Latest news with #CalMatters
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
New poll reveals majority of Californians oppose this key benefit for illegal immigrants
A majority of Californians oppose providing healthcare coverage for adults who are in the United States illegally, despite the Golden State currently offering it. The Public Policy Institute of California survey revealed that 58% opposed and 41% of those polled were in favor of the policy. The move took effect last year to allow people to enroll in Medi-Cal, the state version of Medicaid that takes taxpayer dollars, "regardless of immigration status." According to the pollster, a majority of those surveyed used to support the idea from 2015-2023. Illegal Immigrant Healthcare Costs In Blue State Triggers Intense Budget Debate The Medi-Cal program went insolvent this spring, as it required billions in loans to keep it afloat. The governor's office proposed changes like an "enrollment freeze" and a $100 monthly payment for "individuals with certain statuses" on Medi-Cal. However, some of those changes are unlikely to move forward in the Democratic supermajority legislature, according to CalMatters. According to the legislature's budget proposal, Democratic leadership is backing possibly creating a $30 monthly payment instead of $100 for those with "unsatisfactory immigration status" beginning in 2027, which would make some changes to the "enrollment freeze" that could start in 2026. Read On The Fox News App The legislature also proposes scrapping the governor's proposed $2,000 asset limit pitch for Medi-Cal participants and instead would bring it back to $130,000. Newsom Proposes Freeze On Allowing Adult Illegal Immigrants To Join California's Medicaid Program Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, told Fox News Digital that the percentage of Californians opposing providing healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants may be even higher. Click Here For More Immigration Coverage "This debate is not about 'Should we provide healthcare to illegals or not?' because that's a false question. The bigger question is, should we provide free taxpayer funding to illegal immigrants and not have enough money and jeopardize services for citizens who are the neediest among us relying on Medicare?" DeMaio said. "That's the real debate. And this poll doesn't even capture that." "The Democrat position is a lot worse than this poll even suggests," he continued. Newsom's office previously attributed the issues with Medi-Cal to broader economic concerns. Lawmakers Reveal Whether Americans Should Pick Up The Medicaid Tab For Illegal Immigrants "Governor Newsom proposed adjustments in the 2025-2026 budget that will allow California to preserve our commitment to immigrant communities, protect coverage for millions of Californians, and preserve the strength of our values and health care system," Elana Ross, deputy communications director for Newsom's office, told Fox News Digital. "To be very clear, these proposals are the results of a $16 billion Trump Slump and higher-than-expected health care utilization." Fox News Digital reached out to the California Latino Legislative Caucus about the poll. The caucus has continuously raised concerns about the impact of Medi-Cal reform on immigrants. On the federal level, the reconciliation bill currently in Congress could also impact states that provide Medicaid coverage to illegal article source: New poll reveals majority of Californians oppose this key benefit for illegal immigrants
Fox News
4 days ago
- Health
- Fox News
New poll reveals majority of Californians oppose this key benefit for illegal immigrants
A majority of Californians oppose providing healthcare coverage for adults who are in the United States illegally, despite the Golden State currently offering it. The Public Policy Institute of California survey revealed that 58% opposed and 41% of those polled were in favor of the policy. The move took effect last year to allow people to enroll in Medi-Cal, the state version of Medicaid that takes taxpayer dollars, "regardless of immigration status." According to the pollster, a majority of those surveyed used to support the idea from 2015-2023. The Medi-Cal program went insolvent this spring, as it required billions in loans to keep it afloat. The governor's office proposed changes like an "enrollment freeze" and a $100 monthly payment for "individuals with certain statuses" on Medi-Cal. However, some of those changes are unlikely to move forward in the Democratic supermajority legislature, according to CalMatters. According to the legislature's budget proposal, Democratic leadership is backing possibly creating a $30 monthly payment instead of $100 for those with "unsatisfactory immigration status" beginning in 2027, which would make some changes to the "enrollment freeze" that could start in 2026. The legislature also proposes scrapping the governor's proposed $2,000 asset limit pitch for Medi-Cal participants and instead would bring it back to $130,000. Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, told Fox News Digital that the percentage of Californians opposing providing healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants may be even higher. "This debate is not about 'Should we provide healthcare to illegals or not?' because that's a false question. The bigger question is, should we provide free taxpayer funding to illegal immigrants and not have enough money and jeopardize services for citizens who are the neediest among us relying on Medicare?" DeMaio said. "That's the real debate. And this poll doesn't even capture that." "The Democrat position is a lot worse than this poll even suggests," he continued. Newsom's office previously attributed the issues with Medi-Cal to broader economic concerns. "Governor Newsom proposed adjustments in the 2025-2026 budget that will allow California to preserve our commitment to immigrant communities, protect coverage for millions of Californians, and preserve the strength of our values and health care system," Elana Ross, deputy communications director for Newsom's office, told Fox News Digital. "To be very clear, these proposals are the results of a $16 billion Trump Slump and higher-than-expected health care utilization." Fox News Digital reached out to the California Latino Legislative Caucus about the poll. The caucus has continuously raised concerns about the impact of Medi-Cal reform on immigrants. On the federal level, the reconciliation bill currently in Congress could also impact states that provide Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants.
USA Today
4 days ago
- Health
- USA Today
Why are these health-care websites sharing sensitive info with LinkedIn and Snapchat?
Why are these health-care websites sharing sensitive info with LinkedIn and Snapchat? This story was originally published by The Markup, now a part of CalMatters. Sign up for their health care websites around the country, meant to provide a simple way to shop for insurance, have been quietly sending visitors' sensitive health information to Google and social media companies, The Markup and CalMatters found. The data, including prescription drug names and dosages, was sent by web trackers on state exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act to help Americans purchase health coverage. The exchange websites ask users to answer a series of questions, including about their health histories, to find them the most relevant information on plans. But in some cases, when visitors responded to sensitive questions, the invisible trackers sent that information to platforms like Google, LinkedIn, and Snapchat. The Markup and CalMatters audited the websites of all 19 states that independently operate their own online health exchange. While most of the sites contained advertising trackers of some kind, The Markup and CalMatters found that four states exposed visitors' sensitive health exchange, Nevada Health Link, asks visitors about what prescriptions they use, including the names and dosages of the drugs, to help them find their best options for health insurance. When visitors start typing, it suggests specific medications, including antidepressants, birth control and hormone therapies. As visitors answered the questions, their responses were sent to LinkedIn and Snapchat, according to tests conducted by The Markup and CalMatters in April and May. Spend your money smart: Sign up for USA TODAY's Daily Money newsletter. On the other side of the country, Maine's exchange, sent information on drug prescriptions and dosages to Google through an analytics tool. It also sent the names of doctors and hospitals that people had previously visited. Rhode Island's exchange, HealthSource RI, sent prescription information, dosages, and doctors' names to Google. Massachusetts Health Connector, another exchange, told LinkedIn whether visitors said they were pregnant, blind, or disabled. After being contacted by The Markup and CalMatters, Nevada's health exchange stopped sending visitors' data to Snapchat and Massachusetts stopped sending data to LinkedIn. Additionally, The Markup and CalMatters found that Nevada stopped sending data to LinkedIn in early May, as testing was happening. The Markup and CalMatters discovered the sharing after finding that California's exchange, Covered California, told LinkedIn when a visitor indicated they were blind, pregnant, or a victim of domestic violence. Experts said state health exchanges' use of advertising trackers was troubling if not entirely surprising. Such tools can help organizations to reach visitors and tailor ads for them. Google Analytics allows website operators to better understand who is coming to their site and to optimize ad campaigns. The LinkedIn and Snap trackers, like a similar offering from Meta, help companies target their social media ads. Nevada uses the trackers to help target marketing at uninsured residents, according to Russell Cook, Executive Director of the state agency that operates Nevada's exchange, Silver State Health Insurance Exchange. But health care services need to be especially careful with those tools, said John Haskell, a data privacy attorney who has previously worked as an investigator for the Department of Health and Human Services. 'It doesn't surprise me that organizations that have these massive tech stacks that rely on third party-resources don't have a full understanding of what the configuration is, what the data flows are, and then once they go to somebody, what that data is being used for,' Haskell said. 'It's something that needs to be addressed.' How was state exchange data tied to users' identities? After The Markup and CalMatters reported on Covered California's sharing of health data with LinkedIn, the exchange removed its trackers and said it would review its data practices. The news triggered a class-action lawsuit and questions from federal lawmakers. The Markup and CalMatters then examined websites operated by 18 states other than California, as well as Washington, D.C., to see what information they shared as users navigated them. The sites were established under the Affordable Care Act, which requires states to offer health insurance either through their own exchanges or one operated by the federal government. To test them, The Markup and CalMatters first ran the sites through Blacklight, a tool we developed to reveal web trackers. We then reviewed network traffic on the sites to see what data the trackers received when visitors filled out forms. The results showed that 18 used some sort of tracker. Some were filled with them. Nevada, for example, used nearly 50. By contrast, Blacklight found no tracker of any kind on Washington, D.C.'s exchange. Popular websites use on average seven trackers, according to Blacklight scans of the 100,000 most trafficked sites on the web. Many of the sites used trackers in relatively innocuous ways, like counting page views. The four exchanges The Markup and CalMatters found sharing sensitive health data sent varied responses to questions about the tracking. Cook said in a statement that trackers placed by his Nevada agency were 'inadvertently obtaining information regarding the name and dosage of prescription drugs' and sending it to LinkedIn and Snapchat. Cook acknowledged such data was 'wholly irrelevant to our marketing efforts' and said it had disabled tracking software pending an audit. Jason Lefferts, a spokesperson for Massachusetts Health Connector, said in a statement that 'personally identifiable information is not part of the tool's structure and no personally identifiable information, not even the IP addresses of users of the tool, has ever been shared with any party in any way via this tool." But LinkedIn's tracker documentation makes clear that it correlates the information it receives with specific LinkedIn accounts so companies can use the data for features like retargeting website visitors. The company's documentation also states it later obscures this information and eventually deletes it. Spokespeople for the Rhode Island and Maine health exchanges said that they pay a vendor, Consumers' Checkbook, to run a separate site that allows visitors to explore what plans are available to them through their states' exchanges. It was from these sites that sensitive information was shared to Google. Consumers' Checkbook's sites are at different web addresses than the exchange sites, but are prominently linked to on the exchange sites and display identical branding like the state health exchange's logo, making it unlikely that an average visitor would realize they were no longer on a state-run domain. Christina Spaight O'Reilly, a spokesperson for HealthSource RI, said the company uses Google Analytics to study trends but not to serve ads, and 'disables Google Signals Data Collection, ensuring that no data is shared with Google Ads for audience creation or ad personalization, and no session data is linked to Google's advertising cookies or identifiers.' HealthSource RI's terms of use mention the use of Google Analytics, she noted. A spokesperson for made similar points, saying that the agency 'does not collect or retain any data entered into the tool.' Consumers' Checkbook declined to comment beyond the exchanges' statements. All of the exchanges said that individually identifiable health information, like names and addresses, wasn't sent to third parties. But the point of the trackers is to enhance information sent about a user with data the platforms already have on that user, and every tracker found by The Markup and CalMatters logged details about individual visitors, such as their operating system, browser, device, and times of visit. In response to requests for comment, the tech companies whose trackers were examined uniformly said they do not want organizations sending them potentially sensitive health data, and that doing so is against their terms of use. Steve Ganem, Director of Product Management for Google Analytics, said that 'by default any data sent to Google Analytics does not identify individuals, and we have strict policies against collecting Private Health Information or advertising based on sensitive information.' A spokesperson for LinkedIn, Brionna Ruff, said that advertisers are not allowed 'to target ads based on sensitive data categories,' such as health issues. A spokesperson for Snapchat owner Snap said the same, noting that sending purchases of supplies like prescriptions would run afoul of the company's rules about sensitive data. A Google Analytics information page specifically discusses how organizations that use the company's tools should comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which protects health data. The page notes that 'Google makes no representations that Google Analytics satisfies HIPAA requirements.' 'It is important to ensure that your implementation of Google Analytics and the data collected about visitors to your properties satisfies all applicable legal requirements,' the page reads. More incidents State exchanges aren't the only health sites that have sent medical information to social media companies. In 2022, The Markup revealed that dozens of hospital websites shared information with Facebook's parent company, Meta, through a tool called the Meta Pixel. The hospitals faced scrutiny from Congress and legal action. Another Markup investigation found trackers logging information about online drugstore visitors purchasing HIV tests and Plan B. In 2023, a New York hospital agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or response to a series of incidents, the Department of Health and Human Services said in 2023 that use of social media trackers to log health information could violate HIPAA, although recent court decisions have narrowed how the law can be applied against companies that use those trackers. Some plaintiffs have used state laws, like those in California, to argue that they should be compensated for having their health data sent to third parties without consent. Others have argued that this kind of tracking runs afoul of wiretapping or even racketeering laws. 'Organizations aren't investing enough time and resources into properly vetting everything,' said Haskell, who advises clients to be very careful about the information they track on their sites. 'When organizations are saying, 'we didn't understand that there's a certain configuration of this tool that we're using,' well, I can't really not put that on you.'
USA Today
4 days ago
- Health
- USA Today
This is how you stop online trackers from collecting your health data
This is how you stop online trackers from collecting your health data Show Caption Hide Caption Privacy at risk as Trump expands surveillance. Here's what we know. The Trump administration is expanding government surveillance with Big Tech's help. Here's what we know now about what's being tracked. This story was originally published by The Markup, now a part of CalMatters. Sign up for their April, The Markup and CalMatters found that Covered California, the state of California's healthcare exchange, was sending the personal health information of its users to LinkedIn. The news triggered a class-action lawsuit and questions from federal lawmakers. In June, a Markup investigation further revealed that exchanges maintained by four other states have also leaked visitors' sensitive health data. Readers have asked: Is there anything I can do to stop my information from being leaked this way? The answer is yes. The trackers we found on health exchanges are extremely common and are used by the world's most popular websites. We've found them on websites people use to prepare for college, do their taxes, get a mortgage, or report a mental health crisis. Good news is, you can block many, if not all of these trackers with just a few steps. What's happening with our health data? The owners of the health exchange websites use services provided by tech companies like LinkedIn, Google and Snapchat to track user activity and to target advertising. To make this possible, website owners install and configure code provided by the tech companies on their pages. This code is called a 'tracker.' When you load a page, the tracker code runs, collecting data and sending it to the tech companies' servers. This data can be anything from a profile of the device and browser you're using to every word you type into a form. The tracker can also read and write cookies, which can follow you across multiple websites. How can I protect my data from these trackers? Because the data is being collected and sent by your browser, you can exercise some control over it. Here are the options we've tested that have successfully blocked the trackers: 1. Change your settings to block more trackersSome browsers block many trackers by default and are capable of blocking more. If you're using Safari, using 'Advanced Tracking and Fingerprinting Protection' will block the trackers we found. In desktop Firefox, upping your 'Enhanced Tracking Protection' level from 'Standard' to 'Strict' will do the trick. In Chrome and other browsers, blocking third-party cookies won't stop the trackers from sending your data, but it will make it harder to link that data to you. 2. Install a privacy-protecting browser extensionIf you're using a desktop browser, one straightforward solution is to install a privacy-protecting browser extension. We tested Privacy Badger and uBlock Origin Lite and confirmed that they both blocked the trackers from LinkedIn, Snapchat, and Google that we examined in our stories. 3. Switch to a new browserChrome and Safari, the browsers most people use, don't stop all the trackers we found from sharing your data out of the box. If you don't want to change your settings as suggested above, installing a new, privacy-focused browser is what we recommend. In our tests, the Brave and DuckDuckGo browsers blocked the trackers we profiled. (Full disclosure: DuckDuckGo has donated to The Markup.) What doesn't work to block these trackers? Using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) will not block these trackers. VPN services are handy for obscuring your location, which is a key detail that data brokers use to identify individuals. Unfortunately, a VPN won't stop the trackers from reading and writing cookies and sharing details about your device, browser, and activity on the site. Also, VPNs can have their own issues with data sharing. Browsing in 'private' or 'incognito' mode will not block these trackers. Using these modes will stop cookies from tracking you to other sites, but won't protect you from having your location, device, browser and activity shared.
Boston Globe
4 days ago
- Health
- Boston Globe
Healthcare exchanges in New England shared users' sensitive health data with companies like Google
The exchange websites ask users to answer a series of questions, including about their health histories, to find them the most relevant information on plans. But in some cases, when visitors responded to sensitive questions, the invisible trackers sent that information to platforms like Google, Advertisement The Markup and CalMatters audited the websites of all 19 states that independently operate their own online health exchange. While most of the sites contained advertising trackers of some kind, The Markup and CalMatters found that four states exposed visitors' sensitive health information. Nevada's exchange, Nevada Health Link, asks visitors about what prescriptions they use, including the names and dosages of the drugs, to help them find their best options for health insurance. When visitors start typing, it suggests specific medications, including antidepressants, birth control and hormone therapies. As visitors answered the questions, their responses were sent to LinkedIn and Snapchat, according to tests conducted by The Markup and CalMatters in April and May. When an individual indicated that they took Fluoxetine, commonly known as Prozac, on Nevada Health Link, the information was sent to LinkedIn. The Markup/CalMatters On the other side of the country, Maine's exchange, sent information on drug prescriptions and dosages to Google through an analytics tool. It also sent the names of doctors and hospitals that people had previously visited. Advertisement Rhode Island's exchange, HealthSource RI, sent prescription information, dosages, and doctors' names to Google. Massachusetts Health Connector, another exchange, told LinkedIn whether visitors said they were pregnant, blind, or disabled. After being contacted by The Markup and CalMatters, Nevada's health exchange stopped sending visitors' data to Snapchat and Massachusetts stopped sending data to LinkedIn. Additionally, The Markup and CalMatters found that Nevada stopped sending data to LinkedIn in early May, as we were testing. The Markup and CalMatters discovered the sharing after finding that California's exchange, Covered California, Experts said state health exchanges' use of advertising trackers was troubling if not entirely surprising. Such tools can help organizations to reach visitors and tailor ads for them. Google Analytics allows website operators to better understand who is coming to their site and to optimize ad campaigns. The LinkedIn and Snap trackers, like a similar offering from Meta, help companies target their social media ads. Nevada uses the trackers to help target marketing at uninsured residents, according to Russell Cook, Executive Director of the state agency that operates Nevada's exchange, Silver State Health Insurance Exchange. But health care services need to be especially careful with those tools, said John Haskell, a data privacy attorney who has previously worked as an investigator for the Department of Health and Human Services. 'It doesn't surprise me that organizations that have these massive tech stacks that rely on third party-resources don't have a full understanding of what the configuration is, what the data flows are, and then once they go to somebody, what that data is being used for,' Haskell said. 'It's something that needs to be addressed.' Advertisement How was state exchange data tied to users' identities? After The Markup and CalMatters then examined websites operated by 18 states other than California, as well as Washington, D.C., to see what information they shared as users navigated them. The sites were established under the Affordable Care Act, which requires states to offer health insurance either through their own exchanges or one operated by the federal government. To test them, we first ran the sites through The results showed that 18 used some sort of tracker. Some were filled with them. Nevada, for example, used nearly 50. By contrast, Blacklight found no tracker of any kind on Washington, D.C.'s exchange. Popular websites use on average seven trackers, according to Many of the sites used trackers in relatively innocuous ways, like counting page views. The four exchanges we found sharing sensitive health data sent varied responses to questions about the tracking. Advertisement Cook said in a statement that trackers placed by his Nevada agency were 'inadvertently obtaining information regarding the name and dosage of prescription drugs' and sending it to LinkedIn and Snapchat. Cook acknowledged such data was 'wholly irrelevant to our marketing efforts' and said it had disabled tracking software pending an audit. Jason Lefferts, a spokesperson for Massachusetts Health Connector, said in a statement that 'personally identifiable information is not part of the tool's structure and no personally identifiable information, not even the IP addresses of users of the tool, has ever been shared with any party in any way via this tool.' But LinkedIn's Spokespeople for the Rhode Island and Maine health exchanges said that they pay a vendor, Consumers' Checkbook, to run a separate site that allows visitors to explore what plans are available to them through their states' exchanges. It was from these sites that sensitive information was shared to Google. Consumers' Checkbook's sites are at different web addresses than the exchange sites, but are prominently linked to on the exchange sites and display identical branding like the state health exchange's logo, making it unlikely that an average visitor would realize they were no longer on a state-run domain. Christina Spaight O'Reilly, a spokesperson for HealthSource RI, said the company uses Google Analytics to study trends but not to serve ads, and 'disables Google Signals Data Collection, ensuring that no data is shared with Google Ads for audience creation or ad personalization, and no session data is linked to Google's advertising cookies or identifiers.' HealthSource RI's terms of use mention the use of Google Analytics, she noted. A spokesperson for made similar points, saying that the agency 'does not collect or retain any data entered into the tool.' Advertisement When an individual selected a doctor on HealthSource RI, the doctor's name was sent to Google Analytics. The Markup/CalMatters Consumers' Checkbook declined to comment beyond the exchanges' statements. All of the exchanges said that individually identifiable health information, like names and addresses, wasn't sent to third parties. But the point of the trackers is to enhance information sent about a user with data the platforms already have on that user, and every tracker found by The Markup and CalMatters logged details about individual visitors, such as their operating system, browser, device, and times of visit. In response to requests for comment, the tech companies whose trackers we examined uniformly said they do not want organizations sending them potentially sensitive health data, and that doing so is against their terms of use. Steve Ganem, Director of Product Management for Google Analytics, said that 'by default any data sent to Google Analytics does not identify individuals, and we have strict policies against collecting Private Health Information or advertising based on sensitive information.' A spokesperson for LinkedIn, Brionna Ruff, said that advertisers are not allowed 'to target ads based on sensitive data categories,' such as health issues. A spokesperson for Snapchat owner Snap said the same, noting that sending purchases of supplies like prescriptions would run afoul of the company's rules about sensitive data. Advertisement 'It is important to ensure that your implementation of Google Analytics and the data collected about visitors to your properties satisfies all applicable legal requirements,' the page reads. More incidents State exchanges aren't the only health sites that have sent medical information to social media companies. In 2022, In 2023, a New York hospital agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. In response to a series of incidents, the Some plaintiffs have used state laws, like those in California, to argue that they should be compensated for having their health data sent to third parties without consent. Others have argued that this kind of tracking runs afoul of 'Organizations aren't investing enough time and resources into properly vetting everything,' said Haskell, who advises clients to be very careful about the information they track on their sites. 'When organizations are saying, 'we didn't understand that there's a certain configuration of this tool that we're using,' well, I can't really not put that on you.'
