The Brief

Everyday people across the country skip medical care because of cost. Those who do seek medical help may end up with a balance they can’t pay off. That debt can hurt people’s credit scores, resulting in long-term financial burdens.

Starting Jan. 1, a new state law will prohibit health providers and debt collectors from reporting medical debt information to credit agencies. That means unpaid medical bills should no longer show up on people’s credit reports, which consumer advocacy groups say is a boon for patients with debt.

Here’s why: While the law will not forgive someone’s debt, by keeping it off credit reports, it might provide some reassurance that a hospital stay or trip to urgent care won’t later affect their credit standing. Lower credit scores usually result in higher interest rates and make it harder for people to qualify for a home rental, a car loan or even employment.

During legislative hearings, the law’s author, Sen. Monique Limón, a Democrat from Santa Barbara, contended that because people don’t choose to have a medical emergency or illness, this type of debt should not count against them. Supporters also argued that medical debt is more prone to inaccuracies because of billing mistakes by health providers and insurers.

The main three credit bureaus – TransUnion, Equifax and Experian — stopped reporting medical debt under $500 in 2023. But most people with medical debt owe far more than that. The national average for medical balance is $3,100, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In California, an estimated 38% of residents carry some type of medical debt; that figure climbs to more than half for low-income residents, according to the California Health Care Foundation.

One key caveat is that patients can only take advantage of this law if the debt is owed directly to a medical provider or collection agency, but not when the debt is charged on a medical credit card or a general credit card.

This new law follows similar ones enacted in a handful of other states, including New York and Colorado. It also mirrors a proposal put forth by the Biden administration to do the same nationwide. However, with a new administration taking over in January, it is unclear whether the federal proposal will go anywhere.

Limón’s office explained that under the law patients have the right to sue a debt collector or provider who reports a medical debt to a credit bureau. Consumers may also choose to file a complaint with the state’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which has authority over debt collectors. Consumers can also file a complaint with the California Attorney General’s office.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

Two federal immigration agents involved in the shooting of a Venezuelan immigrant in Minneapolis last month appear to have lied about the details of the incident, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said Friday.

The agents have been placed on administrative leave after "a joint review by ICE and the Department of Justice of video evidence has revealed that sworn testimony provided by two separate officers appears to have made untruthful statements," the spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, said.

The rare acknowledgment of potential missteps by ICE agents comes after the agency's acting director, Todd Lyons, told Congress on Thursday that ICE has conducted 37 investigations into officers' use of force over the past year. He didn't say whether anyone has been fired.

McLaughlin said the agency is investigating the Jan. 14 shooting of the Venezuelan immigrant, and the officers involved could be fired or criminally prosecuted for any violations.

"The men and women of ICE are entrusted with upholding the rule of law and are held to the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and ethical conduct," McLaughlin said in Friday's statement. "Violations of this sacred sworn oath will not be tolerated."

DHS initially said the officer fired a shot to "save his life" after being "ambushed and attacked" by three immigrants with a snow shovel and a broom handle during a "targeted traffic stop."

Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, the subject of the traffic stop, was injured after getting shot in the leg. Another Venezuelan man, Alfredo Aljorna, was also accused of attacking the officers.

However, Minnesota U.S. Attorney Dan Rosen on Thursday dropped the charges against them.

McLaughlin did not respond to questions about whether the agency stands by its initial statement describing the agent's behavior during the incident as self-defense.

Since the beginning, eyewitness accounts contradicted the statements made by DHS related to the shooting of Sosa-Celis.

His partner, Indriany Mendoza Camacho, told Minnesota Public Radio last week she was present the night of the shooting, and that Sosa-Celis was trying to separate the agent and the other Venezuelan man so both the immigrants could get into a house.

"I'm a witness, I saw everything, and my partner never grabbed anything to hit him or anything like that," she said.

The shooting happened during Operation Metro Surge, an aggressive immigration crackdown that brought about 3,000 federal agents to Minnesota starting in December.

The Trump administration Thursday announced it was ending Operation Metro Surge. The operation led to more than 4,000 arrests of undocumented immigrants, according to White House border czar Tom Homan, and the killing of two U.S. citizens, Renee Macklin Good and Alex Pretti.

Those shootings are also being investigated by federal authorities.

An internal preliminary review conducted by Customs and Border Protection into Pretti's death also contradicted the Trump administration's initial narrative about his shooting.

Copyright 2026 NPR

It’s been more than four decades yet Rhonda Campbell’s voice still quavered as she stood before a row of television cameras recalling the day in 1981 when a repeat drunk driver killed her 12-year-old sister. She remembers her father crying as he told her what happened, still hears her mother’s scream when the coffin lid closed.

“For our family, 45 years means 45 years of missed birthdays, missed holidays and that empty chair at our table for every holiday gathering. Grief does not fade, it just becomes part of who you are,” Campbell, victim services manager for Mothers Against Drunk Driving California, said Thursday at a press conference.

Campbell joined other victim relatives, lawmakers, advocates, a police chief and a trauma surgeon on a Capitol building stage, all there to build momentum for what’s shaping up to be the biggest legislative effort to address dangerous driving in a generation.

Next to them as they spoke was a table filled with photos of people killed on California’s roads and one old pair of gym shoes belonging to Campbell’s sister.

“Behind every statistic that you will hear today, someone is loved and irreplaceable,” she said.

A bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers has so far introduced 10 bills this year as part of an unprecedented legislative package aimed at confronting California’s permissive roadway safety laws. Many of the proposals directly address issues CalMatters uncovered as part of the ongoing License to Kill series, which revealed how the state has routinely allowed dangerous drivers to stay on the road as its roadway death toll has skyrocketed.

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine, called the package of bills “California’s largest and most significant anti-drunk driving and anti-DUI push in over two decades.”

“This crisis is an urgent call to action,” she said.

Her colleague on the other side of the aisle, Assemblymember Tom Lackey of Palmdale, said “it’s time.”

“We are failing, folks, and I’m so heartened by this big coalition of people. I’ve waited 12 years for this,” he said, referring to his time in the legislature after decades as a CHP officer.

Lawmakers said to expect a few more bills next week before the deadline to propose new legislation. Several Republican legislators also asked for a formal audit into DMV records and Democrats plan to propose a separate audit of how the state spends its traffic safety funds.

At Thursday’s event, lawmaker after lawmaker stepped to the podium to discuss their proposals and call on colleagues to join them in doing something about traffic deaths. They were often followed by grieving parents, there to talk about unfathomable loss.

For one father, Anatoly Varfolomeev, it was almost too much. He struggled to address the audience, at one point gripping the podium and lowering his head, overcome with emotion before gathering the strength to continue.

Varfolomeev said he’d planned to cite some of the statistics regarding motor vehicle fatalities but it was clear listening to the speakers that they were well known.

“That means that this legislative initiative is long-time overdue,” Varfolomeev said.

His daughter and her childhood friend, both 19, were killed in November 2021 by a drunk driver going more than 100 miles per hour, Varfolomeev said. The driver served just three and a half years behind bars, Varfolomeev said.

As we reported last year, vehicular manslaughter isn’t considered a violent felony in California, meaning drivers who kill can serve only a fraction of their sentence behind bars.

“So this is not a violent crime,” he said, holding up a picture of the mangled, charred remains of a car. “If this is not a violent crime what is?”

One of the bills in the package would add vehicular manslaughter to the state’s list of violent felonies.

A mom, Kellie Montalvo, was there to support the change and the rest of the bill package. Her son Benjamin Montalvo had just turned 21 and was riding his bike when a woman with prior reckless crashes ran him over and fled the scene.

The woman who killed Benjamin – “Bean Dip” as his family affectionately called him – is due to be released from prison as early as this weekend. She called on Governor Newsom to do something.

“Please come out now publicly and support these bills. You have an opportunity to lead the charge in supporting victims,” she said. “His name was ‘Bean Dip’, and he mattered.”

Together, the bills are aimed at strengthening the state’s enforcement system and keeping many reckless drivers from behind the wheel for years longer. The package would bring the state more in line with much of the country, particularly when it comes to handling drunk and drugged drivers.

California saw a more than 50% spike in DUI-related deaths over the most recent 10 years for which federal estimates were available, an increase more than twice as steep as the rest of the country. As our investigation has shown, California currently has some of the weakest DUI laws in the country.

“Safer roads are not a partisan or political issue. They are the basic responsibility we owe to every family that travels upon our roadways,” said Alex Gammelgard, past president of the California Police Chiefs Association.

Yet, even as the number of deaths on our roads soared, California leaders have previously failed to confront these issues.

Many of the bills are sure to face significant challenges in the months to come. Financial concerns, for example, have helped doom previous efforts to pass expanded use of the in-car breathalyzers known as ignition interlock devices. A proposal to bring California in line with much of the rest of the nation is back on the table as part of the current package. Increasing criminal penalties could also be a tough sell in a legislature that’s been so focused in recent years on criminal justice reforms and alternatives to incarceration.

It was a challenge some on the stage alluded to.

“I want to align myself with the idea of compassion. I think California has done a lot to try to be on the compassionate side of the justice system,” said Assemblymember Dawn Addis, a Democrat from San Luis Obispo.

“But I think, in this moment,” she added, “we have tragically failed.”

Lawmakers have a little more than a week before the deadline to introduce new legislation for the session.

The bills highlighted at Thursday’s press conference would:

Make vehicular manslaughter a violent felony and increase DUI penalties

(Introduced by Senator Bob Archuleta, a Democrat from Norwalk.)

Issue: Vehicular manslaughter isn’t considered a “violent” felony under state law, our reporting showed, allowing people convicted of the crime to serve only a fraction of their time behind bars.

Proposed changes: This bill would add vehicular manslaughter with “gross negligence” to the list of violent felonies. It would also add prison time for crashes with multiple victims and drivers with a prior felony DUI within 10 years. Finally, the bill would stiffen penalties for hit-and-run collisions where the driver had a prior DUI and expand so-called “Watson advisements” that make it easier to charge repeat DUI offenders with murder if they kill someone.

Close the DMV point loophole for drivers who get diversion after a deadly crash

(Introduced by Assemblymember Lori Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City.)

Issue: Recent criminal justice reform laws made it easier for judges to wipe misdemeanor convictions — including vehicular manslaughter — from criminal records. In practice, that means some California drivers can get points added to their license for speeding, but not for killing someone, our reporting has shown.

Proposed change: Ensure the DMV adds points to a drivers license in vehicular manslaughter cases where a driver gets off with misdemeanor diversion instead of a criminal conviction.

Ensure deadly drivers don’t get their licenses back as soon as they get out of prison

(Wilson plans to introduce.)

Issue: License suspensions or revocations often start at the time of a conviction and can actually end before someone is released from prison.

Proposed change: Require license suspensions and revocations to start when a driver is released from incarceration as opposed to at the time of a conviction, potentially keeping licenses away from dangerous drivers for years longer than the current law.

Increase DMV points for fatal crashes 

(Introduced by Assemblymembers Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale, and Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine.)

Issue: California drivers currently get the same number of points added to their license for killing someone as they do for non-injury DUIs and hit-and-run collisions.

Proposed change: Increase the number of points a vehicular manslaughter conviction adds to a driver’s license from the current two points to three.

Allow prosecutors to charge DUIs as a felony on second offense 

(Introduced by Lackey)

Issue: It currently takes four DUIs within 10 years to be charged with a felony in California. Many other states allow prosecutors to charge a felony after two or three offenses.

Proposed change: This would allow prosecutors to charge a second DUI offense within 10 years as a felony.

Allow prosecutors to charge DUIs as a felony after third offense, increase repeat DUI penalties

(Introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, a Democrat from Burbank)

Issue: Habitual repeat DUI offenders often face few added penalties.

Proposed change: Similar to Lackey’s bill, Schultz’s would let prosecutors charge a driver with a felony for their third DUI in 10 years. Increase the time some repeat DUI offenders need to have an ignition interlock device installed on their car and the amount of time their driving privileges are revoked.

Revoke the licenses of repeat DUI offenders for longer 

(Introduced by Lackey)

Issue: California takes away repeat DUI offenders’ driving privileges for three years, less time than many other places. Some other states revoke licenses for up to 15 years, or even issue lifetime bans.

Proposed change: Increase the amount of time the DMV can revoke the driving privileges of someone who gets a third DUI to eight years.

Bar people convicted of serious or repeat DUIs from purchasing alcohol

(Introduced by Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom, a Democrat from Stockton.)

Issue: California’s current system allows many repeat DUI offenders to stay on the road with few safeguards.

Proposed change: Let judges essentially bar people convicted of serious or repeat DUIs from purchasing alcohol by adding a “NO ALCOHOL SALE” sticker to their driver’s licenses, similar to a law recently enacted in Utah. A “Severe DUI” would be defined as an offense with a blood-alcohol level at least twice as high as the legal limit , conviction for two DUIs within three years, or a DUI causing great bodily injury, death, or major property damage.

Mandate in-car breathalyzers for all DUI offenders

(Introduced by Petrie-Norris)

Issue: Most states already require all DUI offenders to install an in-car breathalyzer. California does not. State law currently requires the devices, which a driver must blow into for their car to start, for people convicted of two or more DUIs, or a DUI that results in injury.

Proposed change: Require the breathalyzers for all DUI offenders. (A nearly identical measure was gutted late in the legislative process last year after the DMV said it did not have the technology or funding to implement the changes.)

Expand law enforcement DUI training

(Introduced by Assemblymember Juan Alanis, a Republican from Modesto.)

Issue: Local law enforcement training varies widely in California, meaning that officers aren’t always trained in how to test for drunk and drugged driving.

Proposed change: Increase DUI training for police officers who work traffic enforcement to ensure they are proficient in areas like sobriety testing and report writing.

One year after taking charge of the nation’s health department, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hasn’t held true to many of the promises he made while appealing to U.S. senators concerned about the longtime anti-vaccine activist’s plans for the nation’s care.

Kennedy squeaked through a narrow Senate vote to be confirmed as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, only after making a number of public and private guarantees about how he would handle vaccine funding and recommendations as secretary.

Here’s a look at some of the promises Kennedy made during his confirmation process.

The childhood vaccine schedule

In two hearings in January 2025, Kennedy repeatedly assured senators that he supported childhood vaccines, noting that all his children were vaccinated.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) grilled Kennedy about the money he’s made in the private sector from lawsuits against vaccine makers and accused him of planning to profit from potential future policies making it easier to sue.

“Kennedy can kill off access to vaccines and make millions of dollars while he does it,” Warren said during the Senate Finance Committee hearing. “Kids might die, but Robert Kennedy can keep cashing in.”

Warren’s statement prompted an assurance by Kennedy.

“Senator, I support vaccines,” he said. “I support the childhood schedule. I will do that.”

Days later, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, declared Kennedy had pledged to maintain existing vaccine recommendations if confirmed. Cassidy, a physician specializing in liver diseases and a vocal supporter of vaccination, had questioned Kennedy sharply in a hearing about his views on shots.

“If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendations without changes,” Cassidy said during a speech on the Senate floor explaining his vote for Kennedy.

A few months after he was confirmed, Kennedy fired all the incumbent members of the vaccine advisory panel, known as ACIP, and appointed new members, including several who, like him, oppose some vaccines. The panel’s recommendations soon changed drastically.

Last month, the CDC removed its universal recommendations for children to receive seven immunizations, those protecting against respiratory syncytial virus, meningococcal disease, flu, covid, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and rotavirus. The move followed a memorandum from the White House calling on the CDC to cull the schedule.

Now, those vaccines, which researchers estimate have prevented thousands of deaths and millions of illnesses, are recommended by the CDC only for children at high-risk of serious illness or after consultation between doctors and parents.

In response to questions about Kennedy’s actions on vaccines over the past year, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the secretary “continues to follow through on his commitments” to Cassidy.

“As part of those commitments, HHS accepted Chairman Cassidy’s numerous recommendations for key roles at the agency, retained particular language on the CDC website, and adopted ACIP recommendations,” Nixon added. “Secretary Kennedy talks to the chairman at a regular clip.”

Cassidy and his office have repeatedly rebuffed questions about whether Kennedy, since becoming secretary, has broken the commitments he made to the senator.

Vaccine funding axed

Weeks after Kennedy took over the federal health department, the CDC pulled back $11 billion in covid-era grants that local health departments were using to fund vaccination programs, among other initiatives.

That happened after Kennedy pledged during his confirmation hearings not to undermine vaccine funding.

Kennedy replied “Yes” when Cassidy asked him directly: “Do you commit that you will not work to impound, divert, or otherwise reduce any funding appropriated by Congress for the purpose of vaccination programs?”

A federal judge later ordered HHS to distribute the money.

The National Institutes of Health, part of HHS, also yanked dozens of research grants supporting studies of vaccine hesitancy last year. Kennedy, meanwhile, ordered the cancellation of a half-billion dollars’ worth of mRNA vaccine research in August.

A discredited theory about autism

Cassidy said in his floor speech that he received a guarantee from Kennedy that the CDC’s website would not remove statements explaining that vaccines do not cause autism.

Technically, Kennedy kept his promise not to remove the statements. The website still says that vaccines do not cause autism.

But late last year, new statements sprung up on the same webpage, baselessly casting doubt on vaccine safety. “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism,” the page on autism now misleadingly reads.

The webpage also states that the public has largely ignored studies showing vaccines do cause autism.

That is false. Over decades of research, scientific studies have repeatedly concluded that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

A controversial 1998 study that captured global attention did link the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to autism. It was retracted for being fraudulent — though not until a decade after it was published, during which there were sharp declines in U.S. vaccination rates.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.