1st Biden-Trump Debate of 2024: What They Got Wrong, and Right

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, shared a debate stage June 27 for the first time since 2020, in a confrontation that — because of strict debate rules — managed to avoid the near-constant interruptions that marred their previous encounters.

Biden, who spoke in a raspy voice and often struggled to articulate his arguments, said at one point that his administration “finally beat Medicare.” Trump, meanwhile, repeated numerous falsehoods, including that Democrats want doctors to be able to abort babies after birth.

Trump took credit for the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that upended Roe v. Wade and returned abortion policy to states. “This is what everybody wanted,” he said, adding “it’s been a great thing.” Biden’s response: “It’s been a terrible thing.”

In one notable moment, Trump said he would not repeal FDA approval for medication abortion, used last year in nearly two-thirds of U.S. abortions. Some conservatives have targeted the FDA’s more than 20-year-old approval of the drug mifepristone to further restrict access to abortion nationwide.

“The Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill. And I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it,” Trump said. The Supreme Court ruled this month that an alliance of anti-abortion medical groups and doctors lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s approval of the drug. The court’s ruling, however, did not amount to an approval of the drug.

CNN hosted the debate, which had no audience, at its Atlanta headquarters. CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash moderated. The debate format allowed CNN to mute candidates’ microphones when it wasn’t their turn to speak.

Our PolitiFact partners fact-checked the debate in real time as Biden and Trump clashed on the economy, immigration, and abortion, and revisited discussion of their ages. Biden, 81, has become the oldest sitting U.S. president; if Trump defeats him, he would end his second term at age 82. You can read the full coverage here and excerpts detailing specific health-related claims follow:

Biden: “We brought down the price [of] prescription drug[s], which is a major issue for many people, to $15 for an insulin shot, as opposed to $400.”

Half True. Biden touted his efforts to reduce prescription drug costs by referring to the $35 monthly insulin price cap his administration put in place as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But he initially flubbed the number during the debate, saying it was lowered to $15. In his closing statement, Biden corrected the amount to $35.

The price of insulin for Medicare enrollees, starting in 2023, dropped to $35 a month, not $15. Drug pricing experts told PolitiFact when it rated a similar claim that most Medicare enrollees were likely not paying a monthly average of $400 before the changes, although because costs vary depending on coverage phases and dosages, some might have paid that much in a given month.

Trump: “I’m the one that got the insulin down for the seniors.”

Mostly False. When he was president, Trump instituted the Part D Senior Savings Model, a program that capped insulin costs at $35 a month for some older Americans in participating drug plans.

But because it was voluntary, only 38% of all Medicare drug plans, including Medicare Advantage plans, participated in 2022, according to KFF. Trump’s plan also covered only one form of each dosage and insulin type.

Biden points to the Inflation Reduction Act’s mandatory $35 monthly insulin cap as a major achievement. This cap applies to all Medicare prescription plans and expanded to all covered insulin types and dosages. Although Trump’s model was a start, it did not have the sweeping reach that Biden’s mandatory cap achieved.

Biden: Trump “wants to get rid of the ACA again.”

Half True. In 2016, Trump campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. In the White House, Trump supported a failed effort to do just that. He repeatedly said he would dismantle the health care law in campaign stops and social media posts throughout 2023. In March, however, Trump walked back this stance, writing on his Truth Social platform that he “isn’t running to terminate” the ACA but to make it “better” and “less expensive.” Trump hasn’t said how he would do this. He has often promised Obamacare replacement plans without ever producing one.

Trump: “The problem [Democrats] have is they’re radical, because they will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth.”

False. Willfully terminating a newborn’s life is infanticide and illegal in every U.S. state. 

Most elected Democrats who have spoken publicly about this have said they support abortion under Roe v. Wade’s standard, which allowed access up to fetal viability — typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy, when the fetus can survive outside the womb. Many Democrats have also said they support abortions past this point if the treating physician deems it necessary.

Medical experts say situations resulting in fetal death in the third trimester are rare — fewer than 1% of abortions in the U.S. occur after 21 weeks — and typically involve fatal fetal anomalies or life-threatening emergencies affecting the pregnant person. For fetuses with very short life expectancies, doctors may induce labor and offer palliative care. Some families choose this option when facing diagnoses that limit their babies’ survival to minutes or days after delivery.

Some Republicans who have made claims similar to Trump’s point to Democratic support of the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022, which would have prohibited many state government restrictions on access to abortion, citing the bill’s provisions that say providers and patients have the right to perform and receive abortion services without certain limitations or requirements that would impede access. Anti-abortion advocates say the bill, which failed in the Senate by a 49-51 vote, would have created a loophole that eliminated any limits on abortions later in pregnancy.

Alina Salganicoff, director of KFF’s Women’s Health Policy program, said the legislation would have allowed health providers to perform abortions without obstacles such as waiting periods, medically unnecessary tests and in-person visits, or other restrictions. The bill would have allowed an abortion after viability when, according to the bill, “in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”

Trump: “Social Security, he’s destroying it, because millions of people are pouring into our country, and they’re putting them onto Social Security. They’re putting them onto Medicare, Medicaid.”

False. It’s wrong to say that immigration will destroy Social Security. Social Security’s fiscal challenges stem from a shortage of workers compared with beneficiaries.

Immigration is far from a fiscal fix-all for Social Security’s challenges. But having more immigrants in the United States would likely increase the worker-to-beneficiary ratio, potentially for decades, thus extending the program’s solvency.

Most immigrants in the U.S. without legal permission are also ineligible for Social Security. However, people who entered the U.S. without authorization and were granted humanitarian parole — temporary permission to stay in the country — for more than one year are eligible for benefits from the program.

Immigrants lacking legal residency in the U.S. are generally ineligible to enroll in federally funded health care coverage such as Medicare and Medicaid. (Some states provide Medicaid coverage under state-funded programs regardless of immigration status. Immigrants are eligible for emergency Medicaid regardless of their legal status.)

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Supreme Court Upends Purdue Pharma Opioid Settlement

In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the Sackler family cannot be shielded from future claims through Purdue’s bankruptcy.

Since the case was first heard, victims of the opioid crisis and recovery advocates have been split on the desired outcome. Some wanted the bankruptcy deal to go through so that settlement money could start flowing and fund urgently needed addiction services. Others said it would be unacceptable to allow the Sacklers to evade responsibility for their actions.

If you enjoyed this breakdown, follow the KFF Health News social team on Instagram @KFFHealthNews

✍️: Aneri Pattani/KFF Health News

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Battleground Wisconsin: Voters Feel Nickel-and-Dimed by Health Care Costs

BIRNAMWOOD, Wis. — The land of fried cheese curds and the Green Bay Packers is among a half-dozen battleground states that could determine the outcome of the expected November rematch between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump — a contest in which the cost and availability of health care are emerging as defining issues.

At church picnics and summertime polka festivals that draw voters of all political stripes, Wisconsinites said they’re struggling to pay for even the most basic health care, from common blood tests to insulin prescriptions. A proposal by Wisconsin’s Democratic governor to expand the state’s Medicaid program to thousands of low-income residents has become a partisan lightning rod in the affordability debate: Democrats want it; Republicans don’t.

In 2020, voters here gave Biden, a Democrat, a narrow win after favoring Trump, a Republican, in 2016. Recent polling indicates that the two rivals were neck and neck in this year’s race. They were scheduled to square off tonight in the first televised debate of the campaign.

Many Wisconsin voters still can’t figure out whom to vote for — or whether to vote at all.

“I know he’s trying to improve health care and inflation, but I’m not happy with Biden,” said Bob Prelipp, 79, a Republican who lives in Birnamwood, a village of about 700 people in rural central Wisconsin. He reluctantly voted for Biden in 2020, after voting for Trump in 2016.

Prelipp was serving beer at the Birnamwood Polka Days festival on a muggy June day. Pro-Trump hats peppered the crowd, and against the backdrop of cheerful polka tunes, peppy dancing, and the sweet smell of freshly cut hay, candidates for local and state office mingled with voters.

This rural part of the state is ruby red. Trump flags fly over the landscape and businesses proudly display pro-Trump paraphernalia. Biden supporters are more visible and vocal in the Wisconsin population centers of Madison, the capital, and Milwaukee.

Biden “needs to get prices down. Everything is getting so unaffordable, even health care,” said Prelipp, a Vietnam War veteran who said his federal health care for veterans has improved markedly under Biden, including wait times for appointments. Yet he said he can’t stomach the idea of voting for him again, or for Trump, who has disparaged military veterans.

Prelipp said people are feeling nickel-and-dimed, not only at the grocery store and gas pump, but also at doctors’ offices and hospitals.

Greg Laabs, a musician in one of the polka bands at Birnamwood, displayed a pro-Trump sticker on his tuba. He said he likes his federal Medicare health coverage but worries that if Biden is reelected Democrats will provide publicly subsidized health care to immigrants lacking legal residency.

“There are thousands of people coming across the border,” said Laabs, 71. He noted that both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed providing public health care to immigrants without legal residency as presidential candidates in 2019, a position that Harris’ home state of California has enthusiastically embraced. “We cannot support the whole world,” Laabs said.

The two main political parties will pick presidential nominees at their national conventions, and Biden and Trump are widely expected to be their choices. Republicans will gather in Milwaukee in July. Democrats will convene in Chicago in August.

Biden is trying to make health care a key issue ahead of the Nov. 5 election, arguing that he has slashed the cost of some prescription medications, lowered health insurance premiums, and helped get more Americans covered under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. He has also been a strong supporter of reproductive rights and access to abortion, particularly since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade two years ago.

“The choice is clear: President Biden will protect our health care,” claims one of Biden’s campaign commercials.

Trump has said he wants to repeal Obamacare, despite multiple failed Republican attempts to do so over several years. “The cost of Obamacare is out of control,” Trump wrote last year. “I’m seriously looking at alternatives.”

Even Democrats who back Biden say the president must make it easier and cheaper to get medical care.

“I signed up for one of the Obamacare plans and got my cholesterol and blood sugar tested and it was like $500,” said Mary Vils, 63, a Democrat who lives in Portage County in central Wisconsin.

She strongly supports Biden but said people are feeling squeezed. “We’re fortunate because we had some savings, but that’s a lot of money out-of-pocket.”

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, said he understands “the frustration that people have.”

Evers has repeatedly attempted to expand Medicaid to low-income adults who don’t have children, which all but 10 states have done since the enactment of Obamacare in 2010. The state’s Republican-controlled legislature has repeatedly blocked his efforts, yet Evers is trying again. Expanding Medicaid would provide coverage to nearly 90,000 low-income people, according to his administration.

Evers, who supports Biden, has argued that expanding Medicaid would bring in $2 billion in federal funding that would help reimburse hospitals and insurers for uncompensated care, and ultimately “make health care more affordable.”

Many states that have expanded Medicaid have realized savings in health care spending while providing coverage to more people, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank based in Washington, D.C.

“We have to get the Medicaid expansion money,” Evers told KFF Health News. “That would solve a lot of problems.”

Biden’s campaign is opening field offices in Wisconsin, and he and federal health care officials make frequent visits to the state. They’re touting Biden’s record of increasing subsidies for Obamacare insurance plans, and promising to expand access to care, especially in rural communities.

“Millions more people have coverage today,” said Neera Tanden, a domestic policy adviser to Biden, at a mid-June town hall event in Rothschild, Wisconsin, to announce $11 million in new federal funding to recruit and train health care workers.

She said the gains in Obamacare coverage have helped achieve “the lowest rate of uninsurance at any time in American history. That’s not an accident.”

But attendees at the town hall event told Tanden and the secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, that they have lost access to care as hospitals and rural health clinics have closed.

“We had a hospital that’s been serving our community for over 100 years close very suddenly,” said Michael Golat, an Altoona, Wisconsin, resident who described himself as an independent voter. “It’s really a crisis here.”

Becerra encouraged Wisconsin lawmakers to expand Medicaid. “Instantaneously, you would have hundreds of thousands of Americans in rural America, and including in rural Wisconsin, who now have access to care,” he said.

Cory Sillars, a Republican running for the Wisconsin State Assembly who campaigned at the Birnamwood polka festival, opposes Medicaid expansion and said the state should instead grant nurses the authority to practice medicine without doctor supervision, which he argued would help address gaps in rural care.

“If you’re always expanding government programs, you get people hooked on government and they don’t want to do it themselves. They expect it,” he said.

Sillars is running as a “pro-life” candidate with “traditional, Christian values,” an anti-abortion stance that some Democrats hope will backfire up and down the ballot.

Kristin Lyerly, an obstetrician-gynecologist and a Democrat, has made access to abortion and contraception central to her campaign to fill the congressional seat vacated by Mike Gallagher, a Republican who resigned in April.

Lyerly lives outside Green Bay but practices in Minnesota after facing threats and harassment, largely from conservative extremists, she said. She was a plaintiff in the state’s legal bid to block Republicans from halting access to abortions. Abortions still are not available everywhere in Wisconsin, she said.

“It is incumbent upon me as a physician and a woman to stand up and to use my voice,” Lyerly said. “This is an issue that people in this district might not be shouting about, but they’re having conversations about it, and they’re going to vote on it.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

California’s $25 Health Care Hourly Wage Relies on Federal Boost, State Worker Exemption

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California’s nation-leading $25 minimum wage for health workers will rely on a significant boost in federal funding and exempt thousands of state employees under an agreement that is expected to be approved in the coming days.

The minimum wage hike for more than 400,000 health workers, which will be phased in over several years, was to start June 1, but will now begin no earlier than Oct. 15 and no later than Jan. 1 under a budget deal announced June 22. The legislature is expected to approve the changes and Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign them into law before the new fiscal year begins July 1.

The delay is just one of several health-related measures in the nearly $300 billion state spending plan. The budget includes about $800 million in cuts to public health and health care workforce programs, but they are less severe than what Newsom initially proposed. It includes an 8% reduction in public health spending and preserves in-home support for Medi-Cal recipients regardless of their legal status. It counts on nearly $1.8 billion in additional revenue from the Managed Care Organization tax.

Newsom, a Democrat, had wanted an annual trigger that would have delayed the health worker wage bumps in tight budget years like this one, when the state faced a nearly $47 billion deficit.

Instead, Democratic leaders who control the legislature agreed to a one-time trigger that will start the increases in October if state revenues come in 3% higher than expected, or no later than in January after the state increases what is known as the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee, which allows hospitals to tax themselves to draw in federal money for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.

Budget officials expect the fee increase to cover about 30% of the minimum wage increases. The fee currently provides about $8.4 billion to California hospitals each year and officials project that the unspecified increase will bring in billions of dollars more.

The fee increase requires federal approval, but budget officials said they believe even such a large increase is allowed under federal guidelines. The Newsom administration plans to hash out the details with hospitals over the next several months.

The managed care plans will still have to compensate for the remaining increased minimum wage costs with higher Medi-Cal managed care rates, budget officials said.

However, the administration said hospitals expect the wage bumps “will not result in significant additional costs.” That differs from what the California Hospital Association said in successfully contesting a $25 minimum wage in one Southern California city. The association said it was reviewing the plan.

The California Association of Health Plans did not comment. The California Kidney Care Alliance said many dialysis providers already increased wages ahead of the new requirements.

The law originally excluded employees at the Department of State Hospitals, and state budget officials said the new bill extends that to exclude an estimated 21,000 employees at all health care facilities operated by the state, with the exception of the University of California system. Proponents have said the wage increases would have included employees at the departments of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Developmental Services, and Veterans Affairs.

“Of course, workers are disappointed that not every low-wage worker in health care will receive raises this summer as the law initially scheduled,” said Dave Regan, president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which pushed for the increases over the state’s $16 minimum wage. But he praised Democratic leaders for recognizing that “despite a historic budget deficit, California’s patient care and health care workforce crisis must be addressed.”

The University of California-Berkeley Labor Center projected that more than 469,000 health workers would get wage increases, with the biggest benefits going to women and workers of color. The law covers lower-income employees including certified nursing assistants, patient aides, food service workers, janitors, groundskeepers, and security staff. California separately increased the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $20 an hour.

The health worker law originally was set to raise the hourly minimum at large health facilities and dialysis clinics to $23 this year, $24 in 2025, and $25 in 2026. It would have increased hourly wages at community clinics to at least $21 in 2024, $22 in 2026, and $25 in 2027. Other health facilities were to go to at least $21 an hour in 2024, $23 in 2026, and $25 by 2028.

The initial increases will be pushed back several months based on the one-time trigger.

Because the increases will start partway through the fiscal year, Newsom’s administration now projects the first-year cost to be $1.4 billion, down from its earlier full-year estimate of $4 billion.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Las pruebas para la gripe aviar son difíciles de conseguir. ¿Cómo saber si estamos en una pandemia?

Últimamente, Abraar Karan, médico especialista en enfermedades infecciosas en la Universidad de Stanford, ha atendido a muchos pacientes con goteo nasal, fiebre e irritación en los ojos. Estos síntomas podrían ser señales de alergias, covid o un resfriado.

Y este año, existe una posibilidad más, la gripe aviar, pero la mayoría de los médicos no tienen forma de detectarla.

Médicos como Karan advierten que, si el gobierno no se prepara para que las pruebas para la gripe aviar H5N1 estén más disponibles, otra pandemia podría tomar al país por sorpresa de nuevo. 

“Estamos cometiendo los mismos errores que cometimos con el covid”, dijo Deborah Birx, quien fue coordinadora del equipo de respuesta al coronavirus bajo el ex presidente Donald Trump, en un programa de CNN el 4 de junio.

Para convertirse en una pandemia, el virus de la gripe aviar H5N1 tendría que propagarse entre las personas. La mejor manera de monitorear si eso está ocurriendo es realizando pruebas.

Muchos laboratorios de diagnóstico están capacitados para detectar el virus. Sin embargo, la burocracia, los problemas de facturación y la falta de inversión no permiten aumentar rápidamente la disponibilidad generalizada de pruebas.

Por el momento, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA) ha autorizado únicamente la prueba de gripe aviar de los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC), que se utiliza solo en personas que trabajan cerca de ganado.

Autoridades estatales y federales han detectado gripe aviar en vacas lecheras en 12 estados. Tres personas que trabajan en distintas granjas lecheras dieron positivo, presuntamente contagiadas de vacas infectadas con el virus. Sin embargo, los investigadores coinciden en que hay un subregistro de casos, dado que los CDC sólo han realizado pruebas de detección a unas 40 personas.

“Es importante saber si el virus está contenido en las granjas, pero no tenemos información porque no la estamos buscando”, dijo Helen Chu, especialista en enfermedades infecciosas de la Universidad de Washington en Seattle, quien alertó al país sobre la propagación del covid en 2020 realizando pruebas de manera más amplia.

Informes de trabajadores agrícolas enfermos a los que no se les hizo pruebas y de una partera que tenía síntomas de gripe en las áreas de Texas donde hubo brotes de H5N1 en el ganado sugieren que las cifras son más altas. Además, los síntomas de quienes dieron positivo (tos e inflamación en los ojos, sin fiebre) fueron leves, lo cual indica que las personas infectadas podrían no buscar atención médica y, por lo tanto, no hacerse la prueba.

Los CDC han pedido a los trabajadores agrícolas con síntomas de gripe que se hagan la prueba, pero a los investigadores les preocupa la falta de acceso y de incentivos para estimular a la gente a hacerse el test, sobre todo en personas con baja seguridad laboral y acceso limitado a la atención médica.

Además, al realizar las pruebas sólo en granjas lecheras, los CDC probablemente pasarían por alto las señales de un brote más amplio.

“Es difícil no comparar esto con covid, cuando al principio solo hacíamos pruebas a las personas que habían viajado”, dijo Benjamin Pinsky, director médico del laboratorio de virología clínica de la Universidad de Stanford. “Eso hizo que no reconociéramos de inmediato que el virus se estaba transmitiendo en la comunidad”.

En los primeros meses de covid, la distribución de pruebas en Estados Unidos fue catastróficamente lento. Aunque la Organización Mundial de la Salud había aprobado una prueba y otros grupos habían desarrollado sus propias versiones utilizando técnicas básicas de biología molecular, al principio los CDC insistieron en desarrollar y utilizar su propia prueba.

La primera versión que enviaron a los laboratorios estatales no funcionó, agravando las demoras.

La FDA también se retrasó. La agencia no autorizó pruebas de laboratorios de diagnóstico por fuera de la de los CDC hasta fines de febrero de 2020.

El 27 de febrero de 2020, el laboratorio de investigación de Chu detectó covid en un adolescente que no cumplía con los estrictos criterios de prueba de los CDC. Este caso fue la voz de alarma de que covid se había extendido de manera desapercibida. Ampliar los suministros para satisfacer la demanda llevó tiempo, y pasaron meses antes de que cualquier persona que necesitara una prueba de covid pudiera hacérsela.

Chu señala que no es 2020, ni mucho menos. Los hospitales no están llenos de pacientes con gripe aviar. Además, el país tiene las herramientas para actuar mucho mejor esta vez, dijo, si hay voluntad política.

Para empezar, las pruebas que detectan la amplia categoría de influenza a la que pertenece el H5N1, llamada influenza A, están aprobadas por la FDA y están disponibles. Se realizan de forma habitual durante la “temporada de gripe”, de noviembre a febrero. Si los investigadores detectan un número inusual de resultados positivos en las pruebas de gripe comunes durante la primavera y el verano, podría ser una mala señal.

Sin embargo, es poco probable que los médicos pidan pruebas de influenza A para pacientes con síntomas respiratorios fuera de la temporada de gripe, en parte porque algunas aseguradoras no las cubren excepto en circunstancias limitadas, dijo Alex Greninger, subdirector del laboratorio de virología clínica de la Universidad de Washington.

Este problema tiene solución, aclaró. En el pico de la pandemia de covid, el gobierno obligó a las compañías de seguros a cubrir las pruebas, y fijó un precio atractivo para que valiera la pena para los fabricantes. “En Manhattan, te encontrabas con un centro de testeo cada dos cuadras, porque las empresas recibían $100 cada vez que insertaban un hisopo en una nariz”, dijo Greninger.

Otro obstáculo es que la FDA aún no ha permitido que las empresas realicen pruebas de influenza A con muestras oculares, aunque los CDC y los laboratorios de salud pública sí pueden. En el caso de un trabajador agrícola infectado este año, el virus de la gripe aviar se detectó sólo en un hisopado ocular y no en muestras extraídas de la nariz o la garganta.

Superar estas barreras es esencial para aumentar el testeo de influenza A en áreas ganaderas, dijo Chu. “La estrategia más eficaz sería ofrecer estas pruebas de forma rutinaria en los consultorios que atienden a las comunidades de trabajadores agrícolas”, dijo, y sugirió que también estén disponibles en las ferias estatales.

Mientras tanto, se podrían actualizar las nuevas pruebas que detectan el virus H5N1. La prueba actual de los CDC no es muy sensible ni fácil de usar, dijeron investigadores.

Stanford, la Universidad de Washington, la Clínica Mayo y otros laboratorios de diagnóstico que prestan servicios en los sistemas hospitalarios han desarrollado alternativas para detectar el virus que está circulando. Sin embargo, su alcance es limitado, y los investigadores destacan la necesidad de poner en marcha esfuerzos para ampliar la capacidad de testeo antes de que se produzca una crisis.

“Si esto se convierte en una emergencia de salud pública, ¿cómo asegurarnos de no quedar estancados como en los primeros días de covid, cuando no podíamos avanzar rápidamente?”, dijo Pinski.

Una norma reciente que otorga a la FDA más control sobre las pruebas desarrolladas en laboratorio puede demorar la autorización. Un representante de la FDA le dijo a KFF Health News que, por ahora, la agencia tal vez permitirá que se realicen pruebas sin un proceso de aprobación completo.

Los CDC no respondieron a las solicitudes de comentarios.

Pero la Asociación Estadounidense de Laboratorios Clínicos ha exigido a la FDA y a los CDC más claridad sobre la nueva regla. “Está retrasando el proceso porque aumenta la confusión sobre lo que está permitido”, dijo Susan Van Meter, presidenta del grupo comercial de laboratorios de diagnóstico.

Labcorp, Quest Diagnostics y otras grandes empresas de pruebas son las más capacitadas para gestionar el aumento en la demanda de pruebas, ya que pueden procesar cientos al día, en lugar de docenas. Pero esto implicaría adaptar los procesos de testeo para sus equipos especializados, algo que requiere tiempo y dinero, dijo Matthew Binnicker, director de virología clínica de la Clínica Mayo.

“En los últimos años sólo ha habido unos pocos casos de H5N1 en humanos”, dijo, “por lo tanto, les resulta difícil invertir millones cuando no sabemos qué va a pasar”.

El gobierno podría proporcionar fondos para financiar la investigación o comprometerse a adquirir pruebas al por mayor, tal como en el proyecto Operación Warp Speed, que avanzó el desarrollo de la vacuna contra covid.

“Si tenemos que ampliar el testeo, necesitaríamos una inversión de dinero”, dijo Kelly Wroblewski, directora de programas de enfermedades infecciosas de la Asociación de Laboratorios de Salud Pública. Al igual que una póliza de seguro, el gasto inicial sería mínimo comparado con el golpe económico de otra pandemia.

También son fundamentales otros medios para rastrear el virus H5N1. La detección de anticuerpos contra la gripe aviar en trabajadores agrícolas ayudaría a revelar si más personas se han infectado, y si se han recuperado. Analizar las aguas residuales para detectar el virus podría indicar un aumento de las infecciones en personas, aves o ganado.

Como ocurre con todos los esfuerzos de preparación para una pandemia, la dificultad radica en enfatizar la importancia de actuar antes de que ocurra una crisis, dijo Greninger.

“Definitivamente debemos estar preparados”, dijo, “pero hasta que el gobierno no se haga cargo de parte del riesgo, es difícil dar un paso en esa dirección”.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

An Arm and a Leg: Meet the Middleman’s Middleman

Some people who expected their health insurance to cover some out-of-network care have been getting stuck with enormous bills.

One Kansas City, Kansas, couple paid thousands of dollars out-of-pocket and up-front for care. They expected to get a partial reimbursement from their insurer. So, they were shocked when instead they got a bill saying they owed even more than what they’d already paid.

It turns out, a little-known data firm called MultiPlan was working with their insurance company to suggest cuts to their coverage. MulitPlan says it’s helping control ballooning health care costs by keeping hospitals and providers from overbilling. But it’s often patients left paying the difference.In this episode of “An Arm and a Leg,” host Dan Weissmann breaks down this confusing world of out-of-network care with New York Times reporter Chris Hamby, who recently published an investigation into MultiPlan.

Dan Weissmann @danweissmann Host and producer of "An Arm and a Leg." Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago's WBEZ. His work also appears on All Things Considered, Marketplace, the BBC, 99 Percent Invisible, and Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Credits

Emily Pisacreta Producer Claire Davenport Producer Adam Raymonda Audio wizard Ellen Weiss Editor Click to open the Transcript Transcript: Meet the Middleman’s Middleman

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there! Paul and Kristin live in Kansas City with their two kids. Kristin and their daughter, the older kid– they have some complex medical issues, need to see some specialized folks. And some of those folks don’t take Kristin and Paul’s insurance. They’re “out of network,” so Kristin and Paul pay out of pocket– a lot. Maybe $20,000 a year. BUT their health insurance plan does reimburse some out-of-network care. 

o, in January 2023, Kristin called a help line connected with the insurance plan to find out how that was gonna work. 

Kristin H: They basically said, sure, easy peasy, you pay and then you get online and you click this form, you show what you paid, and then we send you a check and reimburse you. 

Dan: Kristin was on it. She built a whole spreadsheet to track every bill she paid, every reimbursement form she’d submitted. And she waited for the checks. The insurance company gave itself months just to process the claims. And when they finally sent statements, the statements seemed … weird. They were like: 

Kristin H: Here’s what you paid, and here’s your discounts, and here’s what you may owe. 

Dan: And Kristin was like … what? 

Kristin H: Because I was thinking, well, I don’t owe anything. We paid out of pocket, but then I was thinking, well, this must be the portion that they’re paying us back. But then the math didn’t add up. 

Dan: Yeah. Not at all. Kristin was expecting to get 50 percent back, like her plan said she would. But this amount wasn’t anything like 50 percent. And what’s this “discount” business? 

It took months– and a lot of digging from Paul, and ultimately a talk with a NewYork Times reporter– before Kristin and Paul understood what was going on, and why it was costing them thousands of dollars. 

What they didn’t know until that New York Times story came out was: Someone was making a multi-billion dollar business out of experiences like theirs. As that story made clear, LOTS of people who expected their insurance to cover them for expensive out-of-network care ended up on the hook for a lot more than they’d expected. 

That story introduced readers to a character who’s become kind of a TYPE on this show. Not a type of person, but a type of business: A middleman that works behind the scenes with insurance companies. So we’ve seen that dynamic with pharmacy benefit managers– the folks who decide what drugs you can get and for how much– and more recently, we looked at a company that uses an algorithm to justify kicking folks out of nursing homes. The middleman in this New York Times story was a company called MultiPlan. 

Reporter Chris Hamby found MultiPlan and insurance companies they worked with were leaving patients on the hook for huge amounts that they absolutely had not expected to pay. MultiPlan was also, along with those insurance companies, pocketing big fees. That story got some folks’ attention. A U.S. Senator has called for action from antitrust regulators. Those regulators might get interested. And we may wanna egg them on– so we’re gonna need to understand the whole scheme. Whothis middleman is– MultiPlan– and how they got themselves in the middle of 60 million people’s health insurance, by their own estimate … and how they make a lot of money. 

This is An Arm and a Leg, a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So, our job on this show is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life– and bring you a show that’s entertaining, empowering, and useful. 

And this time, I’ve got help. 

Chris Hamby: My name is Chris Hamby. I’m a reporter on the investigations desk at the New York Times. 

Dan: Yeah, and of course, Chris is the one who spent months figuring out the story of this middleman company, MultiPlan. 

Chris Hamby: I was poking around a number of areas related to health insurance, and this name just kept coming up. 

Dan: Like in lawsuits. 

Chris Hamby: And it wasn’t always terribly clear what they did exactly or how they were compensated. 

Dan: Or how doctors and patients– regular people– were affected. 

Chris Hamby: So that’s why I decided to try and figure this out, and it’s sort of an opaque space as so many areas of health care are these days. 

Dan: Yeah. In fact, in order to understand this story at all– to understand who’s doing WELL in this scenario– we’ve gotta peel back a layer. It’s something we’ve talked about here before, but not for a while, and you know, not even my mom remembers everything I’ve ever said here. 

This is about the mechanics of how most health insurance people get from their job actually works: about who actually pays medical bills when your insurance settles a claim. It’s not the insurance company. It’s actually the employer paying those bills. 

Of course, employers don’t know how to actually RUN an insurance plan. [Unless the employer is Aetna, I guess]. So they hire insurance companies to administer them. You get a card that says Cigna or Blue Cross, but your employer’s funds actually pay the medical bills, so these are called “self-funded” plans. But this is all stuff most of us are just not aware of. 

Here’s Chris Hamby: 

Chris Hamby: I hadn’t, until about a year ago, even heard of a self-funded plan. And I like to think that I’m reasonably well informed on this stuff. 

Dan: Yeah, that is putting it mildly. Chris made his name and won a Pulitzer Prize covering workplace health issues. So, just park that for a minute: self-funded plan, where the employer is the “self,” actually paying the bills, and paying the insurance company a fee. The insurance company is a middleman. 

OK, now, next layer: The middleman’s middleman. In this case, the company MultiPlan that Chris wrote about. What’s their job? So in this story, the job they’re doing– their middleman job– is to address what is admittedly kind of a tough question: If you go see somebody– a doctor, a therapist– who doesn’t take your insurance, what happens? 

Chris Hamby: How do you determine what a fair amount to pay the provider is? And by extension, how much is the patient potentially on the hook for the unpaid balance? And that has long been a contentious issue. 

Dan: Because, if they don’t take your insurance, a provider could charge … absolutely anything. So is your insurer– and again, that’s often actually your employer– supposed to pay absolutely anything? How much are they supposed to pay? Figuring that out, it’s a job. 

About 15 years ago, another middleman company doing that job got sued by the NewYork state attorney general. The state said this earlier middleman’s way of figuring out what to pay was screwing over both providers and patients. And the state’s lawsuit produced a solution. 

Chris Hamby: The insurance companies agreed to fund the creation of a nonprofit entity that was going be sort of an independent, neutral arbiter of fair prices. It was going to collect data from all the insurers and just make it publicly available. Make sure it was transparent to everyone. 

Dan: This nonprofit is called FAIR Health, and its data is actually public. It still exists. Like, you can use it yourself — you can look up the going rate for a knee replacement, a blood test, whatever. 

Chris Hamby: You can plug in your zip code, plug in your medical procedure and see an estimate of what, you know, typical out-of-network charges and in-network charges would be for these. 

Dan: It’s cool! Check it out yourself; it’s useful. And all the major insurance companies agreed to use it– to use FAIR Health’s benchmarks– to decide what to pay for out-of-network stuff. But, those agreements only committed insurance companies to using FAIR Health for … five years. They expired in 2014. 

Enter middleman companies like MultiPlan, saying to insurance companies: Hey, you COULD use FAIR Health– or you could route out-of-network bills to us: Hire us to get you an even better deal– better prices. 

Chris Hamby: And it’s important to note also that this is a time when private equity is investing in healthcare, and there are some legitimate concerns about driving up those list prices to ridiculously high levels in a lot of cases. So, there were real issues that insurers were saying that they were responding to at the time.

Dan: OK, so that’s the pitch. MultiPlan is saying to insurance companies: We’ll help you hold the line. We can save you more money than if you used FAIR Health. Well, kind of. Because here’s where we come back to the whole thing about self-funded insurance. MultiPlan isn’t saying, “We can save YOU, insurance company, more money than if you used FAIR Health.” They’re saying, “We can help you save your CLIENTS– employers who do self-funded health insurance– more money. And when you save them money, you’re gonna make money. Because you can charge them a percentage of what you’re saving them. And we’ll get a percentage too.” A percentage of the savings. On every single bill. That’s a very different deal than just using FAIR Health’s data. 

Chris Hamby: FAIR Health is not taking a percentage of the savings that they obtain. They’re just selling you their data. And the insurers typically are not charging employers a fee for using FAIR Health’s data. But if they use MultiPlan’s data, both MultiPlan and the insurer typically charge a fee. 

Dan: A percentage. In examples from Chris’s story, the insurance company gets 35 percent of those savings. 

Chris Hamby: And this has become a significant amount of money for a lot of insurance companies. Overall, UnitedHealthcare, is up to, you know, around a billion dollars per year in recent years. 

Dan: UnitedHealthcare collects like a billion dollars in fees for these services, basically, for using MultiPlan specifically? 

Chris Hamby: And they couch that by saying some other out-of-network savings programs, but yes. 

Dan: Whooh! 

Chris Hamby: One thing that the insurers say is that the employers are aware of this; they’ve signed up for it. 

Dan: That employers are hiring, say, Cigna, with MultiPlan to find savings. And employers are agreeing to the fees. 

Chris Hamby: Where it gets a little bit dicier from the employer’s perspective is when you see claims where, for instance, you end up paying the insurance company more in fees than you paid the doctor for treating your employee. 

Dan: yeah, one example from Chris’s story: An out-of-network provider wanted more than $150,000 on one bill. And after the insurance company and MultiPlan did their bit, the employer, a trucking company, ended up paying $58,000. Eight thousand for the provider, and $50,000 to the insurance company and MultiPlan. So, on the one hand, the employer maybe saved $90,000. But paying $50,000 for “cost containment?” Maybe doesn’t sound like such a bargain. 

Some employers and a union that runs a health plan have filed lawsuits looking for some of that money back. And there’s also a big irony here because MultiPlan’s pitch is, you need us because sticker prices are super-wildly high. But MultiPlan isn’t doing anything to contain the sticker prices as a systemic problem. In fact, the higher providers crank up their sticker prices, the more money MultiPlan and the insurance companies they work with can make. But then there’s a big question too, which is, what happens to the rest of that bill for the sticker price? Who pays that? That’s next … 

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of Public Road Productions and KFF Health News. The folks at KFF Health News are amazing journalists. Their work wins all kinds of awards, every year. We’re honored to work with them. 

So, a provider sends a bill. MultiPlan and the insurance company say, “Woah, way too much.” And then what happens? Well, it depends. Sometimes, MultiPlan negotiates with the provider. They’ve got people who do this. And those negotiators drive hard bargains. According to Chris’s story, negotiators sometimes tell providers: Here’s my offer, you’ve got a few hours to take it or leave it, and my next offer might be lower. 

Chris talked with a pediatric therapist who said an offer based on MultiPlan’s calculation was less than half of what Medicaid pays. Less than half. And Medicaid rates– they’re notoriously pretty low. Chris talked with some of MultiPlan’s negotiators too. 

Chris Hamby: It was interesting because some of the negotiators felt that they were doing their part to hold down costs and really sort of stick it to providers and hospitals that were price gouging. 

Dan: But …one told Chris she knew the offers she made– they weren’t fair. “It’s just a game,” another one said. “It’s sad.” And maybe the difference is that some of these negotiators were thinking of a big hospital charging $150,000  for something. And maybe some of them were thinking of someone like that therapist– the one who got offered less than half of Medicaid’s rate. 

And I’m not gonna get into the question of who should be doing this kind of negotiating, or what’s fair. I mean, not today, anyway. Because: in a lot of cases with MultiPlan, there’s no negotiation at all. Negotiation only happens when the employer has told the insurance company, look, protect my people. Figure out SOMETHING with the provider so they don’t go after my workers for the rest. 

But that doesn’t always happen. A lot of the time, what happens is: The provider sends a bill. The insurance company kicks in whatever it decides to … and that’s it. 

So Chris’s story opens with a woman who had surgery. With MultiPlan’s help, her insurance company decided to pay about $5,400. And she got stuck with a bill for more than $100,000. 

And then there’s Kristin and Paul in Kansas City. They paid their bills upfront and then looked to get reimbursed– kept a spreadsheet. But when their claims finally got processed, the numbers didn’t add up. Here’s what they saw: Like pretty much every insurance plan, Kristin and Paul’s had a “deductible”– an amount they had to pay out of pocket before insurance would reimburse anything. 

Kristin H: Then I started watching the deductible and you know, when I calculated my spreadsheet of how much we had paid out of pocket, and when we saw what was on like our out-of-network spend, those two weren’t matching. 

Dan: She really couldn’t figure this out. 

Kristin H: I just kind of handed over all of my spreadsheets to Paul, and so that’s when he started digging into the “your discount.” 

Dan: “Your discount…” That was this mysterious number on all the statements from the insurance company. In addition to the provider’s rate, and what insurance might pay, the statements listed, quote, “your discount.” 

Paul H: And I’m like, what is this? I don’t understand why it’s talking about a discount. We are paying cash out of pocket to the provider at their billed rate, and our insurance is saying that there’s some sort of discount. 

Dan: After a bunch of phone calls, he figured it out: The discount was … the difference between the amount on the bill and what the insurance company– with MultiPlan’s help– had decided was a “fair price.” 

Paul H: For example, an occupational therapy bill that might be $125, this third party adjuster might come back and say, essentially what the market rate for that should be is $76. And so, your discount, quote, unquote, is $49. 

Dan: Except of course, it wasn’t a discount for Kristin and Paul. They had already paid that $49, when they paid the provider upfront. Once Kristin and Paul learned what the “discount” actually meant, they started to understand who actually got the benefit– the insurer. Because … 

Kristin H: That discounted rate is actually what will be applied to your deductible. So you’re not going to hit your deductible nearly as quickly as you think. Right? Because we’ve essentially ignored half of your payment. 

Dan: This hits Kristin and Paul in two ways. 

First, it means they’re actually spending a lot more before their insurance kicks in. It also means that when their insurance does start reimbursing them a percentage of what they’ve spent, the insurance is only paying a percentage of that lower amount. Overall, it means the reimbursements Kristin and Paul get are gonna be thousands of dollars less than they’d expected. 

I mean, it took a LOT of work for Kristin and Paul to figure this out. At one point, Paul posted to Reddit asking for help– that’s where Chris Hamby found him. In Paul’s post, he noted how nobody ever even mentioned this third-party adjuster– not until he had already talked to his insurance company for what he said was “about 18 times.” Frequently on hold for 45 minutes or more. 

Kristin says once they finally figured out what was going on, they could figure out how to budget for it. There were sacrifices. She stopped seeing one of her providers as often. But finally figuring out what was going on also allowed them to live with it. 

Kristin H: The infuriating part was telling, like doing exactly what we were told to do, following the process, and then feeling like you are crazy. Like why, why doesn’t this make sense? You know? And so I think I’m fortunate that Paul just wouldn’t let it die and was gonna research until he figured it out. 

Dan: You did all of the work, you tracked it down, you identified the problem, and you, as you say, kind of resigned yourself to it. You’re like, okay, this Goliath is not– we don’t have the slingshot for this. Goliath is stomping all over our town, and we have to live in that reality. Having the knowledge, having done that work, gives you, it sounds like, an ability to have some peace. Like having tracked it down means that this sucks, but it’s not the same as living in a situation where like, now what? Like anything could happen.

Kristin H: Yeah, you feel crazy or hopeless. You know? Like I’ve done everything and this doesn’t … So there’s just the sense of like, am I missing something? You know, is there anything left for me to do? I recognize that everyone is not like this, but for me, knowledge is a gift. 

Dan: Chris Hamby says there’s rarely a way to get this kind of knowledge in advance. He says you’re unlikely to find these kinds of details in your insurance plan document. 

Chris Hamby: It typically will not say when you go out of network, we’re going to send your claim to a third party that you’ve never heard of to price it. It will just give some sort of vague language about competitive rates in your geographic area. And if you call up in advance of seeking the care to try and get an estimate, most of the time you will not get much more specifics than that. They tell you you have to just go and they’ll process the claim and you’ll see when the explanation of benefits comes through. 

Dan: Yeah, and look, I hate to get you even angrier, but Chris says the rules can change on you, without notice. 

Chris Hamby: A lot of people that I talk with also have seen no change in their insurance plan, but they’ve seen their reimbursement rates decline over time. 

Dan: Turns out, behind the scenes, their insurance made a switch from a service like FAIR Health, which looks at what’s getting paid in general, to a service like MultiPlan, which looks for the steepest possible price cuts. 

Chris Hamby: And the difference between those two amounts can be vast. So you have people who in some cases stop seeing their doctors because their costs doubled almost overnight. 

Dan: Oh god. And still. Better to know. Better that as many of us know as possible. That’s why Chris reviewed more than 50,000 pages of documents, and interviewed more than a hundred people for that story. And why lawyers for the New York Times helped get courts to agree to give him documents that had been under seal. 

Kristin and Paul– who had figured most of this out for themselves– they definitely appreciated all that work. 

Paul H: When Chris published the article that he did, it was very validating to know we’re not the only ones who are in this same boat. And there’s actually people who have had far worse experiences than ours. Like, ours kind of pale in comparison. And then immediately, like, within 24 hours to see 1,500 or 1,600 comments on the article talking about it. It’s like, okay, I might not have the stone that can slay the giant, but maybe The NewYork Times has the right sling and they might have the right stone to at least start the conversation. 

Dan: A few weeks after Chris’s article came out, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar sent the top federal antitrust regulators a letter: She wanted them to take a hard look at MultiPlan. 

Chris Hamby: She expressed concern about the potential for price fixing here. 

Dan: Actually, Chris says some providers have already filed lawsuits against MultiPlan based on antitrust allegations. 

Chris Hamby: The idea is that all the insurance companies outsource their pricing decisions to a common vendor. They’re essentially fixing prices via algorithm is the allegation. 

Dan: As we noted here a few episodes ago, these antitrust regulators in the Biden administration have gotten pretty feisty. [That was the episode about the cyberattack on a company called Change Healthcare. It was called “The Hack,” if you missed it. Pretty fun!] 

And I mean, those antitrust regulators have their work cut out for them. And a lot of targets. But I do want to egg them on here. I suspect you do too. Meanwhile, you’re egging US on. 

Listener 1: The first thought that went through my head was I’m going to fight this because this is absolutely ridiculous. I’ve already paid for this. 

Dan: A few weeks ago, we asked you for stories about your experiences with sneaky fees, often called facility fees. 

Listener 2: When the facility fee is twice the office visit fee, it’s just crazy. I mean, it’s a 10-minute appointment for a prescription. 

Dan: You came through, and now we’re making some calls, digging in for more details, and learning so much. We’re gonna have a sneak preview for you in a few weeks. Till then, take care of yourself. 

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta and Claire Davenport– our summer intern. Welcome aboard, Claire!– and edited by Ellen Weiss. Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and Blue Dot Sessions. Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. Gabe Bullard is our engagement editor. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. Sarah Ballama is our operations manager. 

An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about healthcare in America and a core program at KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show. 

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN.org. Finally, thanks to everybody who supports this show financially. You can join in any time at https://armandalegshow.com/support/

Thanks for pitching in if you can, and thanks for listening.

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to its newsletters. You can also follow the show on Facebook and the social platform X. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Medicaid for Millions in America Hinges on Deloitte-Run Systems Plagued by Errors

Deloitte, a global consultancy that reported revenue last year of $65 billion, pulls in billions of dollars from states and the federal government for supplying technology it says will modernize Medicaid.

The company promotes itself as the industry leader in building sophisticated and efficient systems for states that, among other things, screen who is eligible for Medicaid. However, a KFF Health News investigation of eligibility systems found widespread problems.

The systems have generated incorrect notices to Medicaid beneficiaries, sent their paperwork to the wrong addresses, and been frozen for hours at a time, according to findings in state audits, allegations and declarations in court documents, and interviews. It can take months to fix problems, according to court documents from a lawsuit in federal court in Tennessee, company documents, and state agencies. Meanwhile, America’s poorest residents pay the price.

Deloitte dominates this important slice of government business: Twenty-five states have awarded it eligibility systems contracts — with 53 million Medicaid enrollees in those states as of April 1, 2023, when the unwinding of pandemic protections began, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Deloitte’s contracts are worth at least $5 billion, according to a KFF Health News review of government contracts, in which Deloitte commits to design, develop, implement, or operate state systems.

State officials work hand in glove with Deloitte behind closed doors to translate policy choices into computer code that forms the backbone of eligibility systems. When things go wrong, it can be difficult to know who’s at fault, according to attorneys, consumer advocates, and union workers. Sometimes it takes a lawsuit to pull back the curtain.

Medicaid beneficiaries bear the brunt of system errors, said Steve Catanese, president of Service Employees International Union Local 668 in Pennsylvania. The union chapter represents roughly 19,000 employees — including government caseworkers who troubleshoot problems for recipients of safety-net benefits such as health coverage and cash assistance for food.

“Are you hungry? Wait. You sick? Wait,” he said. “Delays can kill people.”

KFF Health News interviewed Medicaid recipients, attorneys, and former caseworkers and government employees, and read thousands of pages from contracts, ongoing lawsuits, company materials, and state audits and documents that show problems with Deloitte-operated systems around the country — including in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas.

In an interview, Kenneth Smith, a Deloitte executive who leads its national human services division, said Medicaid eligibility technology is state-owned and agencies “direct their operation” and “make decisions about the policies and processes that they implement.”

“They’re not Deloitte systems,” he said, noting Deloitte is one player among many who together administer Medicaid benefits.

Alleging “ongoing and nationwide” errors and “unfair and deceptive trade practices,” the National Health Law Program, a nonprofit that advocates for people with low incomes, urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Deloitte in a complaint filed in January.

“Systems built by Deloitte have generated numerous errors, resulting in inaccurate Medicaid eligibility determinations and loss of Medicaid coverage for eligible individuals in many states,” it argued. “The repetition of the same errors in Deloitte eligibility systems across Texas and other states and over time demonstrates that Deloitte has failed.”

FTC spokesperson Juliana Gruenwald Henderson confirmed receipt of the complaint but did not comment further.

Smith called the allegations “without merit.”

The system problems are especially concerning as states wade through millions of Medicaid eligibility checks to disenroll people who no longer qualify — a removal process that was paused for three years to protect people from losing insurance during the covid-19 public health emergency. In that time, nationwide Medicaid enrollment grew by more than 22 million, to roughly 87 million people. At least 22.8 million have been removed as of June 4 , according to a KFF analysis of government data.

Advocates worry many lost coverage despite being eligible. A KFF survey of adults disenrolled from Medicaid during the first year of the unwinding found that nearly 1 in 4 adults who were removed are now uninsured. Nearly half who were removed were able to reenroll, the survey showed, suggesting they should not have been dropped in the first place.

“If there is a technology challenge or reason why someone can’t access health care that they're eligible for, and we're able to do something,” Smith said, “we work tirelessly to do so.”

Deloitte’s contracts with states regularly cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and the federal government pays the bulk of the cost.

“States become very dependent on the consultant for operating complex systems of all kinds” to do government business, said Michael Shaub, an accounting professor at Texas A&M University.

Georgia’s contract with Deloitte to build and maintain its system for health and social service programs, inked in 2014, as of January 2023 was worth $528 million. This January, state officials wrote in an assessment obtained by KFF Health News that its eligibility system “lacks flexibility and adaptability, limiting Georgia’s ability to serve its customers efficiently, improve the customer and worker experience across all programs, ensure data security, reduce benefit errors and fraud, and advance the state’s goal of streamlining eligibility.”

Deloitte and the Georgia Department of Community Health declined to comment.

Deloitte is looking ahead with its “path to Medicaid in 2040,” anticipating sweeping changes that will expand its own business opportunity.

“State Medicaid leaders and policymakers are hungry to know what the future of health care holds,” the company said. “Deloitte brings the innovative tools, subject matter expertise, and time-tested experience to help states.”

Trouble in Tennessee

When Medicaid eligibility systems fail, beneficiaries suffer the consequences.

DiJuana Davis had chronic anemia that required iron infusions. In 2019, the 39-year-old Nashville resident scheduled separate surgeries to prevent pregnancy and to remove the lining of her uterus, which could alleviate blood loss and ease her anemia.

Then Davis, a mom of five, received a shock: Her family’s Medicaid coverage had vanished. The hospital canceled the procedures, according to testimony in federal court in November.

Davis had kept her insurance for years without trouble. This time, Tennessee had just launched a new Deloitte-built eligibility system. It autofilled an incorrect address, where Davis had never lived, to send paperwork, an error that left her uninsured for nearly two months, according to an ongoing class-action lawsuit Davis and other beneficiaries filed against the state.

The lawsuit, which does not name Deloitte as a defendant, seeks to order Tennessee to restore coverage for those who wrongly lost it. Kimberly Hagan, Tennessee Medicaid’s director of member services, said in a court filing defending the state’s actions that many issues “reflect some unforeseen flaws or gaps” with the eligibility system and “some design errors.”

Hagan’s legal declaration in 2020 gave a view of what went wrong: Davis lost coverage because of missteps by both Tennessee and Deloitte during what’s known as the “conversion process,” when eligibility data was migrated to a new system.

Tennessee’s Medicaid agency, known as “TennCare, along with its vendor, Deloitte, designed rules to govern the logic of conversion,” Hagan said in the legal declaration. She also cited a “manual, keying error by a worker” made in 2017.

Davis’ family was “incorrectly merged with another family during conversion,” Hagan said.

Davis regained coverage, but before she could rebook the surgeries, she testified, she became pregnant and a serious complication emerged. In June 2020, Davis rushed to the hospital. A physician told her she had preeclampsia, a leading cause of maternal death. Labor was induced and her son was born prematurely.

“Preeclampsia can kill the mom. It can kill the baby. It can kill both of you,” she testified. “That’s like a death sentence.”

Deloitte’s Tennessee contract is worth $823 million. Deloitte declined to comment on Davis’ case or the litigation.

Speaking broadly, Smith said, “data conversion is incredibly challenging and difficult.”

Hagan called the problems one-time issues: “None of the Plaintiffs’ cases reflect ongoing systemic problems that have not already been addressed or are scheduled to be addressed.”

States leverage Deloitte’s technology as part of a larger push toward automation, legal aid attorneys and former caseworkers said.

“We all know that big computer projects are fraught,” said Gordon Bonnyman, co-founder of the nonprofit Tennessee Justice Center. “But a state that was concerned about inflicting collateral damage when they moved to a different automated system would have a lot of safeguards.”

TennCare spokesperson Amy Lawrence called its eligibility system “a transformative tool, streamlining processes and enhancing accessibility.”

When enrollees seek help at county offices, “you don’t get to sit down across from a real human being,” Bonnyman said. “They point you to the kiosk and say, ‘Good luck with that.’”

A Backlog of 50,000 Cases

As part of the Affordable Care Act rollout about a decade ago, states invested in technological upgrades to determine who qualifies for public programs. It was a financial boon to Deloitte and such companies as Accenture and Optum, which landed government contracts to build those complex systems.

Problems soon emerged. In Kentucky, a Deloitte-built system that launched in February 2016 erroneously sent at least 25,000 automated letters telling people they would lose benefits, according to local news reports. State officials manually worked through a backlog of 50,000 cases caused by conflicting information from newly merged systems, the reports say.

“We know that the rollout of Benefind has caused frustration and concern for families and for field staff,” senior Deloitte executive Deborah Sills said during a March 2016 news conference alongside Gov. Matt Bevin and other senior officials after Kentucky was bombarded with complaints. Within two months, roughly 600 system defects were identified, found a report by the Kentucky state auditor.

In Rhode Island, a botched rollout in September 2016 delayed tens of thousands of Social Security payments, The Providence Journal reported. Advocacy groups filed two class-action lawsuits, one related to Medicaid and the other to food stamp benefits. Both were settled, with Rhode Island officials denying wrongdoing. Neither named Deloitte as a defendant.

In a 2018 statement for a Statehouse hearing, Sills of Deloitte said, “We are very sorry for the impact that our system issues have had on your constituents, on state workers, and on service providers.” The state’s top human services official resigned.

A 2017 audit by a top Rhode Island official prepared for Gov. Gina Raimondo found that Deloitte “delivered an IT system that is not functioning effectively” and had “significant defects.” “Widespread issues,” it said, “caused a significant deterioration in the quality of service provided by the State.”

“Deloitte held itself out as the leading vendor with significant experience in developing integrated eligibility systems for other states,” the audit read. “It appears that Deloitte did not sufficiently leverage this experience and expertise.” Deloitte declined to comment further about Rhode Island and Kentucky.

Deloitte invokes the phrase “no-touch” to describe its technology — approving benefits “without any tasks performed by the State workers,” it wrote in documents vying for an Arkansas contract.

In practice, enrollee advocates and former government caseworkers say, the systems frequently have errors and require manual workarounds.

As it considered hiring Deloitte, Arkansas officials asked the company about problems, particularly in Rhode Island.

In response, the company said in 2017, “We do not believe Deloitte Consulting LLP has had to implement a corrective action plan” for any eligibility system project in the previous five years.

Arkansas awarded Deloitte a $345 million contract effective in 2019 to develop its system.

“It had a lot of bugs,” said Bianca Garcia, a program eligibility specialist for the Arkansas Department of Human Services from August 2022 to October 2023.

Garcia said it could take weeks to fix errors in a family’s details and Medicaid enrollees wouldn’t receive the state’s requests for information because of glitches. They would lose benefits because workers couldn’t confirm eligibility, she added.

The enrollees “were doing their part, but the system just failed,” Garcia said.

Arkansas Department of Human Services spokesperson Gavin Lesnick said: “With any large-scale system implementation, there occasionally are issues that need to be addressed. We have worked alongside our vendor to minimize these issues and to correct any problems.”

Deloitte declined to comment.

‘Heated’ Negotiations

In late 2020, Colorado officials were bracing for the inevitable unwinding of pandemic-era Medicaid protections.

Colorado was three years into what is now a $354.4 million contract with Deloitte to operate its eligibility system. A state-commissioned audit that September had uncovered widespread problems, and Kim Bimestefer, the state’s top Medicaid official, was in “heated” negotiations with the company.

The audit found 67% of the system notices it sampled contained errors. Notices are federally required to safeguard against eligible people being disenrolled, said MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate teaching professor in public health at George Washington University.

“This is, for many people, what’s keeping them from being uninsured,” Musumeci said.

The Colorado audit found many enrollee notices contained inaccurate response deadlines. One dated Dec. 19, 2019, requested a beneficiary return information by Sept. 27, 2011 — more than eight years earlier.

“We’re in intense negotiations with our vendor because we can’t turn around to the General Assembly and say, ‘Can I get money to fix this?’” Bimestefer told lawmakers during the 2020 legislative audit hearing. “I have to hold the vendor accountable for the tens of millions we’ve been paying them over the years, and we still have a system like this.”

She said officials had increased oversight of Deloitte. Also, dozens of initiatives were created to “improve eligibility accuracy and correspondence,” and the state renegotiated Deloitte’s contract, said Marc Williams, a state Medicaid agency spokesperson. A contract amendment shows Deloitte credited Colorado with $5 million to offset payments for additional work.

But Deloitte’s performance appeared to get worse. A 2023 state audit found problems in 90% of sampled enrollee notices. Some were violations of state Medicaid rules.

The audit blamed “flaws in system design” for populating notices with incorrect dates.

In September, Danae Davison received a confusing notice at her Arvada home stating that her daughter did not qualify for coverage.

Lydia, 11, who uses a wheelchair and is learning to communicate via a computer, has a seizure disorder that qualifies her for a Medicaid benefit for those with disabilities. The denial threatened access to nursing care, which enables her to live at home instead of in a facility. Nothing had changed with Lydia’s condition, Davison said.

“She so clearly has the need,” Davison said. “This is a system problem.”

Davison appealed. In October, a judge ruled that Lydia qualified for coverage.

The notice generated by the Deloitte-operated system was deemed “legally insufficient” because it omitted the date Lydia’s coverage would end. Her case highlights a known eligibility system problem: Beneficiary notices contain “non-compliant or inconsistent dates” and are “missing required elements and information,” according to the 2023 audit.

Deloitte declined to comment on Colorado. Speaking broadly, Smith said, “Incorrect information can come in a lot of forms.”

Last spring in Pennsylvania, Deloitte’s eligibility role expanded to include the Children’s Health Insurance Program and 126,000 enrollees.

Pennsylvania’s Department of Human Services said an error occurred when converting to the state’s eligibility system, maintained by Deloitte through a $541 million contract. DHS triaged the errors, but, for “a small window of time,” some children who still had coverage “were not able to use it.”

These issues affected 9,269 children last June and 2,422 in October, DHS said. A temporary solution was implemented in December and a permanent fix came through in April.

Catanese, the union representative, said it was another in a long history of problems. Among the most prevalent, he said: The system freezes for hours. When asked about that, Smith said “it's hyperbole.”

Instead of the efficiency that Deloitte touted, Catanese said, “the system constantly runs into errors that you have to duct tape and patchwork around.”

KFF Health News senior correspondent Renuka Rayasam and correspondents Daniel Chang, Bram Sable-Smith, and Katheryn Houghton contributed to this report.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Live From Aspen: Health and the 2024 Elections

The Host

Julie Rovner KFF Health News @jrovner Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

The presidential election is less than five months away, and while abortion is the only health policy issue expected to play a leading role, others are likely to be raised in the presidential and down-ballot races. This election could be critical in determining the future of key health care programs, such as Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

In this special episode of KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” taped at the Aspen Ideas: Health festival in Aspen, Colorado, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call join Julie Rovner, KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent, to discuss what the election season portends for top health issues.

Panelists

Margot Sanger-Katz The New York Times @sangerkatz Read Margot's stories. Sandhya Raman CQ Roll Call @SandhyaWrites Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Policies surrounding abortion — and reproductive health issues, in general — likely will dominate in many races, as Democrats try to exploit an issue that is motivating their voters and dividing Republican voters. The topics of contraception and in vitro fertilization are playing a more prominent role in 2024 than they have in past elections.
  • High prescription drug prices — which, for frustrated Americans, are a longtime symbol, and symptom, of the nation’s dysfunctional health care system — have been a priority for the Biden administration and, previously, the Trump administration. But the issue is so confusing and progress so incremental that it is hard to say whether either party has an advantage.
  • The fate of many major health programs will be determined by who wins the presidency and who controls Congress after this fall’s elections. For example, the temporary subsidies that have made Affordable Care Act health plans more affordable will expire at the end of 2025. If the subsidies are not renewed, millions of Americans will likely be priced out of coverage again.
  • Previously hot-button issues like gun violence, opioid addiction, and mental health are not playing a high-profile role in the 2024 races. But that could change case by case.
  • Finally, huge health issues that could use public airing and debate — like what to do about the nation’s crumbling long-term care system and the growing shortage of vital health professionals — are not likely to become campaign issues.

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on SpotifyApple PodcastsPocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

California Leaders Tussle With Health Industry Over Billions of New Dollars for Medi-Cal

Gov. Gavin Newsom, state lawmakers, and health industry leaders have a small window to reach an agreement on billions of new dollars for Medi-Cal before it’s put to voters in November.

An initiative, supported by virtually every sector of the state’s health care industry as well as the local Republican and Democratic parties, would lock in the money for Medi-Cal, California’s version of the Medicaid health insurance program for low-income residents. The funds would be used primarily to increase payment rates for health care professionals who serve Medi-Cal patients.

Newsom, a Democrat, initially supported using the money for that purpose. But after California’s fiscal situation darkened, he reversed course in May, proposing to divert most of it to reduce the state’s $45 billion budget deficit.

The money is from a tax on managed-care health plans that’s been around for two decades but has historically been used to offset existing state spending rather than support new investments in Medi-Cal.

“The importance of this ballot initiative is finally being serious about investing in the viability of the Medi-Cal system,” said Adam Dougherty, chief of emergency medicine at Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento. “The MCO tax literally touches every aspect of the Medi-Cal system, and it can’t be at the mercy of year-to-year budget crises.”

Michael Genest, a former finance director under Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, noted that several ballot initiatives approved by voters in the past continue to narrow the state’s fiscal choices, including one that limits property tax increases and another that guarantees a large share of the state budget to schools.

“We do ballot-box budgeting in the state of California. We’ve done it forever. And everything we’ve done in that regard has turned out to be very hard on fiscal stability,” Genest said.

It’s possible that the Coalition to Protect Access to Care, made up of doctors, hospitals, health plans, and other medical providers, could settle their differences with state leaders before a June 27 deadline to withdraw the initiative.

Newsom’s desire to claw back most of the promised money puts him at odds with proponents of the initiative, many of whom have long counted themselves among his allies. Elana Ross, a spokesperson for Newsom, declined to comment on the status of the initiative.

In May, Newsom proposed using about $6.7 billion previously earmarked for Medi-Cal pay hikes and some other health care priorities, mostly in 2025 and 2026, to offset existing state spending. His proposal would retain Medi-Cal payment increases totaling around $300 million a year for some primary care, mental health, and maternity services.

The legislature passed a new budget on June 13 largely following the governor’s wishes by canceling the planned Medi-Cal increases in 2025. But Newsom hasn’t signed off.

“What was approved represents a two-house agreement between the Senate and the Assembly — not an agreement with the governor,” said H.D. Palmer, spokesperson for the state’s Department of Finance. “We’ll respectfully decline to speculate on what the contours of a final agreement would look like.”

Revenue from the managed-care tax allows the state to draw matching federal dollars, more than doubling the amount available. Federal and state money would also be used to reimburse the health plans for nearly all the taxes they paid, theoretically having no effect on insurance premiums.

California is among 19 states that have such an “MCO tax” in place to help fund their Medicaid programs. Using the tax revenue to pay Medi-Cal providers more is “a generational opportunity to fundamentally fix access to care for Medi-Cal recipients,” said Dustin Corcoran, CEO of the California Medical Association and a spokesperson for the ballot initiative.

Corcoran said internal polling shows the initiative has public support by “very healthy margins,” though he declined to share specific numbers.

If the initiative does end up on the November ballot and is approved, it would override any compromise Newsom strikes with lawmakers. It would restore the previously planned Medi-Cal investments for 2025 and 2026. And it would make the increased funding, and more of it, permanent starting in 2027, though that would require federal approval.

Proponents of the initiative say it is fundamentally a question of health equity. Medi-Cal covers medical and mental health services for nearly 15 million Californians, well over a third of the state, many of them among the poorest and most vulnerable residents. The program has a budget of about $157 billion, including recent expansions to cover all immigrants regardless of legal status and a $12 billion experiment to offer socioeconomic supports not traditionally covered by health insurance.

But access to care is notoriously spotty for many Medi-Cal patients, in part because low payment rates discourage providers from seeing them. The shortage is particularly acute in specialty care.

“Our patients wait months for access to specialists or travel great distances to see them,” said Joel Ramirez, chief medical officer of Camarena Health, a chain of over 20 community clinics based in Madera. “Higher rates would allow for more providers.”

Ramirez said 60% to 70% of Camarena’s patients are on Medi-Cal, many of them farmworkers. “It’s a tall ask for them to find time off work and get the transportation to travel an hour for an appointment,” he said. “Whatever condition that patient has that needs the attention of a specialist is being either untreated or incompletely treated.”

Dougherty, Sutter Medical Center’s ER chief, said that over half of his patients are on Medi-Cal and the ER is always at full capacity, with the waiting rooms jammed and an insufficient number of beds. The initiative, he said, “allows us to hire more staff, add more beds, create more infrastructure for the volume we’re seeing.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts: