Para las farmacéuticas, la pelea entre Trump y Harris es entre dos enemigos de la industria

En medio de una amarga y divisiva contienda, el ex presidente Donald Trump y la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris solo parecen coincidir en una cosa: es tarea del gobierno reducir los altos precios de los medicamentos en el país.

En 2022, Harris emitió el voto de desempate en el Senado para aprobar una ley que permite a Medicare negociar los precios de los medicamentos para sus más de 60 millones de beneficiarios. Antes, como fiscal general de California, fue una reguladora agresiva de la industria farmacéutica.

Como presidente, Trump probablemente mantendría las negociaciones de precios de Medicare a menos que la industria farmacéutica pudiera ofrecer algo más convincente. Según personas de su círculo, en su primer mandato propuso varias políticas destinadas a reducir los costos de los medicamentos recetados, pero tuvo un éxito limitado en su implementación.

La industria farmacéutica podría beneficiarse si Trump sigue sin poder avanzar con tales propuestas.

“Sus esfuerzos fueron en gran parte fragmentados y enfrentaron resistencia tanto de la industria como de los legisladores”, dijo Sergio José Gutiérrez, estratega político que ha trabajado principalmente con demócratas. “La falta de una estrategia consolidada y la capacidad limitada para implementar cambios significativos hizo que su enfoque fuera menos efectivo en comparación con lo que una administración Harris-Walz podría ofrecer”.

Legisladores de ambos partidos atacan cada vez más a la industria, por los precios de los medicamentos que la mayoría de los estadounidenses consideran irrazonables, según encuestas de KFF. El resultado de la elección podría ser crucial para la suerte de las farmacéuticas.

La situación actual de la industria contrasta fuertemente con años anteriores, cuando gozaban de una reputación de ser casi intocables. Durante más de una década, rechazaron propuestas para permitir que Medicare negociara precios más bajos de medicamentos antes de perder la batalla hace dos años.

El cambio en su posición política se refleja en las contribuciones de las compañías farmacéuticas a los candidatos. Una industria que en los años 90 y principios de los 2000 daba tres o cuatro veces más a los candidatos republicanos que a los demócratas, ahora está repartiendo de forma distinta sus apuestas. Hasta ahora, en el ciclo de 2024, las compañías farmacéuticas han dado $4,89 millones a los demócratas y $4,35 millones a los republicanos, según OpenSecrets, un grupo de investigación no partidista.

Harris ha recibido $518.571 de la industria, y Trump $204.748.

En la Convención Nacional Demócrata en Chicago, Harris y otros promocionaron sus antecedentes en la reducción de los precios de los medicamentos. Los partidarios de Harris señalan su pasado y presente.

Mientras fue fiscal general de California, Harris tuvo causas que resultaron en casi $7.200 millones (alrededor de $22 por persona en Estados Unidos) en multas para las farmacéuticas.

Su voto para aprobar la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación del presidente Joe Biden allanó el camino no solo para la negociación de precios de Medicare, sino también para un límite anual de $2.000 en el gasto total en medicamentos de los beneficiarios de Medicare y un límite de $35 en sus suministros mensuales de insulina.

“En los Estados Unidos de América, ningún adulto mayor debería tener que elegir entre llenar su receta o pagar su alquiler”, dijo Harris el 15 de agosto en su primera aparición conjunta con Biden desde que el presidente  abandonara la carrera por la reelección.

Si es elegida presidenta, ha prometido extender tanto el límite anual de gastos en medicamentos como el límite del precio de la insulina a todos los estadounidenses con seguro, no solo a aquellos con Medicare.

Harris también respaldó una política polémica que, en algunos casos, permitiría al gobierno federal inyectar más competencia en el mercado al incautar las patentes de algunos medicamentos costosos desarrollados con fondos federales.

Doug Hart, de 77 años, de Tempe, Arizona, ha estado gastando alrededor de $7.000 anuales en medicamentos recetados. Un medicamento que toma para prevenir coágulos de sangre costará menos bajo las negociaciones de precios de Medicare. El presidente retirado de un sindicato dijo que la disminución será considerable y es una de las razones por las que apoya a Harris.

“Los republicanos votaron en contra de la negociación de precios de Medicare. Harris rompió el empate en el Senado para permitirlo”, dijo Hart, quien es miembro de la junta de la Alianza de Jubilados de Arizona, que trabaja para movilizar a miembros y sindicalistas retirados en temas progresistas.

Si bien como partido los republicanos siguen siendo más favorables a la industria farmacéutica, Trump ha estado dispuesto a desafiar la ortodoxia del GOP tomando medidas para combatir los altos costos de los medicamentos.

Durante su administración, trató de vincular los precios de los medicamentos en Medicare con los precios internacionales más bajos, una propuesta que el instituto de investigación de salud de PricewaterhouseCoopers estimó que costaría a cinco fabricantes de medicamentos hasta $500 millones de dólares al año.

Lo que se conocía como la regla final interina de “nación más favorecida” fue bloqueada debido a desafíos legales y luego fue rescindida por la administración de Biden.

Trump emitió una regla que establecía un camino para importar medicamentos de Canadá y otros países, con Florida convirtiéndose este año en el primer estado en obtener la aprobación federal para importar algunas recetas de Canadá. Pero las acciones del estado se frustraron por la resistencia de Health Canada, el departamento del gobierno canadiense responsable de la política de salud nacional.

Y en su sitio web de campaña, Trump publicó un video en el que cuestionaba si los problemas de salud infantil son el resultado de la “sobre recetar” medicamentos.

“Con demasiada frecuencia, nuestro establishment de salud pública está demasiado cerca de Big Pharma; ganan mucho dinero, Big Pharma, las grandes corporaciones y otros intereses especiales, y no quieren hacer las preguntas difíciles sobre lo que está sucediendo con la salud de nuestros hijos”, dijo. “Si Big Pharma engaña a los pacientes y contribuyentes estadounidenses o antepone las ganancias a las personas, se los debe investigar y responsabilizar”, agregó.

Trump no ha dicho mucho sobre los precios de los medicamentos en su campaña de 2024, pero sus aliados y ex asesores dicen que sigue comprometido a reducir los precios de las recetas, si es reelegido.

Probablemente, Trump se enfocaría en aumentar la competencia de genéricos y biosimilares, importar medicamentos fabricados, pero que en la actualidad se venden en el extranjero, y limitar los costos de bolsillo de la insulina, según ex funcionarios de su administración.

Otros objetivos podrían ser reducir los precios de los medicamentos en el programa 340B de Medicare, que requiere que los fabricantes proporcionen fármacos para pacientes ambulatorios a precios reducidos a organizaciones de salud elegibles que atienden a pacientes de bajos ingresos y sin seguro.

“El tema número 1 que le importaba mientras estaba en la Casa Blanca, y sigo escuchándolo hablar, es reducir los precios de los medicamentos”, dijo Theo Merkel, investigador senior en los think tanks conservadores Paragon Health Institute y Manhattan Institute. Merkel también fue asistente especial de Trump en la Casa Blanca. “Estoy seguro de que estará arriba en la agenda”, agregó.

Catherine Hill, vocera de la Asociación de Investigación y Fabricantes Farmacéuticos de América, o PhRMA, dijo que el grupo comercial de la industria espera colaborar con cualquier futura administración presidencial.

Criticó el plan de negociación de precios de Medicare de la administración Biden, así como el plan de Trump de alinear los precios con los de otros países. Este mes, la administración anunció nuevos precios reducidos para 10 medicamentos en el programa tras negociaciones entre el gobierno federal y las farmacéuticas. Los costos más bajos entrarán en vigencia en 2026.

“Los controles de precios anteriores adoptados por la administración Biden amenazan con frenar esa innovación”, dijo Hill. “Socavar las protecciones de la propiedad intelectual y tomar ‘prestados’ los controles de precios de otros países subestimará aún más la innovación y amenazará el acceso de los pacientes a los medicamentos”.

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:

Feds Killed Plan To Curb Medicare Advantage Overbilling After Industry Opposition

A decade ago, federal officials drafted a plan to discourage Medicare Advantage health insurers from overcharging the government by billions of dollars — only to abruptly back off amid an “uproar” from the industry, newly released court filings show.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published the draft regulation in January 2014. The rule would have required health plans, when examining patient’s medical records, to identify overpayments by CMS and refund them to the government.

But in May 2014, CMS dropped the idea without any public explanation. Newly released court depositions show that agency officials repeatedly cited concern about pressure from the industry.

The 2014 decision by CMS, and events related to it, are at the center of a multibillion-dollar Justice Department civil fraud case against UnitedHealth Group pending in federal court in Los Angeles.

The Justice Department alleges the giant health insurer cheated Medicare out of more than $2 billion by reviewing patients’ records to find additional diagnoses, adding revenue while ignoring overcharges that might reduce bills. The company “buried its head in the sand and did nothing but keep the money,” DOJ said in a court filing.

Medicare pays health plans higher rates for sicker patients but requires that the plans bill only for conditions that are properly documented in a patient’s medical records.

In a court filing, UnitedHealth Group denies wrongdoing and argues it shouldn’t be penalized for “failing to follow a rule that CMS considered a decade ago but declined to adopt.”

This month, the parties in the court case made public thousands of pages of depositions and other records that offer a rare glimpse inside the Medicare agency’s long-running struggle to keep the private health plans from taking taxpayers for a multibillion-dollar ride.

“It’s easy to dump on Medicare Advantage plans, but CMS made a complete boondoggle out of this,” said Richard Lieberman, a Colorado health data analytics expert.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department and CMS declined to comment for this article. In an email, UnitedHealth Group spokesperson Heather Soule said the company’s “business practices have always been transparent, lawful and compliant with CMS regulations.”

Missed Diagnoses

Medicare Advantage insurance plans have grown explosively in recent years and now enroll about 33 million members, more than half of people eligible for Medicare. Along the way, the industry has been the target of dozens of whistleblower lawsuits, government audits, and other investigations alleging the health plans often exaggerate how sick patients are to rake in undeserved Medicare payments — including by doing what are called chart reviews, intended to find allegedly missed diagnosis codes.

By 2013, CMS officials knew some Medicare health plans were hiring medical coding and analytics consultants to aggressively mine patient files — but they doubted the agency’s authority to demand that health plans also look for and delete unsupported diagnoses.

The proposed January 2014 regulation mandated that chart reviews “cannot be designed only to identify diagnoses that would trigger additional payments” to health plans.

CMS officials backed down in May 2014 because of “stakeholder concern and pushback,” Cheri Rice, then director of the CMS Medicare plan payment group, testified in a 2022 deposition made public this month. A second CMS official, Anne Hornsby, described the industry’s reaction as an “uproar.”

Exactly who made the call to withdraw the chart review proposal isn’t clear from court filings so far.

“The direction that we received was that the rule, the final rule, needed to include only those provisions that had wide, you know, widespread stakeholder support,” Rice testified.

“So we did not move forward then,” she said. “Not because we didn’t think it was the right thing to do or the right policy, but because it had mixed reactions from stakeholders.”

The CMS press office declined to make Rice available for an interview. Hornsby, who has since left the agency, declined to comment.

But Erin Fuse Brown, a professor at the Brown University School of Public Health, said the decision reflects a pattern of timid CMS oversight of the popular health plans for seniors.

“CMS saving money for taxpayers isn’t enough of a reason to face the wrath of very powerful health plans,” Fuse Brown said.

“That is extremely alarming.”

Invalid Codes

The fraud case against UnitedHealth Group, which runs the nation’s largest Medicare Advantage plan, was filed in 2011 by a former company employee. The DOJ took over the whistleblower suit in 2017.

DOJ alleges Medicare paid the insurer more than $7.2 billion from 2009 through 2016 solely based on chart reviews; the company would have received $2.1 billion less if it had deleted unsupported billing codes, the government says.

The government argues that UnitedHealth Group knew that many conditions it had billed for were not supported by medical records but chose to pocket the overpayments. For instance, the insurer billed Medicare nearly $28,000 in 2011 to treat a patient for cancer, congestive heart failure, and other serious health problems that weren’t recorded in the person’s medical record, DOJ alleged in a 2017 filing.

In all, DOJ contends that UnitedHealth Group should have deleted more than 2 million invalid codes.

Instead, company executives signed annual statements attesting that the billing data submitted to CMS was “accurate, complete, and truthful.” Those actions violated the False Claims Act, a federal law that makes it illegal to submit bogus bills to the government, DOJ alleges.

The complex case has featured years of legal jockeying, even pitting the recollections of key CMS staff members — including several who have since departed government for jobs in the industry — against those of UnitedHealthcare executives.

‘Red Herring’

Court filings describe a 45-minute video conference arranged by then-CMS administrator Marilyn Tavenner on April 29, 2014. Tavenner testified she set up the meeting between UnitedHealth and CMS staff at the request of Larry Renfro, a senior UnitedHealth Group executive, to discuss implications of the draft rule. Neither Tavenner nor Renfro attended.

Two UnitedHealth Group executives on the call said in depositions that CMS staffers told them the company had no obligation at the time to uncover erroneous codes. One of the executives, Steve Nelson, called it a “very clear answer” to the question. Nelson has since left the company.

For their part, four of the five CMS staffers on the call said in depositions that they didn’t remember what was said. Unlike the company’s team, none of the government officials took detailed notes.

“All I can tell you is I remember feeling very uncomfortable in the meeting,” Rice said in her 2022 deposition.

Yet Rice and one other CMS staffer said they did recall reminding the executives that even without the chart review rule, the company was obligated to make a good-faith effort to bill only for verified codes — or face possible penalties under the False Claims Act. And CMS officials reinforced that view in follow-up emails, according to court filings.

DOJ called the flap over the ill-fated regulation a “red herring” in a court filing and alleges that when UnitedHealth asked for the April 2014 meeting, it knew its chart reviews had been under investigation for two years. In addition, the company was “grappling with a projected $500 million budget deficit,” according to DOJ.

Data Miners

Medicare Advantage plans defend chart reviews against criticism that they do little but artificially inflate the government’s costs.

“Chart reviews are one of many tools Medicare Advantage plans use to support patients, identify chronic conditions, and prevent those conditions from becoming more serious,” said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP, a health insurance trade group.

Whistleblowers have argued that the cottage industry of analytics firms and coders that sprang up to conduct these reviews pitched their services as a huge moneymaking exercise for health plans — and little else.

“It was never legitimate,” said William Hanagami, a California attorney who represented whistleblower James Swoben in a 2009 case that alleged chart reviews improperly inflated Medicare payments. In a 2016 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that health plans must exercise “due diligence” to ensure they submit accurate data.

Since then, other insurers have settled DOJ allegations that they billed Medicare for unconfirmed diagnoses stemming from chart reviews. In July 2023, Martin’s Point Health Plan, a Portland, Maine, insurer, paid $22,485,000 to settle whistleblower allegations that it improperly billed for conditions ranging from diabetes with complications to morbid obesity. The plan denied any liability.

A December 2019 report by the Health and Human Services Inspector General found that 99% of chart reviews added new medical diagnoses at a cost to Medicare of an estimated $6.7 billion for 2017 alone.

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: Don’t Get ‘Bullied’ Into Paying What You Don’t Owe

Caitlyn Mai thought she did everything right. She called ahead to make sure her insurer would cover her cochlear implant surgery. She thought everything went according to plan but she still got a bill for the full cost of the surgery: more than $139,000. 

What Caitlyn did next is a reminder of why a beloved former guest once said you should “never pay the first bill.” This episode of “An Arm and a Leg” is an extended version of the July installment of the “Bill of the Month” series, created in partnership with NPR.

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 Don’t Get ‘Bullied’ Into Paying What You Don’t Owe

Dan: Hey there — 

One morning when she was in eighth grade, Caitlin Mai did what she always did when she woke up. 

Caitlyn Mai: Music has always been a big part of my life. And so I immediately put in my headphones and started putting on music as I was about to get out of bed and get ready. And I noticed my earbud in my right ear wasn’t working. 

Dan: It was obvious, because on this Beatles tune she’d cued up, Eleanor Rigby, the vocals are almost all on the right-hand side, and she couldn’t hear them. 

Caitlyn: I was like, that’s kind of weird. So I switched the earbuds and it worked fine. But then it was, the other one wasn’t working in my right ear. And I was like, what? 

Dan: Yeah, confusing. And then she tried getting out of bed. 

Caitlyn: I was so dizzy. It was my first time experiencing vertigo, and it was so severe, I couldn’t walk across the room without getting severely motion sick. 

Dan: With that vertigo, Caitlin could barely walk at all. She had no sense of balance — that actually relies on a mechanism inside our ears. Later, doctors found she had lost 87 percent of her hearing on the right side. 

Caitlyn: They think I just had some sort of virus that settled in my ear, and it damaged my ear. But I went to bed completely healthy the night before. Woke up, couldn’t hear out of my ear. 

Dan: She had to learn how to walk all over again.

Caitlyn: I have to rely on my eyes. My friends still find it hilarious if I close my eyes, I fall over. 

Dan: That was eighth grade. Caitlyn made it through high school, in Tulsa where she grew up without a lot of accommodations. 

Caitlyn: Cause in middle school, early high school, you don’t want to bring attention to your disability. At least I really didn’t want to at the time. I was super anxious about that. 

Dan: Catilyn’s 27 now, she works as a legal assistant in Oklahoma City. Her husband’s a lawyer. And for the longest time, she couldn’t access a tool that helps restore hearing for lots of people: Cochlear implants — small devices that stimulate nerves inside the ear. 

The FDA didn’t approve them for just one ear until a couple of years ago. Last year, Caitlin got her insurance to approve one for her. She had surgery in December to insert the implant. And in January, an audiologist attached an external component to switch on Caitlin’s right-side hearing. 

Caitlyn: She said, okay, at some point, you’re gonna start hearing some beeps, just say yes when you can hear them. And my husband said my face just, out of nowhere, lit up, and I go, yes! It was streaming directly to my cochlear implant. And I definitely started tearing up. 

Dan: Then, two weeks later, Caitlin got an alert from the hospital on her phone. 

Caitlyn: And I open it up, and I immediately started having a panic attack. 

Dan: It was a bill for a hundred and thirty-nine thousand dollars. The full amount for Caitlin’s surgery. 

Which, given that Caitlyn had gotten her insurance company’s OK for the procedure in advance, was a pretty big surprise. NPR featured Caitlyn’s story recently for a series they do with our pals at KFF Health News. 

NPR HOST: Time now for the latest installment in our bill of the month series, where we dissect and explain confusing or outrageous medical bills.

Dan: I interviewed Caitlyn for that story. And we’re bringing you an expanded version here because Caitlin’s situation — well, it was a good story. And it made me curious about a couple things. 

It also reminded me of some good advice we’ve heard here before — and it reminded me of an important colleague and teacher. And the bottom line to Caitlyn’s story? Stand up for yourself. Don’t cave. Make the next call. 

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 something entertaining, empowering, and useful. 

To get her insurance company’s approval, Caitlyn had already spent a lot of time — and a lot of money — in the months before surgery. For instance … 

Caitlyn: To prove to insurance that a hearing aid wouldn’t work had to be fitted for a hearing aid and then do a couple hours of testing to prove, yep, it doesn’t help. 

Dan: There were reviews with audiologists, with her surgeon, and an MRI to make sure there wasn’t too much scar tissue for an implant to take. 

Caitlyn: That took a long time to get scheduled, get insurance to approve, pay for, then get back for another appointment. I counted up at one point — it’s like around eight or ten appointments that I had before the final, okay, let’s schedule surgery. 

Dan: And — you caught that, right? Where she mentioned she had to get her insurance to approve paying for the MRI? Every one of these preliminary steps cost money, and she had to wrangle with her insurance to get their OK. 

But of course even with her insurance saying yes, there were still copays, and deductibles, and what’s called co-insurance — where you pay a percentage of any bill from a hospital. 

Which meant Caitlyn was chipping away at what’s called her out-of-pocket maximum: The most she could be on the hook for in a given calendar year. The surgery got scheduled for December — the same calendar year as all those tests — and she checked to see what she might have to pay. 

Caitlyn: I looked at my little portal for insurance, I’m showing what’s left on my out-of-pocket max for the year is around 2,000, give or take, 200 dollars. 

Dan: She called the insurance company to confirm that estimate. And then she cranked up her due diligence. 

Caitlyn: I called the hospital, and I asked for the names of the anesthesiologist, the radiologist. I asked for all of the details of who is possibly going to be on my case. And then I turned around and I called insurance and I said, I want to make sure all of these physicians are going to be in network on this date. 

Dan: Caitlyn had done her homework. Probably more than a lot of us would have thought to do. I asked her: How’d you get so diligent? And first, like a lot of folks I’ve talked with, she said: Having a major health issue as a kid — losing her hearing — gave her an early heads-up to watch out. 

Caitlyn: A little bit was, uh, experience of my mom dealing with insurance battles with me growing up. I remember her running into issues with that. 

Can: And she’s got some experts in her life now. Her brother and her sister in law work in health care. One of her best friends is a healthcare lawyer and had some tips. 

Caitlyn: But honestly, I think a lot of it is I have anxiety, and so I was just really paranoid. 

Dan: The surgery went great. And a few weeks later, Caitlyn was in the audiologist’s office, getting that external component attached, and hearing on her right side for the first time in 15 years. Caitlyn says it all took some getting used to. 

Caitlyn: I remember those, like, first few days especially, it wasn’t really like I was hearing full sounds. It was kind of just different pitches. I wasn’t hearing the words and everything, it was just the breakdown of the different pitches. And they also were just so much higher than they should be.

Dan: So interesting. Radiolab may have already done this story — [but] I’m just like, let’s find out what that’s about. 

Caitlyn: I love Radiolab. 

Dan: Me too! Anyway, two weeks after she starts getting used to her new hearing situation, Caitlyn gets that alert on her phone. 

Caitlyn: And it tells me I have a new invoice. And I was like, oh, awesome! I’m not stressed at all, I did my due diligence. I know it’s gonna be expensive, but affordable. 

Dan: Except, right: It’s a hundred and thirty-nine thousand dollars! Six figures. The full amount for her surgery. You might remember, Caitlyn said she had a panic attack. That was literal: Heart palpitations, hyperventilating. 

It took her 20 or 30 minutes to get calm enough to start making calls. And she says her insurance told her they hadn’t paid because the hospital had neglected to send something important. 

Caitlyn: The itemized bill. Which has all the codes and everything, 

Dan: Caitlyn says she immediately asked the hospital, in writing to send her insurance the itemized bill, and she says sent a follow-up a week later. But her phone kept pinging with alerts about owing the hospital a hundred and thirty-nine thousand dollars. 

Caitlyn: The app so conveniently told me that I could sign up for monthly payments of 11,000 dollars a month, which is just so absurd. 

Dan: After two weeks, she asked her insurance: Do you have that itemized bill yet? They didn’t. So she called the hospital again. 

Caitlyn: The girl I spoke with said she was putting in a request to have it faxed to my insurance and that would take two to three weeks. And I said, hold on, it takes you two to three weeks to fax a document?

Dan: Answer: Apparently yes? And Caitlyn says even three weeks later, her insurance company still hadn’t gotten that itemized bill the hospital promised to fax. 

And all this time Caitlyn was still getting notices from the hospital billing department. And the latest one said, “past due.” She tried something new: So she called the hospital and demanded they send the itemized bill directly to her, immediately. Which they did. 

Caitlyn: So I turned around and faxed it to my insurance. 

Dan: Yeah but, this did not end things, not yet. Caitlyn says she got more notices labeled past due. She fought her way to a direct conversation with a supervisor. 

Caitlyn: They kept saying,‘well, a supervisor’s not available right now.’ I said, No, you’re finding a supervisor. I don’t care if they’re cutting their lunch short. I’m talking to a supervisor right now. I don’t care if I sound like a Karen. It’s been a long, long year already. 

Dan: Eventually, Caitlyn got a supervisor on the line and got the supervisor to get permission from a manager to stop sending her bills while the hospital waited for insurance to pay. 

By this time, it was late March, almost two months after that first bill gave Caitlyn that panic attack. Also by this time, Caitlyn had sent her bill to the folks at NPR and KFF Health News for that Bill of the Month feature they do. 

Caitlyn: I was like, I just need to vent. And so I submitted it just to vent it out. Never expecting anyone to reach out. 

Dan: But they did. And on April 9th, Caitlyn got a call from a regional Patient Service Center manager. 

Caitlyn: And she was super nice and tried to be really apologetic, but never actually accepting any blame. Or outright saying,‘we’re so sorry.’ Just said, ‘I’m sorry for your frustration, that sounds awful.’ 

Dan: She DID tell Caitlyn that the hospital had received payment from her insurance. And that Caitlyn could expect a final bill within a week. And that instead of a hundred thirty nine thousand, it was gonna be one thousand, nine hundred eighty-two dollars and twenty-five cents. 

Caitlyn: I said,‘yep, that actually matches what my insurance said,’ and she said,‘oh, you know what was left on your out-of-pocket, most people don’t,’ and I said,‘I’m very well versed in every dollar sign at this point in this entire case.’ 

Dan: Caitlyn says she got that bill four days later and paid it immediately. 

Caitlyn: And I saved the receipt of that, I have saved everything. It feels like it’s resolved, but there’s part of me that’s still waiting for the other shoe to drop 

Dan: So, Caitlyn’s story brings up a LOT. Of course, I loved the way she kept fighting, and ultimately took control of the situation. And I hated how she got trapped between these two big entities and how much time and stress the whole thing cost her. 

Because, you know, the hospital could’ve resolved this so quickly by just sending that itemized bill to Caitlyn’s insurance company. 

Caitlyn: And the hospital did not do that. They just turned around and billed me. Which was a stupid idea, since the insurance company is more likely to have the money. Not the legal assistant in Oklahoma. 

Dan: Caitlyn’s story raised a few questions, and brought back a lot of themes we’ve touched on before. We dug in also found some new tips, and some memories I want to share. That’s coming right up. 

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of Public Road Productions and KFF Health News, a nonprofit newsroom covering healthcare in America. Their senior contributing editor, Elisabeth Rosenthal, reported Caitlyn’s story for KFF and NPR. She wrote a book about U.S. healthcare. It’s called “An American Sickness,” and it was an inspiration for this show. 

One question we ask sometimes on this show when we see a bill that’s so wildly ridiculous and unfair is: Can they freaking DO that?!? Like, is that even legal?

Like in this instance, can they just keep billing you while they’re apparently not even playing ball with your insurance? And: Do we have any legal weapons to fight back with? 

We asked a bunch of legal experts, and they pretty much all said: Yes, they probably can do that, and no, we probably don’t have any easy legal weapons we can fight with. But then I talked with Berneta Haynes. She’s a senior attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. 

And she had some practical thoughts that are super-worth sharing. She used to work for a nonprofit called Georgia Watch — that’s a state-level consumer protection group. They operated a hotline people could call for help. 

Berneta Haynes: Consumers and patients would call us with all kinds of hospital billing issues and medical debt issues. And we’ve had these kinds of weird questions where really, there wasn’t a particular lever at the legal level to actually help them. But if they feel like they’re experiencing what could be considered potentially an unfair business practice, it is totally within their right to file a complaint within their state A. G.’s office. 

Dan: The A.G. The state attorney general. Whoever’s doing you wrong, you can file a complaint. 

Berneta: Whether or not there’s any real hook that your AG could use to hold them accountable is always a question that’s up in the air. But even just the act of filing a complaint is very likely to get that entity, that company, to behave correctly. 

Dan: Basically, go up the chain. Whether to a government watchdog, or in the organization that’s bugging you. We’ve heard this before, but I loved the specifics that Berneta Haynes shared with me about her own experiences. 

Berneta: I will tell you, one of the mechanisms my husband and I have had to utilize repeatedly, not in a hospital context, but in various other service contexts is to reach out or threaten to reach out to the CEO or president. And it gets results every time. It gets results every time! 

Dan: Oh, and here’s the pro tip.

Berneta: My husband has repeatedly, when he’s had to do it, set up a LinkedIn premium account just to find the CEO and message them directly. 

Dan: Ooh, that’s good! 

Berneta: That has been the way we’ve gotten resolution on all kinds of issues related to insurance companies not wanting to do right by us. And so forth. 

Dan: So that was fun. Now, I do want to talk a little bit about what Caitlyn did, and what allowed her to do it. Caitlyn figures she made at least a dozen phone calls. And she says she’s lucky — privileged — to have a job where she could do that. Here’s the first thing she says she did once she got over that panic attack when the bill arrived. 

Caitlyn: I just went to my boss’s office and I said, I’m going to have to make some phone calls. There’s a problem with my hospital bill. She’s like, don’t worry about it. Do what you need to. 

Dan: And she had people in her corner, like the friend who’s a healthcare lawyer. And legal advice wasn’t the big thing that friend gave Caitlyn. 

Caitlyn: Most of the time I was just venting to her, and she was like,‘you need to keep pushing, like, keep going at them. Don’t let them win. Don’t roll over. Just keep pushing. They should be paying.’ 

Dan: And at that point, I told Caitlyn, she and her story were really reminding me of someone. 

Dan: There’s a reporter named Marshall Allen. He worked for ProPublica for a long time. He wrote on healthcare, and he wrote on stuff like this. And eventually he wrote a book, giving advice to people. And the title of the book was, Never Pay the First Bill. 

Caitlyn: Oh! 

Dan: And I told Caitlyn, Marshall was on my mind at the time because when Caitlyn and I talked in May, Marshall had just died, like less than two weeks before. And he was young — 52. He had three kids.

Caitlyn: So sad. 

Dan: Super, super, super sad. 

Dan: And of course the title of Marshall’s book — Never Pay the First Bill — that’s exactly how Caitlyn played things. She wasn’t going to think about paying anything until she got her questions answered. And it is worth remembering. 

When we were talking with legal experts, one thing a few of them said was: If you pay something that insurance was supposed to cover, and then insurance comes through, you’re supposed to get a refund. But who wants to chase that? 

Yeah. Don’t pay that first bill until you’ve made sure this is money you really owe. So, this seems like a good time to memorialize Marshall Allen a little bit. He liked to compare the healthcare system to a schoolyard bully. Here’s what he told me when he was on this show in 2021 when his book had just come out. 

Marshall Allen: What I think we need to do is stand up to the bully. We need to stop being afraid. We need to stop thinking someone else is going to stick up for us. And I wrote the book to equip and empower people to stand up to the bullies. 

And I think it’s tremendously empowering, but it’s hard, and standing up to a bully takes incredible courage. It takes fortitude. It takes persistence. You might get beat up in the process. There’s no guarantee of victory. It’s risky, right? But if we don’t try, we don’t have a chance. 

Dan: Marshall was a Christian minister before he became a reporter. He wrote a thoughtful essay about how his work as an investigative reporter fit with his faith. The gist was: The Bible is pretty clear that cheating people and exploiting them is wrong. 

And to me, it seems like there was an element of ministry– not just evangelism — to what he did after his book came out. Here’s what he told me in 2021: 

Marshall: I’ve started taking calls, and I’m responding to emails that I get from people and I’m saying,‘call me, let’s talk it through, let me help you with this. Let’s work through this together.’ And now I’m helping people work through their bills, work through these situations where they’re being cheated. It’s super satisfying and gratifying, so it’s my new hobby. 

Dan: He kept at it. He left ProPublica and took a job with the Office of the Inspector General at the federal department of Health and Human Services. And he published a newsletter — it was free, but he encouraged people to pay if they could, and he used the money to hire medical-bill advocates to help people with especially tricky cases. 

And Marshall was funny. I want to close out this episode with a story he told me the first time we talked, in 2019. It’s kind of an origin story. 

Marshall: So when I was 16 years old, um, I worked for this dinner theater in Golden, Colorado, where I grew up. One day I show up for work, and they’ve closed down the business. They owed me like three weeks of pay. 

The guy had closed the place without paying us and said,‘there’s no money. We shut down the business. We can’t afford to pay you. You’re out of luck.’ Well, we were all pretty angry about that. We were really angry because they had opened a sister dinner theater under the same company umbrella across town. And we all knew that. And we were like, well, if you can afford to keep your other place open, you can afford to pay us. And they said,‘sorry, kids, you’re out of luck.’ 

Dan: Marshall goes home, tells his mom what’s going on. 

Marshall: And my mom tells me you should sue him. I’m like, mom, what do you mean? I can barely drive. How can I sue the guy? She goes,‘you should take him to small claims court.’ So lo and behold, I go down, I fill out the paperwork. 

It’s a few paragraphs. It’s easy to fill out the paperwork in small claims court. I fill out the paperwork and turn in like 10 bucks at the time or whatever it costs. It’s not that expensive to file one of these cases. And I get a notice in the mail like six weeks later. And I have a court date, and I’m like geared up for this big Perry Mason moment. 

Dan: Perry Mason was a lawyer on this super old TV show — courtroom drama. But this wasn’t a courtroom.

Marshall: It’s more like a conference room and there’s some administrative hearing judge in there. And lo and behold, the owner of the company and his attorney had to show up in court there with me. 

And I thought we’d have a big argument all the administrative judge did is he read my few paragraphs on the little thing I’d written up and he looks over at the owner and he goes,‘is what this kid saying true?’And the owner’s like, ‘well, yeah.’ And the judge is like,‘give this kid his money.’ And I was like, This is amazing. You know what? Maybe the court system does actually work every now and then maybe every now and then the little guy can win. 

Dan: Marshall and I both stayed interested in how people can use the legal system to get our rights. I learned a lot from Marshall, and like a lot of people, I just loved his spirit. Marshall Allen, thank you. And here’s the end of my conversation with Caitlyn. 

Dan: Marshall Allen would have been extremely proud of you. 

Caitlyn: Yeah. 

Dan: Caitlyn has the final word here. 

Caitlyn: I got to the point where I was like, it’s my fight. I’ve got gasoline in the fire. I’m, I’m going for it. 

Dan: We’ll be back with a new episode 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 — and edited by Ellen Weiss. 

KFF senior contributing editor Elisabeth Rosenthal reported Caitlyn’s story for KFF and NPR. She was editor in chief there when she invited me to collaborate with KFF to make this show’s second season, and we’ve been colleagues ever since. I’ve never felt so lucky or so thankful. 

Special thanks to Christopher Robertson at Boston University’s School of Law, Wendy Epstein of the College of Law at DePaul University, Sabrina Corlette at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, and Elisabeth Benjamin from the Community Service Society of New York for pitching in with legal expertise here. 

Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and Blue Dot Sessions. Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. 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. They allow us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN.org. Finally, thank you to everybody who supports this show financially. You can join in any time at https://armandalegshow.com/support/. Thank you so much 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:

For Pharma, Trump vs. Harris Is a Showdown Between Two Industry Foes

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have a rare point of agreement in their otherwise bitter and divisive contest: It’s up to the government to cut high U.S. drug prices.

Harris cast the tie-breaking Senate vote in 2022 for legislation that allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices for its more than 60 million beneficiaries. Before that, she was an aggressive regulator of the drug industry as California attorney general.

As president, Trump would likely retain Medicare price negotiations unless the pharmaceutical industry can come up with something more compelling that they’d put on the table, people close to him say. In his first term, he proposed various policies aimed at reducing prescription costs but had limited success with their implementation.

The drug industry could benefit, though, if Trump remains unable to advance such proposals.

“His efforts were largely fragmented and faced resistance from both the industry and lawmakers,” said Sergio Jose Gutierrez, a political strategist who has primarily worked with Democrats in the U.S. “The lack of a cohesive strategy and the limited ability to implement significant changes made his approach less effective compared to what a Harris-Walz administration could offer.”

The industry is increasingly under attack by lawmakers from both parties for drug prices most Americans regard as unreasonable, according to KFF polling, so the election outcome could be pivotal to drug companies’ fortunes. Their predicament is a sharp reversal from years past, when the firms enjoyed a reputation as being almost untouchable. For more than a decade, manufacturers successfully fended off proposals to let Medicare negotiate lower drug prices before losing the battle two years ago.

The shift in their political standing shows up in pharmaceutical companies’ contributions to candidates. An industry that gave three or four times as much to GOP candidates as to Democrats in the 1990s and early 2000s is now hedging its bets. So far in the 2024 cycle, drug companies have given $4.89 million to Democrats and $4.35 million to Republicans, according to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan research group.

Harris has received $518,571 from the industry and Trump has received $204,748.

At the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last week, Harris and fellow Democrats touted their records on curbing drug prices. Harris supporters point to her past and present.

While she was California’s attorney general, she joined cases that resulted in nearly $7.2 billion (about $22 per person in the U.S.) in fines for drug companies.

Her vote to pass President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act paved the way not only for Medicare price negotiation but also an annual $2,000 cap on Medicare beneficiaries’ total drug spending and a $35 cap on their monthly insulin supplies.

“In the United States of America, no senior should have to choose between either filling their prescription or paying their rent,” Harris said Aug. 15 in her first joint appearance with Biden since he exited the presidential race.

She has promised to extend both the annual drug spending cap and the insulin price cap to all Americans with insurance, not just those on Medicare, if elected president.

Harris also backed a contentious policy that, in some instances, would empower the federal government to inject more competition into the marketplace by seizing the patents on some high-cost drugs developed with federal funds.

Doug Hart, 77, of Tempe, Arizona, has been spending about $7,000 annually on prescription drugs. A drug he takes to prevent blood clots will cost less under the Medicare price negotiations. The retired labor union president said the decrease will be considerable and it is one reason he backs Harris.

“The Republicans all voted against Medicare negotiation. Harris broke the tie in the Senate to allow it,” said Hart, who is a board member for the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, which works to mobilize returned union members and activists on progressive issues.

While Republicans as a party remain more friendly to the pharmaceutical industry, Trump has been willing to challenge GOP orthodoxy by taking action to combat high drug costs.

He sought during his administration to tie drug prices in Medicare to lower international prices, a proposal that the PricewaterhouseCoopers health research institute estimated would cost five drugmakers as much as $500 million a year. What was known as the “most favored nation” interim final rule was blocked because of legal challenges and later rescinded by the Biden administration.

Trump issued a rule setting up a path to import drugs from Canada and other countries, with Florida this year becoming the first state to get federal approval to import some prescriptions from Canada. But the state has been stymied by pushback from Health Canada, the Canadian government department responsible for national health policy.

And on his campaign website, Trump posted a video in which he questioned whether childhood health problems are the result of “overprescription” of medications.

“Too often, our public health establishment is too close to Big Pharma — they make a lot of money, Big Pharma — big corporations, and other special interests, and does not want to ask the tough questions about what is happening to our children’s health,” he said. “If Big Pharma defrauds American patients and taxpayers or puts profits above people, they must be investigated and held accountable.”

Trump hasn’t said much about drug prices in his 2024 campaign, but allies and former advisers say he remains committed to knocking down prescription prices if reelected.

He would likely focus on increasing generic and biosimilar competition, importing drugs made in the U.S. but sold overseas back to the U.S., and capping out-of-pocket insulin costs, according to former Trump administration officials. Other goals may be lowering prices for drugs in the Medicare 340B program, which requires drugmakers to provide outpatient drugs at reduced prices to eligible health organizations that serve lower-income and uninsured patients.

“The No. 1 issue he cared about while I was in the White House, and I continue to hear him talk about, is lowering drug prices,” said Theo Merkel, a senior research fellow at conservative think tanks Paragon Health Institute and the Manhattan Institute. Merkel was also a special assistant in the Trump White House. “I’m confident that will be at the top of the agenda,” he added.

Catherine Hill, a spokesperson for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, said the industry trade group looks forward to collaborating with any future presidential administration.

She criticized the Biden administration’s plan for Medicare price negotiation as well as Trump’s plan to align U.S. prices with those in foreign countries. This month, the administration announced new, reduced prices for 10 drugs in the program following negotiations between the federal government and drugmakers. The lower costs take effect in 2026.

“Previous price controls adopted by the Biden administration threaten to stifle that innovation,” Hill said. “Undermining intellectual property protections and borrowing other countries’ price controls will further undercut innovation and threaten patients’ access to medicine.”

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:

Turning 26 and Struggling To Find Health Insurance? Tell Us About It.

A hard-won provision of the Affordable Care Act allows young adults to stay on their family’s health insurance until age 26. But after that, those without employer-sponsored insurance face an array of complicated choices, including whether to shop on the insurance plan exchange, apply for Medicaid, or roll the dice and go uninsured.

Are you a young adult confused about navigating the exchanges used to pick plans? Have you bought a plan on an ACA exchange and found that it didn’t cover care? Have you married or taken a job just to get insurance? Did you decide to go without coverage?

Whatever your story, we want to hear from you for a project we are doing with The New York Times.

We’ll read every response to this questionnaire, and we’ll reach out to you if we’d like to learn more about your story. We won’t publish any part of your response without following up with you first, verifying your information, and hearing back from you. And we won’t use your contact information for any reason other than to get in touch with you.

Have you found it difficult to pay for health insurance?(Required)Do you currently have health insurance, and, if so, what type?(Required)If you are uninsured, why? If you’ve had a medical issue while uninsured, what happened?

Please provide your name and contact information so we can reach out to talk further.

Name(Required) First Last What is your date of birth?(Required) Month Day Year Email (will not be shared and will be used only by KFF Health News and the New York Times)(Required) Enter email Confirm email Phone number (will not be shared and will be used only by KFF Health News and the New York Times)(Required)What is the best way for a reporter to contact you? (Select all that apply) Email Text Call Where do you live?(Required) City State / Province / Region Would you be open to recording a short video sharing your experience?(Required) Yes No What is your race/ethnicity? EmailThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Δ

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:

Project 2025 Would Recast HHS as the Federal Department of Life

It has become a rhetorical theme for Democrats working to hold on to the White House: Allies of former president Donald Trump, they say, want to infuse conservative ideals into how the federal government does business.

That vision is outlined in the Project 2025 “Mandate for Leadership,” a 900-page blueprint produced by the conservative Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations as a guide for the next administration.

Although Trump has repeatedly said Project 2025 has no place in his campaign, Democrats keep bringing it up. On each night of the Democratic National Convention so far, speakers have invoked Project 2025, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling it “radical”; Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) holding up a bound copy of the “Mandate for Leadership” and calling it Trump’s “road map to ban abortion in all 50 states”; and comedian Kenan Thompson highlighting its call to use the 19th-century Comstock Act to block the mailing of abortion pills.

Among Project 2025’s proposals are plans for federal health policy.

For instance, the Department of Health and Human Services would adopt a staunch antiabortion stance, and federal approval for one commonly used abortion drug could be revisited and potentially withdrawn.

“Abortion,” “reproductive health” and any other term “used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights” would be removed from every federal rule, regulation, grant or piece of legislation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would research abortion risks and complications. And HHS would be recast as the Department of Life, underscoring a new Christian nationalist focus.

Although Trump has repeatedly denied that the document will inform his White House if he wins in November, Democrats’ focus on Project 2025 will probably continue beyond the convention, in part because some of its proposals, including abortion restrictions, poll poorly for him and other Republican candidates.

Support for abortion access is growing. Sixty-one percent of adults want their state to allow legal abortion for any reason, according to a poll conducted in June by the Associated Press and the University of Chicago’s NORC, which provides social research.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign says Project 2025 shows “they’ll implement a 50-state ‘backdoor ban’ on abortion — without Congress — and jail health care providers.”

Abortion rights groups are also using Project 2025 to say Trump would endanger access to abortion. The former president has said abortion issues should be decided by states.

“We’re so focused on educating voters about 2025. It’s an extreme ban,” said Julie Lewis, director of public policy at Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The Heritage report, a version of which has been produced roughly every four years since the 1980s, has had considerable sway on GOP presidents. Former president Ronald Reagan adopted about 60 percent of the recommendations in a Heritage guide. Trump did the same in his presidency.

As Election Day approaches, Trump continues to try to distance himself from the document, and its authors say he wasn’t involved. A number of high-ranking officials from his administration, though, were. His running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, wrote the foreword to a yet-to-be-released book by Kevin Roberts, who is president of Heritage.

Roger Severino, vice president of domestic policy at Heritage, who wrote the HHS chapter in the Project 2025 blueprint, ran the agency’s Office for Civil Rights during Trump’s presidency.

Severino pushed back on Democratic claims that the document would ban medication abortion: “It’s a lie, plain and simple,” he said.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

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:

Biden Administration Blocks Two Private Sector Enrollment Sites From ACA Marketplace

Federal regulators have blocked two private sector enrollment websites from accessing consumer information through the federal Obamacare marketplace, citing “anomalous activity.”

The unusual step comes as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is under the gun to curb unauthorized enrollment and switching of Affordable Care Act plans by rogue agents. The agency received more than 200,000 complaints in the first six months of the year about such actions.

CMS said in a written statement that it had suspended the two sites — Benefitalign and Inshura — “while the anomalous activity is researched to ensure the EDE partners are in compliance with CMS data standards.” EDE stands for “enhanced direct enrollment” and refers to websites approved to integrate with healthcare.gov.

In a separate development, the two websites, which insurance brokers use instead of the federal healthcare.gov site to enroll clients in Affordable Care Act plans, are mentioned in an ongoing civil lawsuit filed by attorneys representing consumers and agents who claim they’ve been harmed by enrollment schemes.

CMS posted on Aug. 9 an updated list of websites approved to integrate with the federal Obamacare marketplace that no longer included Benefitalign and Inshura. As a result, insurance agents can’t use the websites to enroll customers in or make changes to their Obamacare plans.

Private sector enrollment sites were first allowed to integrate with healthcare.gov data under the Trump administration. About a dozen such sites are now approved to connect with the federal system.

Thwarting enrollment schemes and rogue insurance agents without making it too difficult for consumers and legitimate agents to enroll in health plans has become a political problem for the Biden administration. President Joe Biden has claimed record-breaking enrollment under the ACA as one of his administration’s major accomplishments.

In recent weeks, lawmakers have called on CMS to do more and introduced legislation to increase penalties for agents who enroll people in plans without authorization. The large number of complaints from victims of the schemes have caught the attention of House Republicans, who on June 28 requested investigations by the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services.

KFF Health News began reporting on ACA enrollment schemes early this year.

CMS has since taken actions to short-circuit unscrupulous agents and call centers.

Until last month, agents using the approved private sector enrollment sites could access consumer information via healthcare.gov with only a name, birth date, and state of residence. CMS now requires three-way calls among agents, consumers, and the healthcare.gov helpline when agents new to a policy try to make a change. Many legitimate insurance agents are urging an additional fix used widely by state Obamacare enrollment systems: requiring two-factor authentication before consumer information can be accessed or changed by agents.

Meanwhile, the move to suspend the two enrollment websites baffled the companies, said Catherine Riedel, a spokesperson for TrueCoverage, an insurance call center that also does business as Inshura. TrueCoverage and Benefitalign are subsidiaries of Speridian Global Holdings of California.

“We don’t know what they want us to do differently,” she said.

The websites, she said, are cooperating with CMS, and they conducted an internal review that found no security issues. Very few details, other than “it is related to a potential technical anomaly reported by an outside party” were given, Riedel wrote, and the firms have not been provided “any specific, actionable information related to the alleged anomaly.”

Both firms are mentioned in the lawsuit first filed in April in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit alleges that people and organizations engaged in misleading advertising, or made changes to ACA policies, without the express permission of consumers — all with a goal of racking up commissions.

Late on Aug. 16, that case was amended to add allegations and defendants, including Benefitalign. The other enrollment website, Inshura, is not listed as a defendant, although it is run by TrueCoverage, which is.

Riedel said TrueCoverage disputes the lawsuit’s claims.

The case “is founded on misinformation and technical naivety that seems to have been connected to create a sensational and false narrative,” she said.

The Aug. 16 filing alleges that TrueCoverage or Speridian Technologies, another subsidiary of Speridian Global Holdings, used the Benefitalign or Inshura websites to access U.S. consumers’ personal information, then sent it to marketers in India and Pakistan. The allegation, if true, would violate agreements the private sector websites made with the federal government to gain approval to operate, the suit contends.

Riedel said there is no evidence to support the allegations and that it is technically impossible to move “bulk amounts of consumer data” from the Obamacare marketplace.

“Like many technology companies, some of TrueCoverage’s marketing efforts have been based in India. However, as part of that marketing work, TrueCoverage did not move any customer data out of the EDE platform,” she said.

The 185-page amended complaint added as a defendant Bain Capital Insurance Fund, part of one of the world’s leading private investment companies, saying it “aided and abetted” Florida-based Enhance Health, which describes itself as a large broker of ACA plans. Bain helped launch Enhance with a $150 million investment in 2021 and appointed its CEO.

After initially planning to market Medicare Advantage plans, the lawsuit says, Enhance Health and Bain decided to shift to ACA plans, which were seen as more profitable. The suit alleges Enhance Health participated in unauthorized agent changes or switching of ACA policies.

Bain knew “what was going on” at Enhance “and ultimately supported it,” the lawsuit says, noting that Bain executives sat on Enhance’s board, controlled the hiring of executives, and were often at its Sunrise, Florida, offices. The firm hoped to sell the company once it showed how profitable it could be, the suit alleges.

In a written statement, Enhance Health said that “upholding the highest standards of compliance and controls is a core focus in all aspects of our operation and we will vigorously defend against these baseless claims.”

Bain Capital Insurance did not reply to a request for comment.

The additional allegations expand on the initial April filing, which outlined a complex web of activities aimed at capitalizing changes to the ACA under Biden that resulted in broader availability of zero-premium plans for lower-income applicants. In some cases, consumers were lured to call centers through misleading ads touting nonexistent cash cards. Some call centers or agents filed duplicate coverage for the same individuals, without consumer permission, or split family members among multiple policies, the suit alleges.

Because the customers don’t pay monthly premiums for the plans, they may not notice they’ve been enrolled until they try to obtain care.

Some consumers whose plans were switched lost access to their doctors or medications. Some face tax consequences if they were enrolled in duplicative coverage or in subsidized plans for which they did not qualify.

One victim added to the case, Paula Langley of Texas, initially responded to an advertisement promising a cash card. She called the number advertised and was enrolled in ACA coverage in February 2023 but never received the promised incentive, according to the lawsuit.

She and her husband began receiving multiple insurance cards from different insurers, the suit says. She would show up for a doctor’s visit or to pick up a prescription only to find her coverage had been canceled, leaving her with unpaid medical bills.

All in all, she was switched among plans and agents at least 22 times in just over a year, the lawsuit alleges.

Attorneys Jason Kellogg of Miami and Jason Doss of Atlanta said they amended the lawsuit based on dozens of interviews with former employees of the named firms. They’re seeking class-action status on behalf of affected consumers and agents who have lost business to the unauthorized plan-switching, and the suit alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations — or RICO — Act.

“The scheme is bad enough because it’s so large,” Kellogg said. “But it’s much worse given that it preys upon Americans who are at the lowest levels of the income scale, who may be desperate, are most vulnerable.”

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:

Patient Underwent One Surgery but Was Billed for Two. Even After Being Sued, She Refused To Pay.

Jamie Holmes says a surgery center tried to make her pay for two operations after she underwent only one. She refused to buckle, even after a collection agency sued her last winter.

Holmes, who lives in northwestern Washington state, had surgery in 2019 to have her fallopian tubes tied, a permanent birth-control procedure that her insurance company agreed ahead of time to cover.

During the operation, while Holmes was under anesthesia, the surgeon noticed early signs of endometriosis, a common condition in which fibrous scar tissue grows around the uterus, Holmes said. She said the surgeon later told her he spent about 15 minutes cauterizing the troublesome tissue as a precaution. She recalls him saying he finished the whole operation within the 60 minutes that had been allotted for the tubal ligation procedure alone.

She said the doctor assured her the extra treatment for endometriosis would cost her little, if anything.

Then the bill came.

The Patient: Jamie Holmes, 38, of Lynden, Washington, who was insured by Premera Blue Cross at the time.

Medical Services: A tubal ligation operation, plus treatment of endometriosis found during the surgery.

Service Provider: Pacific Rim Outpatient Surgery Center of Bellingham, Washington, which has since been purchased, closed, and reopened under a new name.

Total Bill: $9,620. Insurance paid $1,262 to the in-network center. After adjusting for prices allowed under the insurer’s contract, the center billed Holmes $2,605. A collection agency later acquired the debt and sued her for $3,792.19, including interest and fees.

What Gives: The surgery center, which provided the facility and support staff for her operation, sent a bill suggesting that Holmes underwent two separate operations, one to have her tubes tied and one to treat endometriosis. It charged $4,810 for each.

Holmes said there were no such problems with the separate bills from the surgeon and anesthesiologist, which the insurer paid.

Holmes figured someone in the center’s billing department mistakenly thought she’d been on the operating table twice. She said she tried to explain it to the staff, to no avail.

She said it was as if she ordered a meal at a fast-food restaurant, was given extra fries, and then was charged for two whole meals. “I didn’t get the extra burger and drink and a toy,” she joked.

Her insurer, Premera Blue Cross, declined to pay for two operations, she said. The surgery center billed Holmes for much of the difference. She refused to pay.

Holmes said she understands the surgery center could have incurred additional costs for the approximately 15 minutes the surgeon spent cauterizing the spots of endometriosis. About $500 would have seemed like a fair charge to her. “I’m not opposed to paying for that,” she said. “I am opposed to paying for a whole bunch of things I didn’t receive.”

The physician-owned surgery center was later purchased and closed by PeaceHealth, a regional health system. But the debt was turned over to a collection agency, SB&C, which filed suit against Holmes in December 2023, seeking $3,792.19, including interest and fees.

The collection agency asked a judge to grant summary judgment, which could have allowed the company to garnish wages from Holmes’ job as a graphic artist and marketing specialist for real estate agents.

Holmes said she filed a written response, then showed up on Zoom and at the courthouse for two hearings, during which she explained her side, without bringing a lawyer. The judge ruled in February that the collection agency was not entitled to summary judgment, because the facts of the case were in dispute.

More From Bill Of The Month

Representatives of the collection agency and the defunct surgery center declined to comment for this article.

Sabrina Corlette, co-director of Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, said it was absurd for the surgery center to bill for two operations and then refuse to back down when the situation was explained. “It’s like a Kafka novel,” she said.

Corlette said surgery center staffers should be accustomed to such scenarios. “It is quite common, I would think, for a surgeon to look inside somebody and say, ‘Oh, there’s this other thing going on. I’m going to deal with it while I’ve got the patient on the operating table.’”

It wouldn’t have made medical or financial sense for the surgeon to make Holmes undergo a separate operation for the secondary issue, she said.

Corlette said that if the surgery center was still in business, she would advise the patient to file a complaint with state regulators.

The Resolution: So far, the collection agency has not pressed ahead with its lawsuit by seeking a trial after the judge’s ruling. Holmes said that if the agency continues to sue her over the debt, she might hire a lawyer and sue them back, seeking damages and attorney fees.

She could have arranged to pay off the amount in installments. But she’s standing on principle, she said.

“I just got stonewalled so badly. They treated me like an idiot,” she said. “If they’re going to be petty to me, I’m willing to be petty right back.”

The Takeaway: Don’t be afraid to fight a bogus medical bill, even if the dispute goes to court.

Debt collectors often seek summary judgment, which allows them to garnish wages or take other measures to seize money without going to the trouble of proving in a trial that they are entitled to payments. If the consumers being sued don’t show up to tell their side in court hearings, judges often grant summary judgment to the debt collectors.

However, if the facts of a case are in dispute — for example, because the defendant shows up and argues she owes for just one surgery, not two — the judge may deny summary judgment and send the case to trial. That forces the debt collector to choose: spend more time and money pursuing the debt or drop it.

“You know what? It pays to be stubborn in situations like this,” said Berneta Haynes, a senior attorney for the National Consumer Law Center who reviewed Holmes’ bill for KFF Health News.

Many people don’t go to such hearings, sometimes because they didn’t get enough notice, don’t read English, or don’t have time, she said.

“I think a lot of folks just cave” after they’re sued, Haynes said.

Emily Siner reported the audio story.

After six years, we’ll have a final installment with NPR of our Bill of the Month project in the fall. But Bill of the Month will continue at KFF Health News and elsewhere. We still want to hear about your confusing or outrageous medical bills. Visit Bill of the Month to share your story.

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:

Los contrastes de las fórmulas Harris-Walz y Trump-Vance en la atención de salud

La elección de la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris del gobernador de Minnesota, Tim Walz, como su compañero de fórmula está poniendo el tema de la atención médica en primer plano en la recta final hacia las elecciones presidenciales de noviembre.

Walz, un ex profesor de secundaria y entrenador de fútbol de 60 años, tiene un historial de apoyo a iniciativas de atención médica de izquierda durante sus dos mandatos como gobernador y mientras fue representante en la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos de 2007 a 2019.

También lidera un estado central para la industria de la salud: Minnesota es el hogar tanto de la mayor aseguradora de salud del país, UnitedHealth Group, como de uno de sus sistemas hospitalarios más prestigiosos, la Clínica Mayo.

Los republicanos han aprovechado su historial para definir a la fórmula Harris-Walz como extrema en atención médica, mientras que los demócratas dicen que los esfuerzos de Walz para reducir los costos de los medicamentos y preservar el acceso al aborto son posiciones centrales que atraen a los votantes indecisos.

En cualquier caso, su elección pone la atención médica en el centro de la escena como un tema electoral, resaltando la importancia de la batalla del país sobre el acceso al aborto, así como la profunda angustia de los votantes por el aumento de los costos de salud.

Muchas de las posturas de Walz coinciden con las de Harris.

Ha luchado por el acceso al aborto, firmando una legislación para codificar los derechos al aborto en el estado, y en marzo recorrió una clínica de Planned Parenthood con la vicepresidenta.

Apoyó la legislación del Congreso que dio facultades al gobierno federal para negociar los precios de los medicamentos en Medicare, el programa de seguro de salud para personas mayores y discapacitadas. El 15 de agosto, la administración Biden publicó nuevos precios reducidos para 10 medicamentos en el programa que derivan de las negociaciones entre el gobierno y las farmacéuticas. Los costos más bajos entrarán en vigencia en 2026.

Como gobernador, Walz firmó en 2020 una ley para limitar los gastos de bolsillo de la insulina a $35 al mes para los residentes elegibles con una necesidad urgente del medicamento. Dos años después, el presidente Joe Biden hizo lo mismo para todos los pacientes de Medicare.

A principios de la pandemia de covid-19, Walz ordenó que se usaran máscaras en la mayoría de los espacios públicos cerrados. Extendió una orden ejecutiva de quedarse en casa en 2020, lo que llevó al ex presidente Donald Trump a publicar “¡LIBEREN A MINNESOTA!” en X, en aquel entonces todavía Twitter.

“Tiene sentido común cuando se trata de problemas y políticas”, dijo Andy Slavitt,  ex  ejecutivo de UnitedHealth y ex administrador de los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS). “No es un ideólogo. Es un pensador independiente que se preocupa por las personas que no tienen recursos”, agregó Slavitt, quien se desempeñó como asesor principal del equipo de respuesta al covid de la administración Biden.

Walz también ha defendido los tratamientos de fertilidad (FIV), compartiendo su historia personal de cómo él y su esposa, Gwen, dependieron de ellos para concebir. Debido a que la fertilización in vitro está bajo una amenaza creciente por parte de algunos opositores al aborto, a pesar de su amplia popularidad, su conocimiento de primera mano sobre los desafíos de fertilidad le agrega fuerza política.

“Walz ha sido articulado y apasionado sobre su experiencia con la FIV, y eso conecta con personas de ambos lados de la calle”, dijo Christoper Sheeron, fundador y presidente de Action for Health, una organización nacional de defensa sin fines de lucro.

Los republicanos en Minnesota dicen que las posiciones de Walz sobre atención médica se volverán en contra de la fórmula demócrata. Critican el requisito que estableció en 2021 sobre la vacunación contra covid o las pruebas regulares para empleados estatales, su apoyo a la legislación para codificar los derechos al aborto, su respaldo a la legalización de la marihuana recreativa y una ley que firmó para expandir la cobertura de salud pública a ciertos inmigrantes sin residencia legal.

“Bajo el gobernador Walz, vimos una de las agendas más radicales y de izquierda del país. Mientras los estadounidenses buscan unidad, Walz tiene un historial de implementar políticas extremas que solo nos dividen más”, dijo en un comunicado Mark Johnson, líder republicano del Senado estatal de Minnesota. “Ha puesto a nuestro estado en el camino hacia la atención médica gestionada por el gobierno y ha defendido mandatos restrictivos de atención médica que limitan el acceso de los habitantes de Minnesota a la atención que salva vidas”.

Tracy Mitchell, residente de Minnesota, dijo que antes de la elección de Walz, se inclinaba por apoyar a Trump en noviembre porque creía que haría más para reducir sus costos de atención médica.

El anuncio consolidó su decisión: va a votar por Trump.

“Tengo tres hijos, y la atención médica se vuelve costosa”, dijo Mitchell, de 38 años, de Ham Lake, mientras visitaba Stillwater, Minnesota, con su familia. Es la directora de operaciones de programas de una clínica de salud mental.

“La forma en que manejó covid y en términos de atención médica, creo que es demasiado extremo”, dijo.

Aun así, los demócratas expresan la esperanza de que un mayor enfoque en la atención médica les dará una ventaja en las elecciones, aprovechando las preocupaciones de los votantes sobre temas económicos en los estados indecisos.

El 48% de los republicanos o adultos que se inclinan por los republicanos dijeron que la asequibilidad de la atención médica es un problema muy grande en el país, según una encuesta de mayo del Pew Research Center. El 65% de los demócratas o adultos que se inclinan por los demócratas estuvo de acuerdo.

La preocupación supera a la inmigración ilegal, el déficit presupuestario federal, la violencia armada y las adicciones.

Tres de cada cuatro adultos dijeron que están muy o algo preocupados por poder pagar facturas médicas inesperadas, según una encuesta realizada en enero y febrero por KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro de información sobre salud que incluye a KFF Health News.

“Los republicanos siempre han sufrido porque hablan de la atención médica en términos económicos”, dijo William Pierce, director senior en APCO Worldwide, una firma global de asesoría y defensa, y ex asistente del Congreso republicano. “Los demócratas hablan de ello como un tema personal. La elección de Walz les da una mayor oportunidad de empujar más fuerte”.

El homólogo de Walz en la fórmula republicana, el senador por Ohio JD Vance, tiene menos experiencia en temas de atención médica. Pero ha tratado de mostrar preocupación por el aumento de los costos y las barreras para acceder a la atención.

Durante una visita reciente a Eau Claire, Wisconsin, Vance dijo que el gobierno debe hacer más para preservar el acceso a la atención médica en la América rural.

En una columna de opinión publicada en julio de 2017 en The New York Times, mucho antes de postularse para el Senado como republicano, Vance expresó su apoyo a algunas disposiciones de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA), y criticó el impulso del partido republicano para derogar la ley porque, dijo, la propuesta “retira sus apoyos para los pobres”.

Desde que es candidato a vicepresidente, Vance ha alineado sus puntos de vista con los de Trump sobre ACA, una ley que Trump intentó y no pudo derogar mientras era presidente.

“La diferencia es entre quienes defienden ACA y quienes la derogarían; la elección de Walz hace que ese contraste sea más claro que nunca”, dijo Anthony Wright, director ejecutivo de Families USA, una organización no partidista centrada en el acceso y la asequibilidad de la atención médica.

Vance ha apoyado permitir que el gobierno federal negocie los precios de los medicamentos de Medicare, un particular punto de acuerdo en la política de salud con los demócratas.

Al igual que Trump, se opone a la atención de afirmación de género para menores transgénero. Pero ha tomado posiciones más firmes que el ex presidente sobre el aborto, una vulnerabilidad que los demócratas han tratado de explotar. El apoyo público a los derechos al aborto ha aumentado desde que la Corte Suprema anuló Roe vs. Wade en 2022, y muchos estados liderados por republicanos tomaron acciones para imponer prohibiciones estrictas.

Ambas campañas, demócrata y republicana, están atrayendo un nuevo escrutinio sobre sus posiciones en la atención médica. El super PAC de la vicegobernadora de California, Eleni Kounalakis, Californians for Choice, lanzó un anuncio este mes diciendo que Vance apoya una prohibición nacional del aborto, “despojándonos de nuestra libertad”.

Al igual que Trump, Vance ha dicho recientemente que los estados deberían decidir las políticas específicas sobre el aborto, pero anteriormente apoyaba la prohibición del aborto a nivel nacional.

Mientras tanto, la campaña de Trump ha etiquetado a Walz como “Tampon Tim” debido a una ley estatal que firmó que requiere que los productos menstruales estén disponibles para “todas las estudiantes en los baños que utilizan regularmente en los grados 4 a 12, según un plan desarrollado por el distrito escolar”.

Un anuncio reciente de la campaña de Trump llamó a Walz “demasiado raro. Demasiado radical”.

Pero agregar a Walz a la fórmula electoral ha inyectado energía a los votantes demócratas con preocupaciones de atención médica. Como Angel Palm, de 32 años, entrenadora de vida para personas con discapacidades que vive en Fridley, Minnesota.

“Mi hijo es autista y tiene costos médicos. Es muy importante”, dijo a KFF Health News. “Estoy muy emocionada”.

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: