “About 60% of cases are going to be eosinophilic asthma, which can be confirmed by laboratory testing for elevated peripheral eosinophil count.”

Spirometry Benefits and Challenges

Data suggest that a medical history that focuses on specific factors such as smoking history, certain respiratory symptoms, and the presence/absence of allergies is a reliable strategy for differentiating asthma and COPD. However, for accuracy, a post bronchodilator spirometry should be conducted.

American Thoracic Guidelines define suspected asthma as a post bronchodilator increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV112% and 200 mL volume, which is consistent with airflow limitation. In COPD, the fixed FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio is low (< 70%) and remains persistently so.

photo of Pretty blonde woman having breath difficulties
Mark Yoder, MD

“Spirometry can be done by anybody trained to do it,” said Yoder, “but there are rules that need to be followed to ensure that it’s high quality. And there are definitions of what obstruction is (as well as ways to interpret results) depending on the disease process that you’re talking about.”

“If you have the capability to conduct high quality spirometry where patients perform with maximal effort then go for it,” advised Skalski. Without those criteria, the test is more likely to underestimate a patient’s lung function and sometimes, falsely diagnose COPD or asthma where there is none, he said.

“Several times a week, I will see a patient who had spirometry done locally that showed falsely low values because the test wasn’t performed at maximal effort.”

Instead, it might be easier to send staff to training courses or refer patients to local pulmonary function labs for testing, although, depending on where you are, facilities might be limited in number.

“If there is one point to get out to a primary care audience, it’s that you should never diagnose a patient with COPD (or asthma) without spirometry,” said Skalski. “Other tests, including a chest x-ray, labs, and local eosinophilia can be helpful adjuncts. Just be careful to have a clear diagnosis before starting treatment; inhalers are not benign.”

Skalski, Beuther, Galiatsatos, and Yoder reported no relevant financial relationships.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/it-asthma-or-copd-clinical-pearls-diagnosis-pcps-2025a10008pl

Weight-Loss Surgery Instead of GLP-1s? Or Are Both Best?

 At least two recent studies have found bariatric surgery more cost-effective, long term, than the pricey glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist obesity medications. Another recent study concluded that two leading GLP-1s are not cost-effective at current prices.

It begs the question: Should physicians suggest bariatric surgery for more of their patients with obesity?

Yes, obesity medicine experts told Medscape Medical News.

“I do think bariatric surgery is definitely underutilized, and primary care and other physicians should be thinking more often about referring their patients,” said Ryan Macht, MD, MS, an obesity medicine physician and bariatric surgeon in Belmont, California. Macht, who is also a member of the Bariatric Medical-Surgical Committee, Obesity Medicine Association, Centennial, Colorado, treats patients with both bariatric surgery and anti-obesity medications.

Despite bariatric surgery’s long track record, and the variety of surgical options, only about 1% of patients eligible for bariatric surgery actually get it, according to estimates by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS). The organization said there is an overall risk for major complications of about 4% and the risk for death at about 0.1%.

Physicians should be suggesting more patients consider bariatric surgery, but not to the exclusion of medication, Macht and others said. For some, combining medication and surgery may produce the best results. For instance, one study found that preoperative use of GLP-1s may reduce complications after bariatric surgery in those with extreme obesity.

Cost-Effectiveness: Closer Look

In the analysis presented at the American College of Surgeons meeting in October, researchers compared the cost-effectiveness of GLP-1 medications with that of bariatric surgery. They took into account costs of the medications and the surgery and evaluated how many healthy years of life a patient could gain from the treatments, using modeling.

“Bariatric surgery and most important bariatric surgery with these medications is much more cost-effective than just taking these medications alone,” said Anne Stey, MD, assistant professor of surgery at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago and the senior author on the study.

“Bariatric surgery alone had a cost of $21,539 [on average], and 1 year of GLP-1 use was $11,935,” she said.

photo of Anne Stey, MD, MS
Anne Stey, MD

The medication costs would have to decline by 70% or 75%, Stey’s team found, for the cost-effectiveness to even out with surgery.

In another study, Florida researchers compared the costs between GLP-1 medications and bariatric surgery to find a break-even point. They looked at average 2023 national retail prices for GLP-1s and surgical cost estimates from 2015 adjusted for inflation.

Conclusions: “…for some GLP-1s like Saxenda and Wegovy, the high cost of ongoing use surpasses the cost of RYGB [Roux-en-Y or gastric bypass] in less than a year and sleeve gastrectomy within 9 months.”

The most affordable option studied, Byetta, becomes more costly than surgery after about 1.5 years.

University of Chicago researchers conducted a lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis using the validated Diabetes, Obesity, Cardiovascular Disease Microsimulation model for US adults. The model projected long-term cardiometabolic outcome, the amount of additional healthy years, and healthcare expenditures with the use of four anti-obesity medications, including two of the new GLP-1s, semaglutide and tirzepatide. They compared the use of the GLP-1s and lifestyle modification with that of lifestyle modification alone.

The newer GLP-1s offered long-term health benefits but weren’t cost-effective at current prices, the researchers said.

Bariatric Surgery: Increasing

In 2022, 279,967 bariatric surgeries were performed in the United States, up from 262,893 in 2021, according to the ASMBS, with sleeve gastrectomy and RYGB being the most popular ones.

Estimates of weight loss with surgery vary. Patients may lose as much as 60% of excess weight after 6 months, according to ASMBS, and 77% in as early as 12 months.

Others cite different estimates. Surgery patients can expect to lose 20%-50% of their excess weight, according to Catherine (Cate) Varney, DO, obesity medicine director for University of Virginia Health, Charlottesville, Virginia, and a primary care and obesity medicine doctor at its comprehensive bariatric surgery center.

In comparison, she tells patients, weight loss using diet and lifestyle averages 5%-10%, and up to 20% for obesity medicines.

photo of Catherine Varney
Catherine (Cate) Varney, DO

Tracking bariatric surgery patients long term to assess success is difficult for researchers, said Ann M. Rogers, MD, director of the Surgical Weight Loss Program, Penn State Health, and president of the ASMBS, because so many patients are lost to follow-up. She contends that’s because many who do well don’t keep in contact with their doctors.

She cited a study done in 2016, when researchers compared the outcomes of 151 patients with consistent 10-year follow-up with those of 500 patients who submitted data for the study. Researchers found no difference in weight-loss outcomes between the groups, with the research refuting claims that those lost to follow-up gain back the weight.

“A lot of commercial insurance companies do cover bariatric surgery,” Rogers said, but often requires patients first to spend 6-12 months in a lifestyle weight-loss program. She sees a trend to major insurers becoming more stringent with this requirement.

GLP-1’s Track Record

While weight loss with the GLP-1s varies person to person and with different medications, the SURMOUNT-5 phase 3b, open-label, randomized clinical trial found tirzepatide (Zepbound) produces a loss of 20.25% vs 13.7% with semaglutide (Wegovy).

Yet discontinuation rates are high, with users citing costs and side effects. In a retrospective cohort study of 125,474 adults with overweight or obesity who started a GLP-1 (liraglutide, semaglutide, or tirzepatide) between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2023, most discontinued the medication within a year. Those without type 2 diabetes, taking the medication for overweight or obesity, were more likely to stop the medication and less likely to restart it.

In 2024, just 18% of large firms offering health benefits covered GLP-1s for obesity, which can cost $1000 per month out of pocket without coverage. And on April 7, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced it would not be moving forward with a proposal suggested under the Biden administration to cover the medications under its Part D drug program.

Broaching the Surgery Idea

The topic of bariatric surgery does come up in visits, primary care and obesity medicine physicians said. “Most of the patients who seek my care have considered bariatric surgery but want to see if medical weight loss in an option first,” said Sarah Stombaugh, MD, a family medicine and obesity medicine physician in Charlottesville, Virginia.

“As we’ve seen the effectiveness of weight-loss medications improve, there are many patients who may think ‘Let me try medications first, and if that doesn’t work, then I’ll consider surgery.’”

photo of Sarah Stombaugh
Sarah Stombaugh, MD

“While the complication rates from bariatric surgery have improved significantly over the past few decades, it is still a major surgery,” Stombaugh said.

Varney recalled a patient considering surgery who was nervous about the risks. When the patient mentioned a previous surgery (not related to obesity) that had gone well, Varney told her the bariatric surgery risks were the same or less than those of her prior surgery. “She had the surgery and did great,” she said, achieving a body mass index of 24.

Rogers describes GLP-1s as a “gateway drug,” explaining that people who would not have considered obesity treatment might now consider medications, with the arrival of the GLP-1s. Then, if the medications stop working, “they might consider surgery,” which they would not have considered otherwise.

Macht and Stey had no disclosures. Rogers is a proctor and/or speaker for Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic, and W.L. Gore. Stombaugh is on the Lilly faculty for Zepbound. Varney was on a primary care advisory board for Eli Lilly in 2024.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/weight-loss-surgery-instead-glp-1s-or-are-both-best-2025a10008ol

Top Medical Schools for 2025

 This year's "Best Medical Schools" rankings

opens in a new tab or window from U.S. News & World Report have been released, marking the second time top institutions for research and primary care were sorted into tiers, and not assigned ordinal rankings.

Like last year, medical schools are ranked using a four-tier system in which overall scores were calculated based on percentile performance compared to all rated schools. Peer assessment or professional reputation surveys were not included in the methodology, U.S. News noted.

Last year's rankingsopens in a new tab or window had been rolled out with substantial changes after being delayed for the second year in a rowopens in a new tab or window. These changes included the first move away from ordinal rankings, which the "Best Hospitals" rankings from U.S. News have since also implementedopens in a new tab or window.

Further back in the rocky road for the rankings, in 2023, a number of top schools had said they would no longer submit data to or participate in the rankings. Harvard Medical School led the way in doing soopens in a new tab or window, and a number of other institutions followed suitopens in a new tab or window.

Ultimately, for the 2025 lists, there were 105 medical and osteopathic schools with eligible data for the research rankings, and 99 schools with data for the primary care rankings.

For this year's rankings, U.S. News surveyed medical and osteopathic schools fully accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association.

Survey data, in combination with third-party statistics, were used to assign tiers. Indicators used to determine top institutions for research included total research activity, total research activity per faculty member, total NIH research grants, and average NIH research grants per faculty, while indicators used for primary care included the proportions of medical school graduates practicing in primary care specialties and medical school graduates entering primary care residencies.

Other indicators used for both research and primary care were median Medical College Admission Test score, median undergraduate GPA, acceptance rate, and faculty resources.

No medical schools were assessed solely on data reported in previous editions.

Like last year, schools that did not submit a U.S. News statistical survey (or submitted a survey that was lacking key data) have been displayed as unranked on the outlet's website. "Although prospective medical school students would benefit from learning more about these unranked schools, a comparative ranking of participating schools is more informative than having no listing at all," U.S. News contended.

The outlet noted that 80% of the top 100 schools in both research and primary care were assessed.

U.S. News added that it "strongly believes in improving medical school data transparency, both by encouraging schools to report data to U.S. News and by making more information publicly available on their websites."

"Altogether, more data is better for everyone," it stated.

Though the 2025 lists of tier 1 (highest performing) schools are not identical to last year's lists, many of the same schoolsopens in a new tab or window have remained present in this year's iteration. Below are this year's highest performing medical schools in research and primary care, according to U.S. News.

Tier 1 Medical Schools: Research

  • Baylor College of Medicine, Houston
  • Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland
  • Emory University, Atlanta
  • Hofstra University/Northwell Health (Zucker), Hempstead, New York
  • Mayo Clinic School of Medicine (Alix), Rochester, Minnesota
  • Ohio State University, Columbus
  • University of California Los Angeles (Geffen)
  • University of California San Diego
  • University of California San Francisco
  • University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • University of Rochester, New York
  • University of South Florida (Morsani), Tampa
  • University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
  • Vanderbilt University, Nashville
  • Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

Tier 1 Medical Schools: Primary Care

  • East Carolina University (Brody), Greenville, North Carolina
  • East Tennessee State University (Quillen), Johnson City
  • Saint Louis University
  • Texas A&M University, College Station
  • Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester
  • University of Arizona - Tucson
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
  • University of California Davis
  • University of California San Francisco
  • University of Hawaii - Manoa (Burns), Honolulu
  • University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City
  • University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
  • University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
  • Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California

MedPAC: Medicare Paid MA Plans $38 billion for Non-Medicare Services in 2024

 by Cheryl Clark

Last year, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans spent $38 billion on services traditional Medicare doesn't pay for, such as gym memberships, meals, transportation, and dental care.

But a reportopens in a new tab or window presented to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) Thursday lamented the agency's inability to evaluate the value of those services, to what extent beneficiaries actually used them, and with which companies the plans contract to provide them.

"Gaps in the data make it difficult for us to assess the value that supplemental benefits may provide to enrollees and to the program," said Stuart Hammond, MPP, MPH, a MedPAC senior analyst.

The independent 17-member commission advises Congress on payment and policy affecting the Medicare program for some 68.4 million beneficiaries, 34.2 million of whom are enrolled in MA plans. Medicare allows MA plans to offer supplemental benefits with the intent they will make patients healthier or improve access to services, and the plans use them heavily to woo enrollees every year.

The report also looked at rebates that Medicare makes to MA plans -- rebates that the plans use in part to pay for these extra benefits. The rebates -- which amounted to $83 billion last year -- are based on costs in each plan's geographic area as well as other factors.

Hammond said that $2,329 was the average rebate amount per beneficiary in conventional MA plans in 2024, but 27%opens in a new tab or window of that went to these non-Medicare services. Those services included annual physical exams, spending allowance for over-the-counter items, acupuncture, a personal emergency response system, and remote-access technologies like an emergency response system and -- in some plans -- safety modifications for the home. The remaining 73% went to pay for drug benefits, reduced Part B premiums and reduced cost-sharing.

For other MA plans targeting populations with special needs, called MA SNPs, the rebate amount was $3,090, with 85% of that going to non-Medicare services.

"As Medicare spending for MA supplemental benefits grows, it is increasingly important for policymakers to have reliable information about the extent to which enrollees use the benefits available to them," Hammond said. The staff reviewed websites of MA parent organizations and found that dental and vision benefits often were administered by contracted dental or vision insurance companies on behalf of the MA plan; some plans contracted with community organizations.

However, some plans administered benefits such as food or transportation internally, in effect passing the payments vertically within the same company. "Information about these arrangements was harder to find on plan websites," he said, but often the plan requires enrollees to access benefits "exclusively through providers owned by the plan's parent organization."

The commissioners went into overtime asking questions and expressing concerns. "It's kind of shocking when you see, especially for the Special Needs Plans' 'Other Benefits,' the total dollar amount we're talking about," said commissioner Stacie Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. It "is just an enormous amount of money to be going towards benefits that we don't track."

Plans are required to provide encounter data to CMS, but the CMS system for collecting it for dental services was not adequate until recently and not all plans do a good job explaining how the money was used, Hammond said. For other kinds of supplemental benefits, "there are not well-established procedure codes corresponding to the benefits," he added. "As such, plans have reported being confused about if and how to submit encounter records for these services." For example, the plan may say it offers a fitness benefit, which could be anything from an in-person annual membership to a health club, exercise classes online or in person, exercise equipment, or athletic training evaluation. A food benefit can range from home-delivered meals to a grocery allowance.

Several commissioners expressed frustration with the lack of standardization in benefit categories and the absence of transparency for beneficiaries to know what benefits a plan actually offers when they sign up.

"Clearly, we need to know how these dollars are being spent and what value they're delivering," said commissioner Cheryl Damberg, PhD, MPH, director of the RAND Center of Excellence on Health System Performance in Santa Monica, California. She suggested Medicare could offer incentives to plans for submitting more complete encounter data that shows more precisely what services were provided, "or [they would] possibly face a penalty for incomplete submissions."

Since Medicare pays MA plans a flat monthly rate based on an enrollee's health risk score rather than reimbursing for specific service claims, it's hard to know how those Medicare dollars are spent.

Scott Sarran, MD, MBA, founding chief medical officer of Harmonic Health in Cook County, Illinois, suggested that these supplemental benefits should come along with some evidence that they improve outcomes. For example, he said, beneficiaries could answer a survey similar to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systemsopens in a new tab or window (CAHPS) to attest whether the MA plan's dental service helped them address concerns with their teeth, or if their vision benefit improved their sight.

One thing missing from the report is that for many benefits, the enrollee has to pay the bill upfront and then get reimbursed, said commissioner Gina Upchurch, RPh, MPH. Upchurch is executive director of Senior PharmAssist, a Durham, North Carolina nonprofit that counsels seniors on Medicare benefits. In addition, the reimbursement can vary depending on the service and the type of plan, she said. Sometimes the enrollee has to get service from a specific network of providers to get the advertised discount.

As a counselor with the federally funded State Health Insurance Assistance Program, (SHIP), Upchurch checks the Medicare Plan Finder for her clients to learn what benefits are offered. But there, you see just a check mark next to the general benefit category -- for example, "Fitness." "You have to have access to the web, digital literacy, you know, to find these things. They're buried. ...It's impossible really, when you're counseling people, to be truly informed about benefits, to make decisions, because there's so much variance," Upchurch said.

Commissioner Larry Casalino, MD, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, echoed her concerns. He said he thinks a lot of MA enrollees aren't aware of their plan's supplemental benefits.

"A bigger problem is they're hard to understand. They're hard to use, and often very limited. Can you actually get behind the check mark, for dental or vision, and see who can give it to you? How many times can they give it to you? What's the network? Is there prior authorization? ... It's just too complicated to figure out, even for someone who can use the internet."

Just indicating a benefit with a check mark, he said, "is kind of ridiculous."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/medicare/115083

Sanctuary Cities: Chicago Hits Back at Trump, L.A. Stays Quiet

 Two states and the largest cities within them had nearly opposite reactions after President Trump reiterated his plans to withhold all federal funds from areas in the country that have policies limiting local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Illinois went on offense, while California opted to tread lightly.

Trump, who has repeatedly promised to conduct the largest mass deportation of illegal immigrants in U.S. history, on Thursday pledged to put an end to these states’ and localities’ “sanctuary policies.”

“No more Sanctuary Cities! They protect the Criminals, not the Victims. They are disgracing our Country, and are being mocked all over the World,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

“Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!” he added.

That same day, the GOP-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee called on Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker to testify on Capitol Hill about the state’s sanctuary policies, along with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

“Harboring aliens is a federal crime. Sanctuary policies championed by these governors jeopardize the safety of Americans and defy U.S. immigration laws,” Rep. James Comer, a Kentucky Republican who chairs the panel, said in an X.com post.

Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson immediately pushed back. In 2021, Pritzker signed a bill into law that expanded the state’s existing sanctuary law, known as the TRUST Act.

“Let’s call this what this is: another partisan dog and pony show,” a Pritzker spokesman said. “Illinois’ Trust Act – which was signed into law by a Republican – is fully compliant with federal law and ensures law enforcement can focus on doing their actual jobs while empowering all members of the public – regardless of immigration status – to feel comfortable calling law enforcement to seek help, report crimes, and cooperate in investigations.”

The spokesman said the governor is evaluating whether he should take the time to “educate the House GOP on these matters.”

A spokesman for Johnson pledged that the mayor’s administration would “vigorously defend Chicagoans from any unconstitutional or unlawful attempts to strip residents of the funding they are entitled to.”

The city is set to receive $3.5 billion in federal grants this year, as well as $1.97 billion to subsidize the CTA’s Red Line Extension Project bus and subway project.

“The Department of Law will continue to assess any correspondence from the Trump administration that may impact Chicagoans in any way,” the spokesman added.

Trump has leveraged federal dollars for universities and law firms to produce policy changes, but it’s unclear whether he’ll prevail over state and local governments on immigration policy. A similar attempt to use an executive order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities was blocked in court during Trump’s first term.

While city and state attorneys general across the country ready their legal challenges, Trump’s Justice Department has already asked a federal judge to strike down sanctuary policies in Chicago.

More than 1,700 miles away, California leaders reacted to Trump’s latest shot across the bow with silence. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who is facing a recall over her mishandling of the most deadly and destructive wildfires in the city’s history, on Thursday remained focused on wildfire rebuilding. She spent the day announcing a new partnership to rebuild a Palisades Recreation Center alongside Lakers Coach JJ Redick and her onetime political foe, Rick Caruso.

As Bass struggles to maintain her hold on power, the city is also facing budget woes. The deadly wildfires that ripped through Los Angeles erupted as city officials were struggling to close a $600 million budget gap. This month, the deficit was updated to nearly $1 billion.

Bass’ silence was particularly notable after her vocal support for sanctuary policies following Trump’s victory last fall. In November, Bass pushed for a City Council vote that formally designated Los Angeles as a sanctuary city even though the state already had the sanctuary protections in place for illegal immigrants charged with crimes.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom also remained mum on the topic Thursday. His office didn’t respond to RealClearPolitics’ request for comment on Trump’s threat to withhold federal funds, and his California governor X.com account reminded LA residents about an April 15 deadline for a free debris removal program and touted a “Cutting Green-Tape program” aimed at expediting environmental restoration programs.

A spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the office is “monitoring this issue closely, and we won’t hesitate to respond if the Trump administration attempts to delay or unlawfully condition funding to our states or cities.”

The timing of Trump’s latest attack on sanctuary city and state policies comes at a particularly awkward time for California’s top politicians. Police last week found the body of 13-year-old Oscar “Omar” Hernandez, who went missing last month, on the side of the road in Oxnard, California. The suspect, Mario Edgardo Garcia-Aquino, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, was already under investigation by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office for allegedly sexually assaulting at least two other teen boys.

In 2022, the Los Angeles Police Department investigated Garcia-Aquino for suspected sexual assault of a minor, but he was never charged because the alleged victim declined to testify against him. Both of Garcia-Aquino’s victims were connected to his soccer coaching, law enforcement authorities have said.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a statement on X describing Garcia-Aquino as a “depraved illegal alien who should never have been in this country.”

“Under President Trump and Secretary Noem’s leadership, child predators, pedophiles, and murderers will be hunted down and removed from America’s communities,” the statement said.

Bass and Newsom are particularly reliant on federal aid in the aftermath of the Los Angeles wildfires, which has attracted national scrutiny to their management records. Earlier this year, the Trump administration vowed to place “strings” on the wildfire recovery assistance provided to California. Trump special envoy Richard Grenell, who is weighing a run for California governor, cited the state’s politics related to water and forestry. Trump previously had said assistance could depend on the state’s water, forestry, immigration, and voter ID policies.

Yet, in late March, Newsom touted continued federal support for disaster survivors and small businesses. He announced that aid from the U.S. Small Business Administration and Federal Emergency Management Agency had exceeded $2 billion.

“This federal disaster aid brings much-needed relief for impacted homeowners, renters, and businesses grappling with loss and damage,” Newsom said in a press release. “California is grateful to President Trump and our federal partners for making this recovery a priority.”

In February, Newsom asked Congress for nearly $40 billion in aid to help the Los Angeles area recover. Newsom and local officials are still waiting to see how Congress will respond and whether the aid will come with conditions.

Newsom’s office told Spectrum News this week that a bipartisan, multi-state disaster supplemental aid bill is expected to be introduced in Congress later this spring or early summer to support impacted homeowners and renters, businesses, health and human services, and wildfire and watershed resilience. 

The White House declined to say exactly what federal funds Trump was referring to in his social media post and whether he would try to withhold California wildfire rebuilding dollars in response to the state’s sanctuary laws. 

Meanwhile, Trump installed California Assemblyman Bill Essayli earlier this month as the new U.S. attorney for the Central District of California. The office is the largest U.S. attorney’s office outside the nation’s capital, with 250 attorneys at his disposal covering a wide swath of Southern and Central California.

Within days of assuming the post, Essayli, 39, launched an investigation into fraud and corruption in Los Angeles’ homeless programs after an audit found $2 billion unaccounted for in the county. He also pledged that one of his top priorities will be “prosecuting violent criminal illegal immigrants and those that aid and support them.”

“The days of sanctuary protections for criminals are over in California,” he pledged.

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' national political correspondent.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/04/11/a_tale_of_two_sanctuary_cities_chicago_hits_back_at_trump_la_stays_quiet__152638.html

Trump targets sanctuary cities: Who will be the first fool?

 


After DOGE, the border shutdown, and the tariff and trade debacle, it's pretty obvious that President Trump doesn't mess around.

So now he's announced that sanctuary cities are a target for federal defunding:

No more Sanctuary Cities! They protect the Criminals, not the Victims. They are disgracing our Country, and are being mocked all over the World. Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!

Donald Trump Truth…

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) April 10, 2025

It makes perfect sense. Why should cities and states shielding illegally present criminals from repatriation to their homelands get so much as a dime of federal funding from other taxpayers?

If they can't obey a sensible law about getting rid of people who have committed crimes against Americans, what crimes are they themselves up to? We can see it in the massive scandals engulfing cities and states such as San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego, along with the entire state of California, to name but just a few.

The list is pretty long and I don't think this one is complete:

Say Hi 👋 if you agree with Trump’s executive order to stop federal funding to all 47 sanctuary cities! pic.twitter.com/LvDWW0Q1y6

— VeLore (@Oddland66) April 11, 2025

Based on a report from WGNTV, Chicago looks as though it intends to put up a fight about this matter, seeking to protect rapists, child molestors, human traffickers, drug dealers and other lowlife from any risk of repatriation:

“You are going to see law enforcement take a hit because we rely on hundreds of millions of dollars to support our police,” he said. “Public health will take a huge hit. That is almost an entirely federal grant-funded department.”

Lopez argues the city should again consider amending its Welcoming City ordinance. The city council earlier this year struck down a proposal that reportedly would have granted exceptions when undocumented residents are arrested or convicted of selling and buying drugs, prostitution, human trafficking and “sexual crimes involving minors.”

“We are choosing to protect that 2 percent of the population that engages in criminal behavior rather than working with our federal partners to remove them from our city and from our country,” Lopez said.

WGNTV reported that Lopez's office said that Chicago gets $3.5 billion in federal grants, new and existing, which may or may not cover the $1.9 billion the transit system gets, and the $1.3 billion the education system gets.

Why should a city which insists it's a sovereign entity as to which federal laws it will enforce or cooperate with federal lawmen on, get any cash whatsoever.

Previous efforts to defund these lawless cities have failed, Fox reported, but it's quite likely that lessons have been learned on how to avoid these measures ending up on the rocks.

The point is, the U.S. is one country, not a collection of fiefdoms, and it's a rational, reasonable thing to have federal lawmen get rid of people who don't belong here.

I get the feeling that some blue cities with sanctuary policies, loved by no one sane, are going to step up to the plate for a dunking, and it's not going to be pretty.

Trump has just taken on the whole world with tariffs, achieved a de facto free trade zone with allies as deals are cut, and smartly took on just China which decided to be confrontational instead. It's way easier to fight one enemy, instead of 100, and Trump understands this.

What's more, he went big, he went ambitious, and he didn't back down.

Message received.

If these cities don't back down, they're going to get it in the teeth. That will be a wakeup call, to encourage the others. One by one, I expect to see a lot of them fall into line, get their funding, and go on being wokester blue cities without that disastrous sanctuary status. But there will always be a few idiots among cities who decide they'd rather learn the hard way that Trump means what he says

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/04/trump_targets_sanctuary_cities_who_will_be_the_first_fool.html

Biden-Era Medicaid Cost Surge

 Over the past 12 years, two major policy changes have led to massive Medicaid program growth. Keep in mind, the growth of Medicaid has not improved Americans’ health, as a recent Paragon research paper documented, and has worsened access to care for traditional Medicaid enrollees.

The first change is that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly expanded Medicaid by granting eligibility to able-bodied, working-age adults and favoring them over traditional Medicaid enrollees (children, pregnant women, seniors, and the disabled) through significantly higher federal reimbursement rates for state spending on them. Paragon has produced a comprehensive reform that would end the ACA’s federal discrimination against traditional Medicaid enrollees and move nearly half of Medicaid expansion enrollees into the exchanges with a large premium tax credit. This is a long overdue policy reform that Congress should consider.

The second change stems from a set of Biden administration policies, along with increased state Medicaid money laundering schemes, that have significantly increased the federal Medicaid baseline as shown in the first figure below. Between the Congressional Budget Office’s 2021 and 2024 baselines, projected federal Medicaid spending increased by 8.6 percent, a sizeable $685 billion, from 2023 to 2034.

CBOs Medicaid Baseline Rose Significantly Between 2021 and 2024 Reports
 

Several Biden policies explain a portion of this increase. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act provided states with additional federal Medicaid money so long as they maintained Medicaid enrollment during the COVID public health emergency (PHE). The Biden administration also extended the PHE into the spring of 2023, which kept ineligible people on the Medicaid program much longer.  Finally, the Biden administration took regulatory actions to keep ineligible people on the program longer and to validate state financing gimmicks that fleece federal taxpayers and raise Medicaid rates well above Medicare rates for many providers in many states.  As a preview, in March, Paragon will be releasing a research paper on the growth of Medicaid money laundering and what policymakers should do about it.

The House budget resolution contains instructions for the Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in savings relative to baseline. Congress could achieve these savings through common sense, necessary Medicaid reforms. The figure below illustrates how an expected level of savings in Medicaid (assuming Medicaid reforms make up about 80 percent of the savings) compares to the 2021 and 2024 CBO baselines.

Reconciliation Would Only Reduce Medicaid Spending by 3.3% from 2027-2034 Using 2021 CBO Baseline
 

Crucially, the magnitude of savings relative to the 2021 baseline—before the surge of Biden-era spending—is two-thirds smaller than the 2024 baseline. In fact, spending would only be 3.1 percent lower under this level of savings relative to the 2021 baseline. In essence, Biden’s policies led to a surge of wasteful federal Medicaid expenditures and the House budget resolution would largely reverse the fiscal impact of his policies.

One more important note—this just shows the federal side of Medicaid spending. States will be able to replace all savings that result from federal reforms. As discussed in my most recent newsletters, one of the main problems that federal policymakers should address is the substantial shift in Medicaid costs from the states to Washington over the past 15 years.


Brian Blase, Ph.D., is the President of Paragon Health Institute. Brian was Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy at the White House’s National Economic Council (NEC) from 2017-2019, where he coordinated the development and execution of numerous health policies and advised the President, NEC director, and senior officials. After leaving the White House, Brian founded Blase Policy Strategies and serves as its CEO.


As a Policy Analyst for the Idaho Freedom Foundation, Niklas Kleinworth is a strong advocate for public policy solutions that place America first, are fiscally efficient, limit government, and expand the free market


https://paragoninstitute.org/paragon-pic/biden-era-medicaid-cost-surge/