In Year 7, ‘Bill of the Month’ Gives Patients a Voice

In 2024, our nationwide team of gumshoes set out to answer your most pressing questions about medical bills, such as: Can free preventive care really come with add-on bills for items like surgical trays? Or, why does it cost so much to treat a rattlesnake bite? Or, if it’s called an urgent care emergency center, which is it?

Affording medical care continues to be among the top health concerns facing Americans today. In the seventh year of KFF Health News’ “Bill of the Month” series, readers shared their most perplexing, vexing, and downright expensive medical bills and asked us to help figure out what happened. Our reporters analyzed $800,000 in charges, including more than $370,000 owed by 12 patients and their families.

This year, we met several patients who fought back.

Caitlyn Mai of Oklahoma City was preapproved for a hearing implant, yet for months she was still hounded by notices saying she owed $139,000.

To resolve the problem, Mai estimated she spent at least 12 hours on the phone doing tasks that typically fall to someone working in a hospital billing department. “I said, ‘I’ve done your job for you — now can you please take it from here?’”

Jamie Holmes of Lynden, Washington, refused to buckle when a surgery center tried to make her pay for two operations after she underwent only one — even after a collection agency sued her.

She showed up at two court hearings and explained her side. “I just got stonewalled so badly. They treated me like an idiot,” she told “Bill of the Month.” “If they’re going to be petty to me, I’m willing to be petty right back.”

As always, we reached out to medical billing experts for their takeaways and learned that these patients had the right idea.

“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.

From our curious, tireless “Bill of the Month” team, happy holidays — and, when in doubt, don’t pay the bill.

The Colonoscopies Were Free. But the ‘Surgical Trays’ Came With $600 Price Tags.

By Samantha Liss, 

January 25, 2024

Health providers may bill however they choose — including in ways that could leave patients with unexpected bills for “free” care. Routine preventive care saddled an Illinois couple with his-and-her bills for “surgical trays.”

Without Medicare Part B’s Shield, Patient’s Family Owes $81,000 for a Single Air-Ambulance Flight

By Tony Leys, 

February 27, 2024

Sky-high bills from air-ambulance providers have sparked complaints and federal action in recent years. But a rural Tennessee resident fell through the cracks of billing protections — and a single helicopter ride could cost much of her estate's value.

A Mom’s $97,000 Question: How Was Her Baby’s Air-Ambulance Ride Not Medically Necessary?

By Molly Castle Work, 

March 25, 2024

There are legal safeguards to protect patients from big bills like out-of-network air-ambulance rides. But insurers may not pay if they decide the ride wasn’t medically necessary.

Sign Here? Financial Agreements May Leave Doctors in the Driver’s Seat

By Katheryn Houghton, 

April 30, 2024

Agreeing to an out-of-network doctor’s own financial policy — which generally protects their ability to get paid and may be littered with confusing insurance and legal jargon — can create a binding contract that leaves a patient owing.

He Fell Ill on a Cruise. Before He Boarded the Rescue Boat, They Handed Him the Bill.

By Bram Sable-Smith, 

May 22, 2024

A man from Michigan was evacuated from a cruise ship after having seizures. First, he drained his bank account to pay his medical bills.

It’s Called an Urgent Care Emergency Center — But Which Is It?

By Renuka Rayasam, 

June 24, 2024

Suffering stomach pain, a Dallas man visited his local urgent care clinic — or so he thought, until he got a bill 10 times what he’d expected.

Her Hearing Implant Was Preapproved. Nonetheless, She Got $139,000 Bills for Months.

By Elisabeth Rosenthal, 

July 17, 2024

Even when patients double-check that their care is covered by insurance, health providers often send them bills as they haggle with insurers over reimbursement, which can last for months. It’s stressful and annoying — but legal.

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

By Tony Leys, 

August 21, 2024

A collection agency sought court authority to garnish a patient’s wages to pay a disputed surgery bill. But after the patient showed up in court to argue the bill was bogus, the judge declined to let the bill collector seize her money.

In Chronic Pain, This Teenager ‘Could Barely Do Anything.’ Insurer Wouldn’t Cover Surgery.

By Lauren Sausser, 

September 25, 2024

An Alabama teen was told he needed surgery for debilitating hip pain. But his family’s insurer denied coverage for the procedure, which lacked a medical billing code. Expected to pay more than $7,000, his father charged it to credit cards.

Toddler’s Backyard Snakebite Bills Totaled More Than a Quarter Million Dollars

By Jackie Fortiér, 

October 30, 2024

For snakebite victims, antivenom is critical — and costly. It took more than $200,000 worth of antivenom to save one toddler’s life after he was bitten by a rattlesnake.

A Toddler Got a Nasal Swab Test but Left Before Seeing a Doctor. The Bill Was $445.

By Bram Sable-Smith, 

November 27, 2024

A mom in Peoria, Illinois, took her 3-year-old to the ER one evening last December. While they were waiting to be seen, the toddler seemed better, so they left without seeing a doctor. Then the bill came.

He Went in for a Colonoscopy. The Hospital Charged $19,000 for Two.

By Harris Meyer, 

December 19, 2024

A man in Chicago with a troubling symptom underwent a common procedure. Then he wanted to know why the hospital charged nearly three times its own cost estimate.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health News and The Washington Post’s Well+Being that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

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:

In Settling Fraud Case, New York Medicare Advantage Insurer, CEO Will Pay up to $100M

A western New York health insurance provider for seniors and the CEO of its medical analytics arm have agreed to pay a total of up to $100 million to settle Justice Department allegations of fraudulent billing for health conditions that were exaggerated or didn’t exist.

Independent Health Association of Buffalo, which operates two Medicare Advantage plans, will pay up to $98 million. Betsy Gaffney, CEO of medical records review company DxID, will pay $2 million, according to the settlement agreement. Neither admitted wrongdoing.

“Today’s result sends a clear message to the Medicare Advantage community that the United States will take appropriate action against those who knowingly submit inflated claims for reimbursement,” Michael Granston, a DOJ deputy assistant attorney general, said in announcing the settlement on Dec. 20.

Frank Sava, a spokesperson for Independent Health, said in a statement: “The assertions by the DOJ are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability. This settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing; it instead allows us to avoid the further disruption, expense, and uncertainty of litigation in a matter that has lingered for over a decade.”

Under the settlement, Independent Health will make “guaranteed payments” of $34.5 million in installments from 2024 through 2028. Whether it pays the maximum amount in the settlement will depend on the health plan’s financial performance.

Michael Ronickher, an attorney for whistleblower Teresa Ross, called the settlement “historic,” saying it was the largest payment yet by a health plan based solely on a whistleblower’s fraud allegations. It also was one of the first to accuse a data mining firm of helping a health plan overcharge.

The settlement is the latest in a whirl of whistleblower actions alleging billing fraud by a Medicare Advantage insurer. Medicare Advantage plans are private health plans that cover more than 33 million members, making up over half of all people eligible for Medicare. They are expected to grow further under the incoming Trump administration.

But as Medicare Advantage has gained popularity, regulators at the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have struggled to prevent health plans from exaggerating how sick patients are to boost their revenues.

Whistleblowers such as Ross, a former medical coding professional, have helped the government claw back hundreds of millions of dollars in overpayments tied to alleged coding abuses. Ross will receive at least $8.2 million, according to the Justice Department.

Ross said that CMS “created a bounty” for health plans that added medical diagnosis codes as they reviewed patients’ charts — and whether those codes were accurate or not “didn’t seem to bother some people.”

“Billions of dollars are being paid out by CMS for diagnoses that don’t exist,” Ross told KFF Health News in an interview.

Data Mining

DOJ’s civil complaint, filed in September 2021, was unusual in targeting a data analytics venture — and its top executive — for allegedly ginning up bogus payments.

DxID specialized in mining electronic medical records to capture new diagnoses for patients — pocketing up to 20% of the money it generated for the health plan, according to the suit, which said Independent Health used the firm from 2010 through 2017. DxID shut down in 2021.

Gaffney pitched its services to Medicare Advantage plans as “too attractive to pass up,” according to the Justice Department complaint.

“There is no upfront fee, we don’t get paid until you get paid and we work on a percentage of the actual proven recoveries,” Gaffney said, according to the complaint. Timothy Hoover, an attorney for Gaffney, said in a statement that the settlement “is not an admission of any liability by Ms. Gaffney. The settlement simply resolves a dispute and provides closure to the parties.”

‘A Ton of Money’

CMS uses a complex formula that pays health plans higher rates for sicker patients and less for people in good health. Health plans must retain medical records that document all diagnoses they highlight for reimbursement.

Independent Health violated those rules by billing Medicare for a range of medical conditions that either were exaggerated or not supported by patient medical files, such as billing for treating chronic depression that had been resolved, according to the complaint. In one case, an 87-year-old man was coded as having “major depressive disorder” even though his medical records indicated the problem was “transient,” according to the complaint.

DxID also cited chronic kidney disease or renal failure “in the absence of any documentation suggesting that a patient suffered from those conditions,” according to the complaint. Past conditions, such as heart attacks, that required no current treatment, also were coded, according to the DOJ.

The suit alleges that Gaffney said renal failure diagnoses were “worth a ton of money to IH [Independent Health] and the majority of people (over) 70 have it at some level.”

Ross filed the whistleblower case in 2012 against Group Health Cooperative in Seattle, one of the nation’s oldest managed-care groups.

Ross, a former medical coding manager there, alleged that DxID submitted more than $30 million in disease claims — many of which were not valid — on behalf of Group Health for 2010 and 2011. For instance, Ross alleged that the plan billed for “major depression” in a patient described by his doctor as having an “amazingly sunny disposition.”

Group Health, now known as the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington, denied wrongdoing. But it settled the civil case in November 2020 by agreeing to pay $6.3 million. The DOJ filed a second complaint in 2021, against Independent Health, which also used DxID’s services.

Ross said she lost her job after her suit became public in 2019 and was unable to secure another one in the medical coding field.

“It was rough at times, but we got through it,” she said. Ross, 60, said she is now “happily retired.”

False Claims

Whistleblowers sue under the False Claims Act, a federal law dating to the Civil War that allows private citizens to expose fraud against the government and share in any recovery.

At least two dozen such suits, some dating to 2009, have targeted Medicare Advantage plans for overstating the severity of medical conditions, a practice known in the industry as “upcoding.” Previous settlements from such suits have totaled more than $600 million.

The whistleblowers have played a key role in holding health insurers accountable.

While dozens of CMS audits have concluded that health plans overcharged the government, the agency has done little to recoup money for the U.S. Treasury.

In a surprise action in late January 2023, CMS announced that it would settle for a fraction of the estimated tens of millions of dollars in overpayments uncovered through its audits dating to 2011 and not impose major financial penalties on health plans until a round of audits for 2018 payments, which have yet to be done. Exactly how much plans will end up paying back is unclear.

“I think CMS should be doing more,” said Max Voldman, an attorney who represents Ross.

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:

Employers Press Congress To Cement Health Price Transparency Before Trump’s Return

It seems simple: Require hospitals and insurers to post their negotiated prices for most health care services and — bingo — competition follows, yielding lower costs for consumers.

But nearly four years after the first Trump administration’s regulations forced hospitals to post massive amounts of pricing information online, the effect on patients’ costs is unclear. And while President Joe Biden added requirements to make pricing information more user-friendly, Donald Trump’s imminent return to the White House has raised questions about what’s next, even though posting prices is an area of rare bipartisan agreement.

The uncertainty of what might happen next led some proponents to lobby Congress to include hospital and insurer price transparency in must-pass legislation before Trump takes office. That would turn both his and Biden’s regulations into law, making them less susceptible to being weakened or repealed by a future administration. But that effort failed.

The legislative step could also help protect against legal challenges in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that limited government agencies’ regulatory authority.

Employers are using transparency data to try to slow growth of their health care costs, and “the last thing you want to do is start over,” said James Gelfand, president and CEO of the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents large employers who finance their own health plans. His group is among the organizations pressing Congress to act.

“Congress’ failure to act is deeply disappointing, but employers and other advocates will redouble our efforts,” Gelfand said. “This will get done.”

While there are reports that many hospitals are not fully complying, federal regulators have sent thousands of warning letters to hospitals and fined just over a dozen.

The transparency rules require hospitals to list the prices they accept from all insurers for thousands of items and services, from stitches to delivery room costs to X-rays. For consumers, hospitals must also provide a list of 300 “shoppable” services, including bundled prices accepted for common services such as having a baby or getting a hip replacement. Insurers in July 2022 were similarly required to list their negotiated prices, not only for care at hospitals, but also surgery centers, imaging facilities, laboratories, and doctors’ offices.

It’s a massive and often confusing amount of data that has drawn interest from researchers and commercial outlets like Turquoise Health, which has sought to organize the information to better help ordinary consumers shopping for medical services or employers overseeing workers’ health plans.

The data shows a huge variation in prices, both in what hospitals charge and what insurers pay, for the same services. But the result of making those prices public is so far hard to quantify.

A recent study by Turquoise looked at negotiated rates in the nation’s 10 largest metro areas for a set of common health care services. It found that rates in the top quarter tier — the most expensive category — declined by 6.3% from December 2021 to June 2024, during the time the transparency rules were in place. But negotiated rates for the lowest-cost tier of services rose by 3.4%.

That may indicate hospitals and insurers — who can now see what rivals are charging and paying — have either cut prices or demanded better rates, at least for the costliest services.

Even so, Gerard Anderson, who oversees research into the data as a professor at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, said the changes Turquoise noted were small and are not reflective of what his team has seen in their own studies.

“So far we have not detected any impact of this data on behavior, of where insurers decide to go or what hospitals do to change prices once they realize what others are charging,” Anderson said.

Some health policy experts think it’s unlikely the incoming Trump administration would reverse its prior commitment to price transparency.

“I don’t see a world where he tanks his own regulations,” said Joe Wisniewski, an associate vice president at Turquoise Health. “There is also so much broad bipartisan support on the Hill.”

The current price-posting rules began with requirements in the Affordable Care Act, which the initial Trump administration more fully defined. The hospital industry failed in a legal challenge to block those rules, and the Trump-era requirements became effective in January 2021.

But even after the Biden administration made the data more user-friendly, it’s still not very helpful to consumers, Anderson said.

“This data is not telling them the price they will pay. It’s telling them the average price people paid last month or last quarter for a similar type of service,” he said.

More useful, Anderson and other experts say, are requirements in the price transparency rules that demand insurers offer online calculators for hundreds of nonemergency services. The detailed cost estimates must take into account how much patients have paid toward annual deductibles.

For uninsured consumers or others who don’t have access to online calculators, it remains difficult to piece together how much a service might cost from the information hospitals post online. For one thing, not every hospital has posted its negotiated rates.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general said in November an audit of 100 hospitals found that 63 complied with the price transparency rule, while the rest failed to meet one or more requirements.

The advocacy group Patient Rights Advocate, which looked at a sample of 2,000 hospitals, says that only 21% were fully compliant, although it used broader measures for compliance than the inspector general.

“By keeping their prices hidden, hospitals continue to block American consumers from their right to compare prices and protect themselves from overcharges,” said Cynthia Fisher, founder and chairman of the group, which has called for stricter rules and enforcement.

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:

Readers Offer Solo Agers Support and Reflect on Ancestors

Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.

Solo Agers, Join the Crowd!

Enjoyed your panel discussion (Watch: ‘Going It Alone’ — A Conversation About Growing Old in America, Dec. 12). I am 85, retired at 55. Traveled (birding) in 65 countries. In 2010, I created the First Friday Ideas Salon. We just had our 171st gathering, via Zoom. I curate each gathering. Last month, we hosted a conservator and a scientist from the Getty museum. The month before: a Cal Tech professor on robotics. I have had many professors, a Nobel Prize winner, MacArthur Foundation “genius grant” recipients, a presidential candidate, etc.

Recently, I became interested in the issue of how retirees whose professions defined their persona can, after age 80, as a “senior senior,” continue to be a person of substantiality. I created the Glorious Age of Aging to look at this issue over six hourlong meetings over three months. The focus was on “action steps.”

So, for me, as a solo ager, the key has been to take action. That said, I worry about the time when my body does not keep up with my mind. Actually, I would say my body has declined and my ability to take care of things required in my life. So, I have prepared food delivered. I hire people to help with my beloved succulent garden and with other chores — so far, young people in my neighborhood. I live in Los Angeles with famously poor public transportation. I use Uber as well as drive. So I wonder if I will be able to continue to find services that will support my living alone. And the real worry is the process of dying — not death — I do not worry about that. Recently, I have decided that I need to create an “intentional community,” which will be there when I need it. I am just beginning to think about how to do this.

— Edna R.S. Alvarez, Los Angeles

A social services agency that has been delivering meals to homebound seniors in all five of New York City’s boroughs for 43 years weighed in on X:

“It’s hard to be by myself so much of the time. It’s lonely." It's vital to understand how isolation increases the risk of health problems for older adults: https://t.co/uQDBysqmQW

— Citymeals on Wheels (@Citymeals) December 14, 2024

— Citymeals on Wheels, New York City

Keeping Pace With Solo Agers

As Judith Graham makes clear (“Going it Alone: Homebound Seniors Living Alone Often Slip Through Health System’s Cracks,” Dec. 2), more Americans are living on their own as they age, relying on a patchwork of health care services to get by.

That’s why the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) is so critical to this conversation. PACE helps older Americans — 91% of whom are 65 or older and have chronic health conditions — stay safe and healthy in their own homes.

The program offers at-home assistance with daily tasks, like dressing, bathing, and eating, and transportation to the PACE day center, where participants can socialize and receive medical care. Unlike other settings, the PACE program coordinates all aspects of a participant’s care, from scheduling medical appointments to providing meals and nutritional advice.

PACE physicians and nurse practitioners’ comprehensive approach to care benefits those who are homebound and may not otherwise have an in-home caregiver to rely on. PACE is also a particularly promising option for those with dementia, as the program allows older adults to receive memory care in the comfort and familiarity of their homes.

It’s also more affordable than many alternative care options. States have reported that PACE costs taxpayers 13% less than the cost of other Medicaid services, all without copays, deductibles, or out-of-pocket expenses for participants.

The program has been quietly transforming our nation’s senior care system, but it remains underutilized. Only a fraction of older Americans are currently eligible for the program, but its benefits can extend far beyond this group. It’s critical for lawmakers to advance policies that expand access to PACE services so that we can set more older Americans up for success as they age at home.

— Jerry Wilborn, chief medical officer of One Senior Care, Erie, Pennsylvania

Gone But Not Forgotten

In February 2023, I came across an article by Tony Leys about the closing of Iowa’s Glenwood Resource Center, which left me reflecting deeply on both the residents who still lived there and those who had passed away and are now buried at the institution. Among them is my great-grandmother, Margarita Hedlund. As I read, I couldn’t help but think about the many people like her, who spent more of their lives at Glenwood than they ever did with their families, and who now rest in the cemetery there.

Nearly two years later, I read another article by Mr. Leys expressing concern for the over 1,300 residents buried in the Glenwood Cemetery and who will take responsibility for maintaining their graves (“After Institutions for People With Disabilities Close, Graves Are at Risk of Being Forgotten,” Nov. 21). The thought of my great-grandmother’s grave and the graves of so many others being neglected is deeply troubling.

Margarita Petterson was born in Sweden in 1866. She came to America as a young child and married Erik Hedlund, also from Sweden. They had five children together, but Erik passed away in 1900, just months before their youngest child was born. My great-grandmother lived with her oldest daughter, but in 1912, for reasons unknown to me, she was sent to Glenwood. She remained there until her death in 1949. Although I knew she had lived at Glenwood, I was never told why, and when I reached out to the institution for information, I received only a brief record. It stated she had a moderate intellectual disability (IQ between 35-49) and died of cirrhosis of the liver. The only other detail I learned was that her son had decided to have her buried in the cemetery there.

I can’t help but feel sadness and frustration that she was buried so far from her husband, who passed away nearly half a century earlier. There are likely many more families with similar stories — of loved ones abandoned or forgotten in a place like Glenwood, with little more than a name and a grave marker to honor them.

Reading about the fate of Glenwood’s residents and the ongoing concern about the cemetery maintenance only deepens my desire to know more about my great-grandmother’s life and her time there. When it’s your own family member, the need for answers is personal. I hope others who may be in the same situation find ways to learn more about their relatives’ lives at Glenwood and that we, as a community, remember and care for those who were forgotten too long.

— Marlys Adkins, Clare, Iowa

Disability Scoop, a 16-year-old news site that offers daily coverage of autism, intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and other issues vital to the developmental disability community, shared the article on LinkedIn.

ER Care Goes Beyond Doctors

This is an excellent story to remind people to think ahead and utilize urgent care facilities (“Bill of the Month: A Toddler Got a Nasal Swab Test but Left Before Seeing a Doctor. The Bill Was $445,” Nov. 27). But why is this family’s bill surprising? I find it reasonable. There was the all-important initial screening by trained personnel — a child may be more ill than the parent appreciates. The medical history was obtained, temperature and other vitals taken, and swabs for the noted tests. That’s all time and effort that could have been spent on another patient. That’s supposed to be free? Surely you’re not implying that ER staff other than the doctors are worthless.

I remember the ’50s, when our local hospital’s ER staff was “on call.” No charge then if you left before you were seen.

— Gloria Kohut, Grand Rapids, Michigan

An emergency physician in Ontario chimed in on X:

A Toddler (in Canada) Got a Nasal Swab Test but Left Before Seeing a Doctor. The Bill Was $0. If the swab was positive they'd get a phone call by a doctor again costing $0. https://t.co/NPaPUWASTq via @kffhealthnews pic.twitter.com/qkVuZZFFr0

— Raghu Venugopal MD (@raghu_venugopal) December 12, 2024

— Raghu Venugopal, Toronto

Watch Your Language

It is too bad that an inflammatory article was written like the one titled “How Measles, Whooping Cough, and Worse Could Roar Back on RFK Jr.’s Watch” (Dec. 6). “Could” is just a speculative word and may be associated with fear-mongering. Your bias seems clear. It’s difficult to find unbiased health-related articles nowadays. I request that you write an article concerning RFK Jr. that is not biased — that is not from Big Pharma’s viewpoint. You aren’t aware that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FDA, and other government agencies are industry-captured?

— Wayne Carpenter, Omak, Washington

An infectious disease specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security had this to say on X:

“Vaccine development requires millions of dollars. Unless there is prospect of profit, commercial companies are not going to do it.” — why would companies even invest in vaccines if there reward is demonization https://t.co/F6jAv5cdhe

— Amesh Adalja (@AmeshAA) December 9, 2024

— Amesh Adalja, Pittsburgh

Gathering Intel on Plant-Based Diets

I just wanted to say how much I appreciated your roundup of news about prioritizing plant-based proteins (“Morning Briefing: Eat More Plant-Based Foods, According To Dietary Guidelines Advisory Panel,” Dec. 11). The idea that our food choices can come from a place of ethical consumption seems so removed from much of the world today. So many people have questions and concerns about becoming plant-based — is it healthy? What will my friends and family think? etc. But what your newsletter clearly shows is it’s not about what leaving animal products off one’s plate takes away but instead how much trying a plant-based meal gives to the individuals, the animals, and the environment.

Thank you for inspiring change without creating fear. Our future depends on more coverage like this.

— Sara Crane, Toronto

A Slice of Real Life

I really enjoyed your article “Perspective: Removing a Splinter? Treating a Wart? If a Doctor Does It, It Can Be Billed as Surgery” (Dec. 13). The exact thing happened to our family, and I thought we were an anomaly. My daughter got a 1-centimeter cut above her eye after falling out of bed. I took her to MUSC Children’s Health After Hours Care in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (basically a doctor’s office that is open late). It’s not an ER or urgent care. When we arrived, the receptionist said, “We don’t do stitches here.” I checked in my daughter anyway since the receptionist said the doctor might be able to apply glue to help keep the cut closed. The doctor cleaned the cut with sterile saline, applied glue, and placed a few Steri-Strips. We were billed for “minor surgery” despite no scalpel, no stitches, no lidocaine. I looked up the ICD-10 code, and sure enough “application of tissue adhesive” is a “minor surgery” code. Our out-of-pocket was around $830 with UnitedHealthcare. I still have all the bills. “Liquid bandage” and Steri-Strips can be purchased at Walgreens.

I’ve never emailed the writer of an article, but this got me fired up! Thanks for bringing this to light.

— Cailin Lutz, Charleston, South Carolina

Continuing the surgical thread on X was a professor of medicine and pharmacy at the University of Pittsburgh:

I'm glad this is being looked at: Removing a Splinter? Treating a Wart? If a Doctor Does It, It Can Be Billed as Surgery https://t.co/YVUR9B8BkO via @kffhealthnews

— Bernie Good (@CBGood23) December 13, 2024

— Bernie Good, Pittsburgh

As a retired primary care physician, I was often frustrated that my management of complex medical conditions was reimbursed at lower rates than the illustrated splinter, or other “surgical treatments” as mentioned in Elisabeth Rosenthal’s article. However, blaming the physician for this discrepancy is inappropriate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has strict regulations on billing. We are mandated to code per the regulations. We cannot give “discounts” for these procedures. To do so would be problematic in the bizarre catch-22 world of Medicare billing.

We are mandated to report our services accurately using only the codes available. To do otherwise is considered fraud by Medicare. When a physician is accused of fraud, he/she is presumed guilty and pays significant financial penalties until innocence is proven. Even a murderer and thief have more rights in the judicial system.

Medicare determines the lowest reimbursement rate; the other carriers pay a higher rate based on that rate. If an individual physician accepts Medicare, he/she must accept that rate. Only a non-participating physician (not accepting Medicare) can offer a lower rate. The exception is if the service is provided at no cost. Should the patient demand the service be provided free?

I’m reminded of the plumber charging $100 to replace a washer: 10 cents for the washer and $99.90 to know how to replace it.

— Robert Sullivan, Adairsville, Georgia

No Free Pass for Drug Ads

After reading this article by Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Perspective: With TV Drug Ads, What You See Is Not Necessarily What You Get” (Sept. 9), I wanted to share an opinion about the federal court’s decision to deem price disclosure on pharmaceutical advertisements a violation of the First Amendment. Commercial advertising has less protection under the First Amendment than individual speech. According to the Central Hudson Test, commercial speech, at baseline, must concern a lawful activity and not be false, deceptive, or misleading. Even if the speech meets all these criteria, the government can intervene if there is “substantial” government interest. If there is further regulation from the government on commercial advertising, it must be no more extensive than necessary to serve the government’s interest. Essentially, if there is intervention, it must be warranted, and the regulation must be reasonable when compared to the restriction (U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1.7.6.2).

In the case of pharmaceutical ads, especially those that promote oncology medications, they do not meet the baseline qualifications to be considered “not false, deceptive, or misleading.” It has been shown that pharmaceutical ads can rely on emotional response over rational appeal (Main, et al., 2004). If the ad is going to target an emotional response of a vulnerable population, then what is being sold must be accurate. If they are going to sell a chemotherapy that may not be the best option (but possibly have the most adverse side effects), then there is a government responsibility to protect this population and to be more discerning when determining what is truthful. Furthermore, even if the ads met the basic qualifications, they could still be regulated further due to the government interest in both public health and health care cost. Requiring that the drug cost be shown on pharmaceutical ads is appropriate federal intervention that I believe is more than reasonable when compared to the restriction.

— Molly Hilliard, New York City

A national drug safety advocate and public speaker tweeted on X:

Did you know drug companies spend over $1B a month on drug ads in recent years? Last year, the top 3 advertising spenders on TV were drug companies.I have spent my entire career in advertising and Big Pharma is keeping our industry afloat. https://t.co/0cTHTAOSAt

— Kim Witczak 💜 (@woodymatters) September 9, 2024

— Kim Witczak, Minneapolis

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:

Federal ACA Marketplace Enrollment Lagging

It’s open enrollment season for the Affordable Care Act — and there are ongoing challenges.

First up, enrollment.

New and returning sign-ups through healthcare.gov — the federal marketplace that serves 31 states — are well below last year’s rate. New enrollments were just over 730,000 in early December, compared with 1.5 million at the same time last year.

To give consumers in those states more time to enroll, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services extended the deadline to Wednesday to sign up for coverage that starts Jan. 1. (Open enrollment itself ends in most states on Jan. 15, for coverage that would begin Feb. 1.)

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is seeking to put on hold an order by a federal judge in North Dakota who ruled in favor of 19 states that challenged a rule allowing — for the first time — enrollment in ACA coverage by “dreamers,” people brought to the United States as children without immigration paperwork.

The Dec. 9 ruling effectively barred those who qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in the 19 states from enrolling in or getting subsidies for ACA plans. It does not appear to affect enrollment or coverage in other states, lawyers following the case have said.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit granted a temporary stay of the order at the government’s request. A final decision, expected any day, could extend the stay while the court hears the appeal.

The Biden administration argues that North Dakota hasn’t proved it would be harmed by the rule — and that not granting a stay would be disruptive. The Dec. 9 order would cause the federal government to incur financial costs if it has to retool the marketplace to reflect the change and notify those who have already enrolled that their plans are canceled, the administration argued.

The original case was filed in August in U.S. District Court in North Dakota and is being heard by District Judge Daniel Traynor, who was nominated in 2019 by then-President Donald Trump.

Previously, the federal government estimated that about 100,000 uninsured people out of a half-million DACA recipients might sign up for 2025 coverage. In its new filing, the government says 2,700 have enrolled through the federal marketplace, and an unknown number in states involved in the litigation that run their own state-based marketplaces.

The Biden administration rule, finalized in May, clarified that those who qualify for DACA would be considered “lawfully present” for the purpose of enrolling in plans under the ACA.

All the states challenging the ACA rule say it will cause administrative and resource burdens as more people enroll, and that it will encourage additional people to remain in the United States when they don’t have permanent legal authorization.

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:

Obamacare Sign-Ups Lag After Trump Election, Legal Challenges

New enrollments under the Affordable Care Act are on pace to trail last year’s record numbers by as many as a million as the outgoing Biden administration confronts upheavals in the program.

Donald Trump’s election to a second term has cast uncertainty around the future of the health law. In addition, the Biden administration implemented cumbersome policies to reduce fraudulent enrollment and is combating a lawsuit that aims to block immigrants who lack legal residency from buying insurance under the program.

So far, the number of new and returning enrollees using healthcare.gov — the federal marketplace that serves 31 states — is below last year’s. New enrollments were just over 730,000 in early December, compared with 1.5 million at the same time last year.

To give consumers in federal marketplace states more time to enroll, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services extended to Dec. 18 the deadline to sign up for coverage that starts Jan. 1. (The Jan. 15 deadline is for coverage that would begin Feb. 1.)

Also in flux is a rule issued by the Biden administration allowing — for the first time — enrollment in ACA coverage by people brought to the U.S. as children without immigration paperwork, known as “Dreamers.”

The Biden team was granted a temporary stay on Dec. 16 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit regarding a Dec. 9 order by a federal judge in North Dakota. That district court judge had ruled in favor of 19 states that sought to block the Biden administration’s Dreamers directive. Without a stay, the decision in that case, Kansas v. the United States, effectively bars those who have qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in the 19 states from enrolling in or getting subsidies for ACA plans. It does not appear to affect enrollment or coverage in other states, lawyers following the case have said.

A final decision on the temporary stay was expected any day now. If granted, it could allow Dreamers to continue enrolling while the government’s appeal of the district court ruling is heard, which is unlikely to occur before Trump takes office.

In its court filings, the Biden administration argues that not granting a stay would be very disruptive in the middle of open enrollment, causing the federal government to incur costs in retooling its marketplace to reflect the change, and notifying those who have already enrolled that their plans are canceled.

The original case was filed in August in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota and is being heard by District Judge Daniel Traynor, who was nominated in 2019 by then-President Trump.

Previously, the federal government estimated that about 100,000 uninsured people out of a half-million DACA recipients might sign up for 2025 coverage. In its new filing, the government says 2,700 have enrolled in those states that brought the suit and use the federal marketplace.

The Biden administration rule, finalized in May, clarified that those who qualify for DACA would be considered “lawfully present” for the purposes of enrolling in plans under the ACA, which are open to citizens and those who are called “lawfully present” immigrants.

The federal lawyers argue that North Dakota has not proved it would be harmed by the rule, so it has no standing to bring the case. North Dakota argued that it incurs costs for approximately 130 DACA recipients who live in its state, and that it would not have those expenses if they were barred from enrolling in the ACA and thus decided to leave the country. An exodus is unlikely, the federal government argued. The legal brief also questioned North Dakota’s calculation that it incurs costs of $585 to issue driver’s licenses to the DACA recipients and about $14,000 annually to educate at least one DACA member or dependent.

All the states challenging the ACA rule say it will cause administrative and resource burdens as more people enroll, and that it will encourage additional people to remain in the U.S. when they don’t have permanent legal authorization. The plaintiff states are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

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:

How a Duty To Spend Wisely on Worker Benefits Could Loosen PBMs’ Grip on Drug Prices

Ann Lewandowski knows all about pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, the companies that shape the U.S. drug market. Her job, as a policy advocate at drugmaker Johnson & Johnson, was to tell patient and physician groups about the PBMs’ role in high drug prices.

Armed with that knowledge, Lewandowski filed a potentially groundbreaking lawsuit in February. Rather than targeting the PBMs, however, she went after a big company that uses one — her own employer, Johnson & Johnson.

Lewandowski charges in her lawsuit that by contracting with the PBM Express Scripts, which is part of the insurance giant Cigna, Johnson & Johnson — which fired her in April — failed in its duty to ensure reasonable drug prices for its more than 50,000 U.S. employees.

By choosing an Express Scripts plan, she charged, J&J cost employees “millions of dollars in the form of higher payments for prescription drugs, higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher coinsurance, higher copays, and lower wages or limited wage growth.”

Lewandowski, 40, from outside Madison, Wisconsin, relies on an expensive multiple sclerosis drug. She brought the lawsuit, she said, because she “had trouble aligning the policy positions” she reported on as a J&J employee “with the actions I experienced as a health plan user.”

In recent years, the opaque business practices of PBMs have drawn fire. The Federal Trade Commission is conducting a lengthy investigation of the three biggest companies and sued them in September, accusing the firms of driving up insulin prices. Bipartisan bills in Congress would rein them in. And businesses such as Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs and smaller, “transparent PBMs” have tried to wean pharmaceutical companies and health plans from their reliance on the big PBMs.

But Lewandowski’s lawsuit goes to a sensitive spot that had been overlooked until recently: language in the 2021 appropriations bill that revised the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known as ERISA. The original law focused on stopping fraudulent retirement plans.

Her lawsuit is based on congressional language specifying that the law’s requirement of prudent management covers health as well as retirement benefits. By providing workers with a health plan, employers aren’t “doing you a favor. They are holding your money and investing it in your health,” said Barak Richman, a George Washington University health law professor.

In July, a similar lawsuit was filed against Wells Fargo, and more suits are in the works.

PBMs demand discounts and rebates from drugmakers, which leads the manufacturers to charge higher list prices, which can drive up the price patients pay at the pharmacy. At the same time, retail pharmacies say PBMs are driving them out of business by paying them less than what the PBMs charge health plans — a practice known as spread pricing. Patients typically have no idea what they’ll pay for a drug, and neither do their employers, because many PBMs’ contracts contain nondisclosure clauses.

Dissatisfaction with the status quo and fear of liability are pushing employers to switch from the “Big Three” PBMs to “transparent PBMs,” which don’t shroud their pricing and drug choice decisions.

“We brought on nine Fortune 500s this year, 1.2 million patients,” said AJ Loiacono, CEO of New York City-based Capital Rx, a PBM founded in 2017. According to a recent survey, as many as half of U.S. employers are considering switching.

Cuban, in an interview with KFF Health News, said he has told hundreds of Fortune 500 executives, in one-on-one meetings and in groups, that they are overpaying on drug benefit plans skewed to fatten the wallets of big PBMs.

“You’re getting ripped off,” Cuban said he tells them. “You don’t really understand the elements, and that’s costing you money and costing you wellness. And now you are going to get sued. It’s not a question of if but a question of when.”

Pressuring a Purchasing Cartel

The billionaire, who launched Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs in 2022 to upend the byzantine $500 billion U.S. drug market, is convinced that the Lewandowski suit and others will end the dominance of the big PBMs, which control 80% of the business.

Cost Plus Drugs charges a straight 15% markup with small processing fees for the 2,500 drugs it sells, most of them generics, said co-founder Alex Oshmyansky. Its nearly 3 million customers — individuals, health plans, and transparent PBMs — appear to be saving money in many cases.

The big PBMs say their buying power and exclusive access to information enable them to save money for insurers, employers, and patients. Critics say they are skimming up to 25% from the drug market, perhaps $100 billion a year, according to Oshmyansky. The opaque strategies and conflicts of interest, critics say, often result in the poorest, sickest patients paying the most for medications.

The three PBMs amount to a “purchasing cartel,” Oshmyansky said in an interview at Cost Plus’ Dallas headquarters, once the office of broadcast.com, the internet radio company that made Cuban his first billion dollars when he sold it to Yahoo in 1999. “They buy all the drugs, they jack up the prices, and then they resell them.”

Richman and Amy Monahan of the University of Minnesota argued in a journal article this year that the Department of Labor, which has previously focused its ERISA oversight on retirement benefits, should issue standards for the use of health care dollars under the law.

When companies “enter into dumb contracts with insurers or PBMs, arguably they are in violation of ERISA,” Richman said. “Taking the law seriously would really require employers, who are spending half the health care dollars in the country, to spend that money in very different ways.”

Some drug market experts, however, doubt the ERISA lawsuits will succeed. Complex PBM money channels “make it hard to build a case,” said Stacie Dusetzina, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. “You might think your company is overpaying, but relative to what?”

The ERISA Industry Committee, which lobbies Congress for some of the biggest U.S. companies, is asking Congress to give PBMs the specific duty to represent their clients’ financial interests, said Melissa Bartlett, the group’s senior vice president for health policy. That could require patients to sue the PBMs rather than their employers.

A few big employers are already changing their drug plans.

In 2019, Connecticut became CVS’ first PBM customer to negotiate a transparent fee structure. Its contract required 100% of drug rebates be passed along to the state and eliminated spread pricing.

The state decided to go further when it sought a new contract for its 214,000 employees this year, said Joshua Wojcik, director of health policy and benefits in the state comptroller’s office. Instead of discounts and rebates, it demanded the lowest net cost per employee.

Of the three big PBMs, only CVS bid on the contract. It edged out a few “transparent PBMs” — a sign, in Wojcik’s view, that CVS at least doesn’t want to be left out as more customers ditch the current PBM business model.

With the change, Wojcik estimates the state will save up to $70 million a year.

$13.40 vs. $2,500

Changing drug benefit policies at big companies takes time, said Oshmyansky of Cost Plus. Their PBM contracts last three to five years, so “you have to capture them in that one year where they are evaluating other options,” he said. PBMs pay benefit plan consultants and the brokers big companies hire to steer business their way.

“We have this weird structure where multiple sclerosis, cancer patients subsidize everybody else’s drugs,” Oshmyansky said. Instead of creating a pool that spreads costs to everyone with insurance, there’s a “disproportionate burden placed on the sickest members.”

Cost Plus generates the biggest savings for its customers on about 50 extraordinarily high-priced generic drugs. The poster child is imatinib, a generic cancer pill that Cost Plus sells for $13.40 for a 30-day supply, compared with the $2,500 it retails for at pharmacies. A study conducted by Dusetzina and colleagues found Medicare could save $662 million a year just by buying imatinib and six other generic cancer drugs from Cost Plus rather than through a big PBM.

Ironically, though, most generic drugs are cheaper in the U.S. than in Europe or Canada — so cheap, in fact, that they fall into shortages as companies get out of the business or stop making needed improvements to their production lines.

In response, Cost Plus has started a compounding pharmacy to make common generics and soon hopes to have a sort of “private reserve” of 70 to 80 products that it can make on short notice if they go into shortage, Oshmyansky said.

While the company hasn’t yet set up purchase agreements for most brand-name drugs, Oshmyansky and Cuban are hopeful. Drugmakers, through their trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, have lobbied fiercely to rein in PBMs in the past two years.

At a Sept. 24 hearing at which Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) grilled Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen over high prices for diabetes and weight loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, the executive expressed support for a more transparent pricing model.

“On average for our products we give 74% in rebates to PBMs” for every $1 the company charges, he said. If, instead, “we simply paid the PBMs a small fee for the limited risk and contribution they make, I think patients would be significantly better off.”

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:

Rage Has Long Shadowed American Health Care. It’s Rarely Produced Big Change.

Among the biggest-grossing films in America in February 2002 were a war drama about American troops in Somalia (“Black Hawk Down”), an Arnold Schwarzenegger action movie (“Collateral Damage”), and a future Oscar winner about a brilliant mathematician struggling with schizophrenia (“A Beautiful Mind”).

But none of these films topped the box office that month. That title went to “John Q.,” a movie about health insurance.

Or, more precisely, a story about a desperate father — played by Denzel Washington — who takes a hospital emergency room hostage at gunpoint when his HMO refuses to cover a heart transplant for his young son.

John Q.’s violent quest for justice was, of course, fictional. And even in the film, no one ends up dead.

Tragically, that wasn’t the case on the streets of New York City on Dec. 4 when a gunman fatally shot Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant UnitedHealthcare.

But there was nothing new about the anger at health insurers that Thompson’s shooting unleashed online — and which suspect Luigi Mangione expressed in a document he allegedly wrote.

In fact, eruptions of public rage have shadowed the American health care system for decades.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, as “John Q.” was hitting movie screens, Americans were revolting against HMOs, whose practice of denying care to plan members to pad their bottom lines made them public enemy No. 1.

Just a few years later, health insurers stoked new ire for rescinding coverage after people were diagnosed with expensive illnesses like cancer. More recently, insurers’ widening use of cumbersome prior authorization procedures that slow patients’ access to care has provoked yet another round of fury.

The cycle of outrage periodically turns on others in the health care industry as well. Exorbitant bills and aggressive collection tactics, such as garnishing patients’ wages, are sapping public trust in hospitals and other medical providers.

And drug companies — perennial poster children for greed and profiteering — have enraged Americans since at least the 1950s, when new “wonder drugs” like steroids were fueling a growing industry.

When Sen. Estes Kefauver, a Tennessee Democrat who had led an investigation of the Mafia, convened hearings in 1959 to probe high prescription prices, his committee received mountains of mail from Americans who reported being fleeced by drugmakers. One retired rail worker told of having to spend more than a third of his retirement income on medicines for himself and his wife.

All this public outcry has occasionally sparked change. President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats leveraged anger at spiking insurance premiums in California to get the Affordable Care Act over the finish line in 2010, a landmark achievement that expanded health coverage to millions of Americans.

But more often, cycles of rage have been so much sound and fury, producing only modest reforms. In some cases, public anger has yielded more headaches for patients.

The HMO backlash in the late 1990s and early 2000s, for example, prompted employers — from whom about half of Americans get their health coverage — to embrace high-deductible health plans. Many employers saw these plans as a way to hold down costs if they couldn’t limit patients’ choice of medical providers through HMOs. These deductibles, which can reach thousands of dollars a year, are driving tens of millions of Americans into debt.

To many on the left who have long argued for a single-payer, government-run health system, the obstacle to more meaningful relief has been the political power of the same industries — health insurers, drug companies, hospitals — that fuel patient anger.

These industries have indeed proven adept at resisting change that threatened their bottom lines. They’ve also benefited from a paradox in how Americans think about their health care.

Patients may get angry. They may even lose faith in the system. This year, public views of health care quality fell to the lowest point since Gallup began asking about it in 2001, with 44% of Americans rating quality as excellent or good, down from a high of 62%.

Yet more than 70% said their own health care is excellent or good.

There is much debate about what accounts for this paradox. Are Americans just grateful to have the health protections they do? Are they satisfied because most don’t have to use the health care system on a regular basis? Do they simply like their doctor, in the way that voters routinely say they like their own member of Congress but hate Washington politicians? Or do they worry that no matter how frustrating the current system can be, any change risks making the situation worse?

The answer is probably a bit of all of this. Together, such sentiments represent a major challenge for those who hope the current wave of anger at health insurers will drive big improvements.

Could that change? Maybe. These are volatile and unpredictable political times. And the pressure of big medical bills is real. Medical debt, in particular, is exacting a fearsome toll on millions of Americans, KFF Health News’ reporting has shown.

But to drive change, advocates looking to harness public anger at the health care industry probably need to rethink their favored solutions. Old ideas like “Medicare for All,” long cherished on the left, or a deregulated health care market, long championed by the right, haven’t swayed Americans so far, no matter how angry they’ve been.

I don’t know when we’ll see meaningful alternatives. One thing that’s almost certainly on the way: Hollywood’s spin on the death of a health insurance executive gunned down in Midtown Manhattan.

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:

Helicopters Rescued Patients in ‘Apocalyptic’ Flood. Other Hospitals Are at Risk, Too.

ERWIN, Tenn. — April Boyd texted her husband before she boarded the helicopter.

“So, I don’t want to be dramatic,” she wrote on Sept. 27, “but we are gonna fly and rescue patients from the rooftop of Unicoi hospital.”

Earlier that day, Hurricane Helene roared into the Southern Appalachian Mountains after moving north through Florida and Georgia. The storm prompted a deadly flash flood that tore through Unicoi County in eastern Tennessee, trapping dozens of people on the rooftop of the county hospital.

The fast-moving floodwaters had made earlier rescue attempts by ambulance and boat impossible. Trees, trailers, buildings, caskets, and cars swept past the hospital in murky, brown rapids that overwhelmed the one-story structure with 12 feet of water on all sides.

No one knew how long the hospital’s frame would hold or if the rising water would breach the top of the 20-foot-tall building. Little more than a mile downstream, six people at a plastics plant in Erwin’s industrial park died in the flood.

“I do not feel good about this,” Boyd, a flight nurse for Ballad Health, texted her husband at 1:41 p.m., just before takeoff.

She wrote that she loved him. “If anything goes wrong,” she wanted him to tell her daughters “how much I love them,” too.

Her fears were well-founded.

In 2018, Unicoi County Hospital relocated from higher ground in the heart of Erwin to the southern edge of town, between Interstate 26 and the Nolichucky River. The new hospital was built in a known flood plain, but the facility wasn’t designed to accommodate helicopter landings on its roof. Boyd and her team weren’t sure the roof could bear the weight of their 7,200-pound Eurocopter in good weather, let alone during a flash flood.

“I had a horrible feeling about it,” she said.

By many accounts, the evacuation of 70 people, including 11 patients, by helicopter that day was a stunning success. The hospital was destroyed, but no one died. No one was even physically injured by the ordeal.

Yet, earth scientists, emergency management officials, and others who spoke to KFF Health News describe the narrow escape from Unicoi County Hospital as a cautionary tale. As climate change forces health care leaders and public officials to prepare for severe storms in landlocked parts of the country — where residents haven’t historically paid much attention to hurricane warnings — they must be strategic about both the infrastructure design and the locations selected for new projects, like hospitals.

The Biden administration finalized a rule this year designed to make the construction of such projects that receive funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency more resilient to flooding. But a review by KFF Health News identified about 20 other Tennessee hospitals already built in, or near, flood plains.

Patrick Sheehan, director of the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, said past weather patterns can lull people into a false sense of security. But, he added, “past is not always prologue. We’re going to experience novel, new ways of having disasters.”

Historically, the Southern Appalachian Mountains have been the place “where hurricanes go to die,” said Ryan Thigpen, an earth and environmental sciences professor at the University of Kentucky whose research focuses on flooding in the region. But as the Gulf of Mexico becomes warmer and storms, like Helene, that move northward into the mountains carry more moisture, weather events will become more severe.

“It’s apocalyptic,” said Thigpen, of the damage in Erwin. “The next storm may come before they are finished recovering from this. And that’s kind of scary.”

Hospitals in Flood Plains

All week, Michelle Matson had been worried about Unicoi County Hospital in the oncoming storm.

As a district coordinator for the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, Matson works with local officials to plan for worst-case scenarios.

Leading up to Hurricane Helene, she’d been in regular communication with the county’s emergency management director. The hospital’s vulnerability next to the river kept coming up.

“That was the only place we were worried about,” Matson said.

But concern over the hospital’s location wasn’t new.

In November 2013, Unicoi County Memorial Hospital, which opened in 1953, was acquired by Mountain States Health Alliance on the condition that Mountain States would construct a hospital in Erwin to replace the old one.

Two years later, Mountain States purchased a 45-acre tract of land next to a bend in the Nolichucky River, just off Interstate 26. A hospital system press release at the time explained that due diligence had been conducted to ensure, among other things, that the hospital building would not be in a flood plain. It also presented the location as desirable because it was near the interstate and the landscape would provide “a healing environment by taking advantage of the natural beauty of Unicoi County, with the river running along the east side of the property.”

Dating back decades, though, flood maps published by FEMA put the entire property in a flood plain. The building itself was in a 500-year flood plain (meaning a 0.2% chance of flooding in any given year), while the only road on and off the property was in a 100-year flood plain (meaning a 1% annual risk).

But it wasn’t only FEMA maps that forecast this possibility. In 2001, a report published by Unicoi County marked this land as being in a “flood hazard” area. The report warned of “considerable pressure” to develop flood hazard areas across the county “due to population increase and the need for vacant land.”

The same report acknowledged a history of destructive flooding in the county and the risks it faced being situated along “three major streams,” including the Nolichucky River, which flows northward out of the Blue Ridge Mountains of western North Carolina straight through Erwin.

“If you start looking at the river’s history, there are a number of these notable flood events, and quite a few in the 20th century. They just did not reach this magnitude,” said Philip Prince, a geologist with Appalachian Landslide Consultants. His YouTube videos about mountain flooding during Helene have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. “People should have been expecting more than they did. But again, we have not seen anything like this.”

Matthew Rice, a former Unicoi County commissioner, served as chair of the Hospital Visioning Committee for the new hospital in 2015. He said some committee members raised questions during the planning process about the location, but he conceded there weren’t many large, flat places to build a hospital in Erwin.

Amid a wave of rural hospital closures across the United States, Erwin residents celebrated when the new hospital opened in 2018. One lawmaker told the Johnson City Press it was “the most modern facility on the planet.”

Alan Levine was CEO of Mountain States Health Alliance during that time and later became the head of Ballad Health, when Mountain States merged with a competing hospital system in 2018 to form the largest state-sanctioned hospital monopoly in the country.

Levine said Mountain States was aware the property carried flood risk but noted that the hospital system added levees to protect the building from river flooding at the recommendation of outside consultants. One levee already existed along the river’s edge. And the hospital itself was deliberately constructed on a high point of the land, at the same elevation as the interstate, Levine said.

“I feel like everything we did when we built it was done the right way,” said Levine, a former health care leader in Louisiana and Florida.

Even so, Matson, who lives in Kingsport, about 45 minutes northwest of Erwin, said some residents were quietly critical of the new hospital’s location.

“We all thought that it was a stupid idea to build a hospital in a flood plain. It’s like, who does that?” Matson said. She said her opinion doesn’t represent an official position of the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency.

But Unicoi isn’t the only Tennessee hospital built in a flood plain. Eight others across the state were built in moderate- or high-risk flood zones, and a dozen other hospitals are situated just outside them, KFF Health News found.

The hospitals at risk span the length of the state, from Memphis on the western edge to Knoxville in the east, and include big-city general hospitals, smaller rural hospitals, and behavioral health facilities.

Some of the hospitals are decades old. Parkridge East Hospital in Chattanooga, for example, was built in the 1970s inside a high-risk flood zone. Others are more recent — like Creekside Behavioral Health in Kingsport. That building, which opened in 2018, straddles high- and moderate-risk flood zones.

Then there are facilities like Pinewood Springs in Columbia. The 60-bed mental health facility, which opened in 2020, is in a low-risk area, but the main road leading in and out of the hospital lies in a high-risk flood area.

To identify these hospitals, KFF Health News looked for licensed facilities in or near areas that, according to FEMA, have either a high flood risk (with a 1-in-100 chance of flooding in any given year) or moderate risk (a 1-in-500 chance in any given year).

But FEMA’s maps likely underestimate the true flood risk, researchers and government watchdogs agree, because they’re largely outdated and don’t account for current or future conditions, including more frequent and more intense storms and flooding associated with climate change.

Those maps are updated on an ongoing but slow and piecemeal basis. Meanwhile, the federal regulation finalized this year to expand areas considered at risk for current and future flooding also sets more stringent building standards for critical infrastructure projects located in 100-year flood plains and funded by federal taxpayers.

The rule became effective on Sept. 9, less than three weeks before Hurricane Helene ravaged the Southern Appalachians, but it is unclear whether the incoming Trump administration will preserve it.

After he took office in 2017, President Donald Trump revoked federal flood protection standards set up under the Obama administration. Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the incoming Trump administration, did not respond to emailed questions for this article.

An ‘Antiquated and Broken’ System

On Sept. 24, three days before the hospital evacuation, the National Hurricane Center issued the first of several warnings predicting significant river flooding and landslides in the Southern Appalachians. Two days before the flood in Erwin, a satellite office of the National Weather Service in Morristown, Tennessee, predicted “life-threatening flash flooding” near the Tennessee-North Carolina state line.

The warnings kept coming. The National Weather Service in upstate South Carolina forecast on Sept. 26, a Thursday, that Helene would amount to one of the region’s most significant weather events “in the modern era.”

“I don’t think people knew what that meant,” said Prince, the geologist. “We just didn’t have a precedent.”

Ballad Health didn’t anticipate that Unicoi would flood during the storm, Levine said, even though a hazard vulnerability assessment conducted annually for the hospital identifies external flooding as the second-highest risk facing Unicoi County Hospital, behind only a civil disturbance. The same 2024 assessment rated the hospital’s preparedness for a flood as a “3” or “low,” the worst possible score.

But a document outlining the hospital’s emergency alert procedures makes no mention of flood risk. If anything, hospital leaders said they were anticipating a surge of patients during Hurricane Helene if Erwin and the surrounding area experienced widespread power outages.

“There was no conversation I had with anybody, anywhere about the risk of flooding before Friday morning,” Levine said.

The day before, Jennifer Harrah, the hospital’s administrator, had called a meeting to discuss the storm. Sean Ochsenbein, an emergency medicine physician and the hospital’s chief medical officer, recalled that the group gathered “just to kind of circle the wagons, make sure everybody was on the same page.”

Later that day, Harrah spoke to Unicoi County’s emergency management director. But “let me be very clear,” Ochsenbein said. “Nobody gave us — as Ballad or our hospital — any kind of indication that we would have floodwaters.”

And yet little more than 24 hours after their planning meeting, both Harrah and Ochsenbein were stranded on the hospital roof, literally praying to God for their rescue.

“I called my husband, and I called my sons,” Harrah said. “I told them that I loved them.”

One reason the impact of the storm seemed to catch people off guard was a disconnect between the strong warnings issued by the federal agencies and the low expectations that many people in the region, including Ballad Health leaders, had of the potential flood risk.

It was sunny outside when people were evacuated from the hospital roof, Thigpen pointed out. It had rained about 5 inches in Erwin over several days, but that was nothing compared with places in the North Carolina mountains that received more than 20 inches over the same period. Rainfall at those higher altitudes eventually drained into the rivers and streams that ultimately destroyed places like Erwin.

But residents in Unicoi County had no clue what was coming their way, Thigpen said, because there weren’t river gauges upstream to sound alarms about dangerous water levels.

“I think that our warning systems are antiquated and broken,” he said. “These people in Erwin have seen floods — and a lot of big floods — and it’s never been anywhere close to this.”

Tennessee state climatologist Andrew Joyner is one of several experts now calling for more river gauges to monitor water levels and a network of weather stations in every county designed to collect live precipitation data.

Thirty-eight states already operate similar systems, he said, estimating that setting up and staffing weather stations across Tennessee would cost less than $4 million in the first year.

But the state has failed to act before. Following a catastrophic flood in Waverly, Tennessee, that killed 20 people and destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses in 2021, the Tennessee General Assembly denied a $200 million request to relocate 14 public schools across the state that had been deemed vulnerable to future flooding.

‘Might Not Make It Back’

On the morning of the flood, Matson had stood with the county’s emergency management director behind Unicoi County Hospital and watched the rising river. “We both had this, like, sick feeling in our stomach that said we’ve got to evacuate,” she remembered. “I said to him, worse comes to worst, we evacuate, nothing happens. Just blame it on me.”

They made the call to start moving patients out of the hospital just before 9:45 a.m. Less than 30 minutes later, the river had breached its banks, cutting a new channel in front of the hospital and eliminating access to the only road on or off the property.

When an ambulance evacuation became untenable, the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency called in swift-water teams, specially designed to rescue people in turbulent waters. But the flash flood had become so violent and the river was so full of debris that the boats couldn’t safely carry patients away. Meanwhile, dangerous wind conditions prevented helicopters located to the east or west from immediately flying that morning to rescue everyone by air.

“To be honest, I really thought we may not make it back” from the rescue mission, Boyd, the flight nurse, said.

When the wind started to die down that afternoon, Virginia State Police deployed two helicopters to rescue patients. Eventually, three Black Hawk helicopters from the Tennessee National Guard assisted in the effort. Pilots were required to make multiple round trips between the hospital and the local high school to evacuate four or five people at a time who had been stranded by the flood. Some patients stranded in boats near the hospital were hoisted into helicopters, while those who were stranded on the roof were either carried onto the aircraft or climbed aboard while the helicopters lightly touched down on their skids.

As the afternoon wore on and the evacuation was nearing its completion, pilot Jeff Bush with the Virginia State Police said he learned that the hospital building was weakening. They weren’t sure how much longer it would hold.

“It was intense,” he said. “The fact that the building is still standing is, I think, kind of amazing.”

Ballad Health evacuated two other hospitals and one nursing home by ambulance within 24 hours of the flood in Erwin, but none of those sustained damage. Meanwhile, what’s left of Unicoi County Hospital stands next to the Nolichucky in a field of mud and displaced river rocks.

For now, Ballad Health has opened a temporary urgent care center and plans to establish an emergency department at the site of the former Unicoi County Memorial Hospital in downtown Erwin.

Levine said Ballad Health will eventually rebuild a full-service hospital, but he estimated the project would cost $50 million, roughly twice as much as it did in 2018. It remains unclear where it would be built.

Probably not in a flood plain, Levine said. “I would avoid it if I could.”

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:

Faltan iniciativas de gobiernos rurales para comunicarse con los residentes que no dominan el inglés

Eloisa Mendoza ha pasado 18 años ayudando a personas que no dominan el inglés a comprender documentos legales complejos. Los guía en medio de eventos estresantes, repletos de denso papeleo, como solicitudes de ciudadanía, divorcios y traducciones de actas de nacimiento.

Mendoza trabaja en Elko, Nevada, una región remota en el noreste del estado. Su labor se ha vuelto cada vez más importante a medida que la población latina de la ciudad ha crecido a aproximadamente el 26%. El porcentaje de personas de 5 años o más que hablan un idioma distinto al inglés en casa aumentó al 18% en 2022, y el español es el idioma hablado en casi el 15% de los hogares.

A pesar de la creciente demanda para que los gobiernos rurales locales se comuniquen con los residentes en idiomas distintos al inglés, los legisladores estatales en Nevada excluyeron a los condados más pequeños de una ley estatal de acceso lingüístico que se promulgó recientemente. Más gobiernos estatales y locales han implementado medidas similares en los últimos años, pero están concentradas en su mayoría en jurisdicciones urbanas o suburbanas.

Aunque la América rural es en su mayoría blanca no hispana y angloparlante, se ha vuelto rápidamente más diversa.

Sin embargo, implementar leyes estatales y locales de acceso lingüístico es un desafío, según investigadores, dado que los estándares pueden variar entre agencias estatales y localidades, lo que dificulta garantizar asistencia de alta calidad a los que hablan idiomas diferentes al inglés.

No proporcionar acceso lingüístico a quienes lo necesitan no solo constituye una violación de los derechos civiles protegidos por el Título VI de la Ley de Derechos Civiles, sino que también puede generar preocupaciones de salud y seguridad pública, dijo Jake Hofstetter, analista de políticas del Migration Policy Institute, un grupo de investigación enfocado en política migratoria.

Aunque el acceso lingüístico es una protección federal, 11 estados y Washington, D.C., han creado políticas amplias dirigidas a sus poblaciones. Algunos estados tienen leyes específicas para sectores como la educación o la atención médica. Otras leyes de acceso lingüístico se han establecido en ciudades como Austin, en Texas; Philadelphia, en Pennsylvania; y Portland, en Maine.

En el apogeo de la pandemia de covid-19, los gobiernos estatales y locales que no tenían sistemas sólidos de acceso lingüístico tuvieron dificultades para comunicar información pública vital a comunidades diversas. Un análisis de la información sobre covid publicada en los sitios web de los departamentos de salud de las 10 ciudades más pobladas del país encontró que no se proporcionaba completamente en español.

La población blanca no hispana en las áreas rurales del país disminuyó en aproximadamente 2 millones entre 2010 y 2020, según un análisis de la Escuela de Políticas Públicas Carsey de la Universidad de New Hampshire. El porcentaje de personas pertenecientes a minorías raciales o étnicas en áreas rurales aumentó del 20% en 2010 al 24% en 2020, siendo los hispanos el grupo más grande.

En 2021, 25 millones de personas de 5 años o más en Estados Unidos tenían un dominio limitado del inglés, de los cuales casi dos tercios eran hispanos, según KFF. Nevada es uno de los nueve estados donde al menos el 10% de la población tiene un dominio limitado del inglés.

Según una encuesta de 2023 realizada por KFF y Los Angeles Times, alrededor del 31% de las personas con dominio limitado del inglés enfrentaron barreras lingüísticas al intentar acceder a servicios de salud.

Una cuarta parte tuvo dificultades para solicitar ayuda del gobierno para alimentos, vivienda o cobertura médica. Además, los inmigrantes que no hablan bien inglés tuvieron el doble de probabilidades de no tener seguro médico en comparación con aquellos que dominan el idioma, y presentaron peores resultados de salud.

Desde que terminó la emergencia por la pandemia, Hofstetter ha observado un número significativo de políticas estatales que abordan el acceso lingüístico, pero no muchas políticas locales enfocadas en áreas rurales.

El experto señaló que la ley más reciente de Nevada sobre acceso lingüístico, aprobada en 2023, es única porque identifica específicamente y requiere que los condados más poblados del estado —Clark y Washoe— creen e implementen planes de acceso lingüístico. Otra ley aprobada ese mismo año destinó $25 millones a las agencias para implementar dichos planes.

El senador estatal demócrata Edgar Flores, quien representa una parte del condado de Clark y fue coautor de la ley más reciente sobre idiomas, indicó que los legisladores han enfrentado resistencia de las agencias estatales en varios intentos por fortalecer los requisitos para proporcionar información y documentos en otros idiomas. Según Flores, los funcionarios citan recursos y personal limitados.

“Creo que, desafortunadamente, nuestras jurisdicciones rurales ya están increíblemente limitadas en recursos y, en el momento de esta solicitud, había preocupación de que no estuvieran en condiciones de cumplir con los requisitos”, dijo Flores. “Esa es la realidad”.

Flores indicó que, aunque algunas agencias y jurisdicciones habían creado planes de acceso lingüístico en años anteriores, los legisladores descubrieron que no siempre se implementaban ni se hacían cumplir. Por esta razón, decidieron centrarse primero en los dos condados más grandes del estado mientras trabajan para expandir las políticas a “todos los códigos postales y todas las agencias”.

“Tenemos personas de todas partes que ahora han hecho de Nevada su hogar”, dijo Flores. “Tenemos una obligación con ellos”.

Las personas que viven en áreas rurales pueden beneficiarse de una red de recursos de agencias estatales que prestan servicios en sus condados o de programas locales que deben abordar el acceso lingüístico debido al financiamiento federal.

Pero Hofstetter señaló que existen brechas en el marco de protecciones federales, estatales y locales a nivel nacional.

El grado en que los gobiernos locales ofrecen comunicaciones en idiomas distintos al inglés varía por varias razones, incluida la aplicación de las protecciones de derechos civiles. Esa aplicación depende de quejas de derechos civiles, que a menudo deben ser presentadas por residentes que pueden no conocer sus derechos relacionados con el acceso lingüístico, dijo Hofstetter.

Los miembros de la comunidad también pueden enfrentar resistencia de los líderes locales a la expansión del acceso a servicios e información en otros idiomas.

En 2018, Mendoza apoyó la idea de ofrecer boletas en inglés y español en el condado de Elko. Los comisionados del condado, tres de los cuales aún están en la junta, votaron unánimemente para recomendar al secretario del condado retrasar la oferta de boletas bilingües tanto como fuera posible después de cuestionar los datos demográficos del censo, y alegar que no tenían fondos para traducir las boletas.

Tener acceso a boletas en su idioma preferido ayuda a los votantes a comprender mejor las iniciativas que los afectan, muchas de las cuales están relacionadas con la salud, como una pregunta en la boleta del 5 de noviembre que pedía a los votantes opinar sobre si consagrar el derecho al aborto en la constitución estatal. La medida fue aprobada con el 64% de los votantes a favor y necesita ser aprobada nuevamente en 2026 para implementarse.

La Legislatura de Nevada se reunirá nuevamente en febrero, y Flores dijo estar seguro de que habrá al menos un proyecto de ley sobre acceso lingüístico. Hofstetter anticipa más normas estatales y locales sobre el tema en los próximos años.

“Imagino que eso incluirá algunas áreas rurales”, concluyó.

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: