Florida's ADAP Cuts Put 16,000 People Living with HIV at Risk

On January 8, 2026, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) sent an email to healthcare partners announcing sweeping changes to the state's AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), effective March 1, 2026. In the days that followed, thousands of Floridians living with HIV received letters informing them that their access to life-saving medications and insurance coverage would be drastically curtailed in less than two months. The announcement came with minimal warning and no prior engagement with the affected community, marking an alarming departure from decades of collaborative public health practice and threatening to unravel progress made toward Ending the HIV Epidemic.

What Florida Is Doing

The changes are significant in scope. Florida DOH is reducing ADAP income eligibility for uninsured clients from 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) down to 130% FPL, which translates to an annual income of approximately $20,345 for a single person. The state is eliminating insurance premium assistance, which previously helped people maintain coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace. Florida is also removing Biktarvy, the most widely prescribed single-tablet HIV regimen, from the ADAP formulary while restricting Descovy to people with renal insufficiency.

According to the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), Florida ADAP served 32,248 clients in 2024, with 40% at or below 100% FPL, 10% between 101–138% FPL, and 50% between 138–400% FPL. With a cutoff at 130% FPL, NASTAD estimates that more than 16,000 people will lose ADAP coverage. The administration has offered a different estimate. At a January 14, 2026 Florida Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo estimated approximately 10,000 people would be affected.

The numbers matter less than the underlying reality: half of all Floridians currently relying on ADAP for uninterrupted access to HIV treatment face immediate risk of treatment disruption based on an administrative eligibility change, not clinical need.

The Stated Rationale and Its Problems

DOH has framed the changes as necessary to prevent a projected $120 million budget shortfall, attributing the crisis to rising health care insurance premiums and the expiration of enhanced ACA premium tax credits at the end of 2025. The federal government shutdown in October 2025, during which Republicans and Democrats fought over the impending expiration of these tax credits, did lead to their lapse on December 31. Florida, with nearly 4.5 million people receiving marketplace insurance and roughly 31% of ADAP clients enrolled in marketplace plans, faces genuine financial pressure.

What DOH has not provided is transparency around its budget calculations. At the Senate hearing, David Poole, who oversaw Florida's AIDS program from 1993 to 2005, pointed out that the state transparency website shows $120 million in rebate revenues from the prior year. Testimony from a former consumer representative to the Florida DOH ADAP Advisory Workgroup indicated that information shared with stakeholders suggests the expanded tax credits had minimal impact on the program, with insurance premiums increasing only about $150 per client annually. The state has not publicly released an ADAP budget in more than a year, according to Malcolm Ried of the U.S. People Living with HIV Caucus.

When Senator Carlos Guillermo Smith asked Kendall Kelly, director of policy and budget under Governor DeSantis, about the state's authority to make such dramatic cuts to a federally funded program, Kelly referenced a potential $700 million shortfall for the health department overall but could not provide specifics about federal funding changes. No other state has made such drastic changes to its ADAP program this year. Pennsylvania, facing similar budget pressures, reduced its eligibility from 500% to 350% FPL—a far more measured response.

The Clinical and Public Health Stakes

Treatment interruption for a person living with HIV is a clinical risk, not an administrative inconvenience. When antiretroviral therapy (ART) is interrupted, viral rebound occurs, drug resistance can develop, viral suppression is lost, and the risk of onward transmission increases. The science is clear: consistent treatment keeps people healthy and prevents new transmissions. This principle underlies the entire Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative, which targets sustained viral suppression as one of its four core strategies.

Dr. Paul Arons, the former Medical Director of the state HIV/AIDS program from 1989 to 2007, testified that asking a person with HIV whose treatment is working to change regimens for non-medical reasons is a traumatic request. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 89.6% of clients enrolled in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program achieved viral suppression as of fiscal year 2025. HIV medications have among the highest adherence rates of any chronic disease treatment. Disrupting that success for opaque and questionable budget claims defies logic and evidence-based practice.

The formulary changes compound the harm. Biktarvy is prescribed to 60% of Florida ADAP clients. The state has offered no transition plan, no guidance on which generics will replace it, and a warning that additional formulary restrictions may follow. The International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC) has called this approach drug rationing under the banner of cost control.

A Failure of Process

Federal Ryan White legislation and HRSA HIV/AIDS Bureau (HAB) guidance require states to engage stakeholders, including people living with HIV, in program planning and to explore cost-saving measures before implementing cost-cutting measures like eligibility reductions or formulary restrictions. The ADAP Manual from HRSA HAB distinguishes between cost-saving measures (improving efficiency, expanding health care coverage, maximizing rebate collection) and cost-cutting measures (restricting enrollment or benefits). Waiting lists are described as a last resort.

Florida DOH bypassed this framework entirely. The eligibility level for Florida's ADAP program is established in regulation, requiring a public regulatory process to change. No such process was undertaken before this announcement. The announcement came with less than two months notice, days before the ACA open enrollment period ended, and without prior consultation with advisory workgroups or community partners. Testimony at the January 14 Senate hearing revealed that stakeholders learned of the changes only days earlier and were never brought in to discuss cost containment measures.

The timing compounds the harm. Florida's plan to cancel premium assistance was announced just days before the end of ACA open enrollment. ADAP enrollees had selected plans approved by the program, often with higher premiums, because ADAP covered the cost. Canceling those subsidies as of March 1 leaves people locked into plans they cannot afford with no ability to change their enrollment.

The abrupt nature of the announcement left people living with HIV scrambling. "This is deeply personal for me—not only do I rely on this coverage to stay virally suppressed, but I also need it to manage other health issues as I age with HIV," Kamaria Laffrey, Co-Executive Director of The SERO Project and a Florida resident, told Positively Aware. "With no warning and no transparency, this feels like a random and unjustified attack on people simply trying to live."

The lack of transparency extends to notification. Some people will not receive termination letters because they did not consent to mailings at home. County health departments, according to testimony, have not received guidance on tracking these clients. The two-month transition window is unrealistic for navigating alternative coverage in a fragmented insurance market, particularly after open enrollment has closed.

Historical Echo

This situation carries echoes of an earlier Florida crisis. In the early 2010s, following the 2008 recession, Florida maintained the largest ADAP waiting list in the nation, with thousands of people waiting months to access medications. Advocates fought to implement cost containment measures and stabilize the program. The state eventually recovered, but the lessons of that period—the importance of transparency, stakeholder engagement, and exploring alternatives before cutting eligibility—appear to have been forgotten.

What Happens Next

The policy implications extend beyond Florida. Because all state ADAPs rely on the same federal funding streams, what happens in one state signals possibilities for others. IAPAC has urged clinicians in states with similar political and fiscal dynamics to engage their representatives proactively. The Save HIV Funding campaign has noted that the Florida changes come alongside broader health system destabilization, including Medicaid cuts and disruptions to federal HIV programs, creating a compounding effect.

At the state level, Chair Jay Trumbull of the Senate Appropriations Committee indicated the issue would likely be negotiated during budget talks. Surgeon General Ladapo acknowledged the situation could become a crisis without intervention and suggested funding approaches that might not be onerous. Yet DOH has not requested additional state funds, despite Florida holding $17 billion in reserves.

What Needs to Happen

The immediate need is a complete halt to the March 1 implementation while finances are fully reviewed and medically sound alternatives are developed. Florida must release transparent budget data, engage stakeholders as required by federal law, and explore the full range of cost-saving measures before resorting to eligibility cuts and formulary restrictions.

For advocates and policymakers watching this unfold, the Florida crisis offers a clear lesson: when states treat HIV programs as budget line items rather than public health infrastructure, people fall out of care, viral suppression declines, and new transmissions occur. The economic argument for maintaining access is well-established: keeping people in care and virally suppressed prevents costly emergency interventions, hospitalizations, and new transmissions that carry their own long-term treatment costs.

Florida has the resources, the federal funding framework, and the clinical expertise to maintain a functional ADAP program. What it lacks, at this moment, is the political will to use them or the moral grounding to not sacrifice the most vulnerable. The cost of that failure will be measured in preventable illness, unnecessary suffering, and setbacks to the national goal of Ending the HIV Epidemic. We cannot let that happen.

Closing the EHB Loophole: Louisiana Leads, But National Action is Needed

"Jason," a Utah AIDS Foundation client, confronted a brutal truth in the wake of his HIV diagnosis: a healthcare system more interested in profits than patients. Faced with a staggering $3,200 co-pay for his HIV medication—well beyond his financial reach—Jason's plight was exacerbated by his insurance company's implementation of a co-pay accumulator policy. This policy effectively nullified the assistance he once relied on, leaving him stranded without his medication for months. "I felt scared and discouraged when I was told I have a $3,200 co-pay to pick up my HIV meds. I don’t even make that much money each month," Jason shared, his voice a stark indictment of a system failing its most vulnerable. His story, spotlighted by The Utah All Copays Count Coalition, underscores a pervasive issue: patients across the nation are cornered into impossible choices between health and financial ruin, casualties of an insurance industry's practices that blatantly prioritize margins over meaningful care.

Understanding the Problem

Jason's heartbreaking story sheds light on interconnected issues fueling the healthcare affordability crisis: co-pay accumulators and the Essential Health Benefits (EHB) loophole. These tactics have a devastating effect on patient well-being, so let's break them down:

Co-pay Accumulators: A Profit-Driven Scheme at the Expense of Patients

These programs allow insurers to take the value of manufacturer-provided coupons or patient assistance and apply it towards an annual deductible, but not towards a patient's out-of-pocket maximum. This means even with generous assistance, patients can face thousands of dollars in additional costs, forcing them to ration medication or abandon treatment altogether. The numbers reveal the widespread impact:

• The AIDS Institute reports that co-pay accumulator adjustment programs (CAAPs) are present in a shocking 66% of individual Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plans nationwide, with some states showing 75-100% of available plans utilizing these tactics.

Co-pay Maximizers: A Further Threat to Affordability

Insurers are increasingly employing an even more severe tactic known as 'co-pay maximizers'. These programs set a patient's co-pay to the full amount of available assistance, even if it's intended to cover an entire year's medication cost. Unlike accumulators, which prevent assistance from counting towards the out-of-pocket maximum, maximizers essentially 'use up' all available assistance in a single payment. This leaves patients facing the full, often unaffordable, cost of medication for the rest of the year. The combined use of maximizers and accumulators is becoming increasingly common, leaving patients with limited options and magnifying the financial burden of life-saving treatments. A staggering 72% of commercially insured beneficiaries in the United States were enrolled in plans with co-pay maximizers as of 2023, according to a Drug Channels analysis.

This highlights the alarming prevalence of these practices and the immense pressure they place on patients struggling to manage chronic conditions.

The Essential Health Benefits (EHB) Loophole: Insurers Exploit Gaps in Coverage

Under the ACA, states have flexibility in selecting the 'essential' healthcare services that insurers must cover. Some insurers manipulate this system by classifying necessary medications (especially for chronic conditions) as 'non-essential'. This lets them continue using co-pay accumulators and maximizers on these medications, further undermining patient affordability.

• Centers for Medicate & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) data reveals that in many states, critical treatments for chronic disease management are not guaranteed coverage under 'essential' benefits. This means patients could be subject to accumulators and maximizers indefinitely, locked in a cycle of escalating costs even when reaching their out-of-pocket maximums.

The takeaway is clear: these practices prioritize the shareholder profits of insurance companies over the health and well-being of patients, especially those battling chronic and complex conditions.

Federal Action – Progress and Pitfalls

The CMS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2025 signals a notable yet incomplete step towards remedying the healthcare affordability crisis. It attempts to close the Essential Health Benefits loophole starting in 2027 by mandating routine, non-pediatric dental coverage as an essential benefit. While seemingly tangential, this amendment serves as a precursor to addressing broader coverage issues, demonstrating the potential to mitigate part of the financial burdens that patients like Jason face. However, it underscores a significant gap in the rule's scope—its silence on co-pay accumulators and maximizers.

Limitations of the CMS Rule Change

The rule change’s failure to directly address co-pay accumulators and maximizers leaves a significant gap in patient protection. These payor-driven barriers systematically undermine patient affordability and access, especially for those managing chronic conditions. The absence of direct action against these schemes allows insurers to deploy cost-containment strategies that, while ostensibly designed to control expenditures, place the financial burden squarely on patients.

This oversight perpetuates financial hardship and deepens healthcare disparities. Accumulator and maximizer practices disproportionately affect marginalized populations, highlighting the limitations of regulatory changes that fail to comprehensively address the complex dynamics of healthcare affordability and access.

Without targeted measures to dismantle these financial mechanisms, efforts to expand coverage and close loopholes may achieve only superficial improvements. A significant portion of the population, particularly those managing chronic diseases, will continue to face insurmountable financial barriers to accessing essential treatments. This situation underscores the need for a more holistic approach to healthcare reform—one that confronts the financial mechanisms impairing patient care and seeks to eliminate systemic practices that prioritize profit over patient well-being.

Court Challenges: A Victory Shadowed by Continued Uncertainty

The battle against co-pay accumulators achieved a notable legal milestone when a federal court ruled these practices violated the Affordable Care Act's mandates. Despite this victory, the landscape remains fraught with ambiguity, largely due to the federal government's tepid response. The government’s retraction of its appeal in 2022, while upholding the court's decision, did not establish a nationwide prohibition on co-pay accumulators, leaving insurers in a legal gray area.

The HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute has spotlighted the risk posed by the federal government's refusal to enforce the court's ruling against co-pay accumulators, shifting focus instead to addressing insurers' classification of certain drugs as “non-essential health benefits.” While the final 2025 Notice of Benefits and Payment Parameters rule curbs the classification of covered drugs beyond state benchmarks as non-essential, the government's inaction on co-pay accumulators marks a troubling disconnect between legal victories and their practical implementation.

This gap between legal wins and real-world application emphasizes the need for interventions at the state level. Louisiana's SB 210 emerges as a key measure, proposing tangible solutions to bridge the gap left by federal inaction and protect patients from the financial burdens imposed by insurers' exploitative tactics.

State Solutions: Louisiana as a Model

Louisiana's Legislative Response with SB 210

In an assertive move to safeguard healthcare affordability and accessibility, Senator Bob Owen's SB 210 targets the mechanisms of co-pay accumulators and the Essential Health Benefits (EHB) loophole. The legislation mandates comprehensive coverage under EHBs and holistic accumulator protections, ensuring all cost-sharing payments contribute towards the ACA's out-of-pocket maximums.

This legislative approach not only challenges the status quo but also highlights Louisiana's proactive stance in addressing healthcare disparities. By mandating that insurers recognize all federally designated EHB services and medications as essential, SB 210 directly confronts insurers' manipulative practices, ensuring patients receive the comprehensive coverage promised under the ACA.

Addressing the ‘Endless Deductible’

In a letter to the Louisiana State Senate Insurance Committee, CANN President and CEO Jen Laws warns that without robust protections like SB 210, insurers can impose what patients call "the endless deductible." This term illustrates the loophole that allows insurers to employ exploitative accounting practices, negating the ACA's intent to cap patient spending on healthcare. SB 210's provisions aim to close this loophole, ensuring patients are not burdened with exorbitant costs for essential treatments, thus preserving the ACA's core promise of affordable care.

In his letter, Laws reveals that Louisiana's health plan benchmarks do not guarantee coverage for essential cancer treatments such as radiation or chemotherapy, underlining the significance of SB 210. By ensuring that expenditures for such critical treatments are counted towards patients' out-of-pocket maximums, the bill offers a lifeline to those facing the daunting financial implications of treating life-threatening conditions. This measure is pivotal in bridging the gap left by the current healthcare system's shortcomings, providing patients with much-needed financial relief and access to life-saving treatments.

A Blueprint for National Reform

Louisiana's initiative serves as a compelling model for tackling the challenges posed by ambiguous EHB classifications, federal inaction, and exploitative co-pay practices. SB 210's success could inspire a wave of legislative efforts across the United States, advocating for a healthcare system that prioritizes patient well-being over payor profits. This approach highlights the potential for state-level innovations to influence national healthcare policy, paving the way for reforms that ensure healthcare accessibility and affordability for all, especially those living with chronic and life-threatening conditions.

Call to Action

The legislative changes proposed in Louisiana represent a critical juncture in the fight for healthcare affordability and access. To realize the full potential of these reforms, a concerted effort is needed from key stakeholders across the healthcare ecosystem:

For U.S. Policymakers:

Legislators at both state and federal levels must embrace proactive strategies to close the EHB loophole and regulate co-pay accumulator and maximizer use. Crafting and enacting policies that guarantee comprehensive coverage of essential health benefits and ensure all forms of patient assistance contribute towards out-of-pocket maximums are essential steps toward protecting patients from undue financial strain. Supporting state-level initiatives like Louisiana's SB 210 can serve as a foundation for broader national reforms, underscoring the importance of legislative action in safeguarding patient interests.

Healthcare Providers:

Medical professionals and healthcare institutions play a crucial role in advocating for their patients' rights and navigating the evolving insurance landscape. By staying informed about the implications of insurance policies on treatment access and affordability, healthcare providers can better support their patients in accessing the care they need. Engaging in policy discussions and supporting legislative efforts to address the EHB loophole and co-pay accumulator issue are necessary contributions to the broader push for healthcare reform.

Community Advocates and Patients:

The voices of patient advocacy groups and people affected by the healthcare system's complexities are instrumental in driving change. By raising awareness about the challenges posed by the EHB loophole and co-pay accumulators, mobilizing communities to demand reform, and sharing personal stories, advocates can influence policy decisions and encourage insurers to prioritize patient needs. Engaging in public discussions and advocating for policies that protect patients from harmful insurance practices are critical steps in building a more equitable healthcare system.

Actionable Next Steps:

• Reach out to state and federal representatives to express support for policies that ensure comprehensive coverage of essential health benefits and address the challenges posed by co-pay accumulators.

• Educate oneself and others about the impact of the EHB loophole and co-pay accumulators on healthcare affordability and access, leveraging resources and information provided by reputable patient advocacy organizations.

By uniting in the pursuit of meaningful healthcare reform, stakeholders across the spectrum can contribute to a future where healthcare accessibility and affordability are realities for all, especially for those facing chronic and life-threatening conditions. The journey toward closing the EHB loophole and eliminating unfair insurance practices demands collective action and unwavering commitment to patient well-being. Let's join forces to advocate for a healthcare system that truly serves the needs of its patients, ensuring equitable access to essential treatments and protections against financial hardship.

Painting Roses in the Desert: Despite Medicaid Expansion, Gaps Remain in Arizona

[Editor’s Note: This blog is, in part, a replication of a blog hosted by the ADAP Advocacy Association. Supplementary policy analysis on hepatitis treatments continues in this blog]

It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that many AIDS Drug Assistance Program advocates are in favor of Medicaid expansion. Indeed, as noted here, those same advocates view Medicaid expansion as an opportunity to strengthen health care access for the most vulnerable people living with HIV, meet needs unaddressed by a state’s ADAP coverage, and help ADAPs remain financially stable. For ambitious advocates (I’m talking about myself), when sufficient support exists to support those at or below the expanded Medicaid eligibility threshold of 138% of the federal poverty level, state ADAPs could consider expanding income eligibility above 400% of the federal poverty level. Indeed, Louisiana is one such state.

However, like all health care policy, the details matter.

In Arizona, the state’s Medicaid formulary is restrictive and slow to adapt to the needs of qualified people living with HIV, shifting financial pressure to the state’s ADAP and requiring the most impoverished clients to manage interacting programs in order to achieve coverage of certain medications. As the payer of last resort, when ADAP clients have other coverage (ie. Medicaid), conflicting payment processes are most often felt at the point of medication delivery or when a client gets told, inadvertently, their medication is not paid for. The process of correcting this mistake can take a matter of days or weeks, depending on a pharmacy’s experience with co-occurring payers.

In that time, patients can fall out of care, drastically reducing their likelihood of achieving an undetectable viral load.

For ADAP formulary advisory committees, for states that have them, the process of adding and adjusting formularies is sometimes relatively expedient. Relatively, in part, because those medical experts and community experts understand the need and nature for ensuring access to an expansive list of antiretroviral medications and modern advancements. Arizona’s Medicaid formulary lacks several single tablet regimens and, in the opinion of Glen Spencer, executive director of Aunt Rita’s Foundation, favor outdated “cocktails” (or multi-tablet regimens), complicating daily care for people living with HIV and accessing Medicaid, often subjecting clients to greater experiences of toxicity, and ultimately interjects an unnecessary interruption in both patient choice and provider care.

In aiming to impress the need of Arizona’s Medicaid formulary to expand in both supporting the sustainability of the state’s ADAP and meeting national initiatives Mr. Spencer stated, “It is critically important that Arizona’s Medicaid program include all single-tablet regimens on its formulary to offer patients the right medication for them, and to provide medical providers with the flexibility they need to prescribe the right medication for each patient.”

To this end, Aunt Rita’s advocacy efforts are also expanding with proposed legislation addressing the failure of Arizona’s Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) to take up the issue. According to Mr. Spencer, the bill is not likely to make it out of committee this year and lacks any great deal of interest for legislators battling over other budgetary and policy concerns and does not currently have a companion bill in the state Senate. On the other hand, the bill is sponsored in the Arizona House by a bipartisan coalition of 9 legislators.

“In order to end the HIV epidemic, both the patient and provider community will need all therapies available to them to support persons living with HIV, save lives, and get patients to an undetectable viral load.” Mr. Spencer added, “This policy not only promotes patients’ ability to lead a robust life, but also prevents new infections given the science behind U=U.”

The state’s ADAP and Medicaid formularies also present a similar situation for medications used to treat Hepatitis C, leaving a critical gap in available health care services and treatment for those at risk of contracting Hepatitis C. While the state’s ADAP coverage includes most direct acting agents, Arizona’s Medicaid formulary only covers Epclusa, Mavyret, Ribovirin, and Peginterferon.

Arizona’s situation offers a critical reminder that even with the value of Medicaid expansion, in order to achieve the greatest reach of ADAPs, tackle the absolutely critical inclusion of treatment and retention in prevention efforts, and to eliminate viral hepatitis, the details matter and advocates will need to adapt old fights to new environments.