Montana’s Small Pharmacies Behind Bill To Corral Pharmacy Benefit Managers

HELENA, Mont. — Montana’s small, independent pharmacies say they’re getting increasingly squeezed on reimbursements by pharmacy benefit managers — and are pushing an ambitious bill to rein in what they say are unfair practices by the powerful industry negotiators known as PBMs.

“Who in their right mind would subject themselves to this sort of treatment in a business relationship?” said Mike Matovich, a part owner of eight small-town pharmacies in Montana. “It’s such a monopoly. We can be the best pharmacy in the world, and they can still put us out of business.”

The bill, which sailed through the Montana House 98-1 in early March and is now before the state Senate, would set a price floor that PBMs must pay pharmacies for each prescription. Currently, there is no mandated minimum rate in contracts with pharmacies, and independent drugstores said the rates are often below what they paid for the drugs.

The measure includes a half-dozen restrictions on other PBM practices the smaller pharmacies call anticompetitive.

Pharmacy benefit managers, employed by health insurers, are powerful intermediaries in the drug-pricing chain. They determine which drugs are covered by health plans, arrange rebates from drugmakers, and dictate payments that pharmacies receive when selling covered drugs.

The six largest PBMs manage more than 90% of the nation’s drug sales. Most are owned by or affiliated with health insurance giants like UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, Humana, and Aetna.

About 90 Montanan-owned pharmacies are not affiliated with national companies or PBMs, and 10 have closed in the past year, according to Josh Morris, who owns several small-town pharmacies in the state. Morris said his pharmacies lost $30,000 on underpaid drug claims last year and that they lose money on 90% of the brand-name drugs they dispense.

Representatives of independent Montana pharmacies say that without the changes provided by the legislation, more of their ranks will close, because they can’t make ends meet on drug reimbursement prices imposed by what they say are “take-it-or-leave-it” contracts from PBMs.

“We’re filling more prescriptions than ever before, but my employees haven’t had a raise in three years,” Morris said. “Our reimbursements are down 60% since 2019.”

PBMs are mounting a concerted effort in the Montana Senate to kill House Bill 740, arguing it could throw a huge wrench into drug pricing in Montana that would increase consumer costs.

“Not only is it going to cost people, it’s going to change fundamentally how prescription drugs are paid for in the state,” said Tonia Sorrell-Neal of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a trade group representing PBMs. “It takes away the options for employers who are paying for these health plans” to keep drug prices low.

The bill restricts mail-order options for drugs, limits when PBMs can audit claims, and imposes excessive reimbursements, she said.

This battle between PBMs and independent pharmacies isn’t playing out just in Montana — it has roiled statehouses across the country, drawn the attention of Congress, and could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last summer, the federal House Oversight and Accountability Committee and the Federal Trade Commission issued highly critical reports saying PBMs use pricing tactics that keep drug costs high, help pad PBM profits, and harm independent pharmacies.

New federal regulations to crack down on PBMs had been included in a 2024 post-election budget bill before Congress but were stripped out at the last minute after a lobbying push by pharmacy benefit managers.

At least 20 states have passed laws regulating PBM payments to pharmacies and several other states, including California, are considering legislation this year.

Oklahoma passed one of the most expansive laws in 2019. But PBMs sued and won a federal court ruling that said the law does not apply to self-funded health plans, thus removing about two-thirds of the insured population from the law’s jurisdiction.

Oklahoma’s insurance commissioner last year asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule the decision, but the court hasn’t decided whether to take the case. Attorneys general from 31 states and the District of Columbia have asked the high court to rule in Oklahoma’s favor; Montana’s AG is not one of them.

In Montana, HB 740’s regulations would apply to PBMs managing self-funded plans, said the state insurance commissioner’s office, which so far supports the bill.

The key element of HB 740 is setting requirements on what PBMs must reimburse pharmacies for each prescription they fill, when that prescription is covered by a health plan using the PBM.

It says the reimbursement can be no less than 106% of the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost, or NADAC — which is determined by a survey of wholesale prices paid by pharmacies — plus a “dispensing fee” for each prescription.

The dispensing fee would be the same as what Montana’s Medicaid program pays pharmacies — $12 to $18 per prescription, depending on the size of the pharmacy. The state Medicaid program also pays the 106% minimum reimbursement.

Montana pharmacies say the dispensing fee covers their basic costs and enables them to make a profit on most sales. Under contracts with most PBMs, the pharmacies say they get no dispensing fee.

The bill also requires other changes in PBM business practices that pharmacies say benefit PBMs and make it harder for independent pharmacies to stay in business.

For example, HB 740 says PBMs cannot offer better prices to pharmacies that they own, cannot charge after-the-fact fees that lower reimbursement rates, cannot slow-walk approval of contracts, and cannot lower payments for drugs sold past a “sell-by” date imposed by the PBMs.

PBM and health plan lobbyists have attacked the bill for its breadth and detail, saying it’s so extensive that nobody truly knows how it may affect prescription-drug markets and prices in Montana.

“This bill has too much,” Bruce Spencer, an attorney for the Mountain Health Co-Op, told the House Business and Labor Committee at the bill’s first hearing in February. “It has unintended consequences that are severe in the financial world.”

Laura Shirtliff, a spokesperson for the state auditor’s office, said the bill’s provisions should be narrowed, to target assistance for smaller pharmacies.

PBM lobbyists are telling lawmakers to kill HB 740 and instead pass a bill to study the prescription-drug market in Montana, with an eye toward possible solutions to help rural pharmacies.

“I would say there are a lot of elements and factors that are impacting rural pharmacies’ business,” said Sorrell-Neal of the PBM trade group.

Supporters, however, said HB 740 needs to closely define exactly what’s happening in the field, between PBMs and pharmacies, so those practices can be regulated.

As for waiting two years for a study? Pharmacy owners say that’s too late, and that the time to fix the problem is now.

“The amount of damage that would be done in two years will never be able to be recovered from, in these communities,” Matovich said. “Ten years ago, we maybe lost money on five prescriptions a month. Now, it’s thousands of prescriptions a month.”

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:

Tweet

Their Physical Therapy Coverage Ran Out Before They Could Walk Again

Mari Villar was slammed by a car that jumped the curb, breaking her legs and collapsing a lung. Amy Paulo was in pain from a femur surgery that wasn’t healing properly. Katie Kriegshauser suffered organ failure during pregnancy, weakening her so much that she couldn’t lift her baby daughter.

All went to physical therapy, but their health insurers stopped paying before any could walk without assistance. Paulo spent nearly $1,500 out of her own pocket for more sessions.

Millions of Americans rely on physical and occupational therapists to regain strength and motor skills after operations, diseases, and injuries. But recoveries are routinely stymied by a widespread constraint in health insurance policies: rigid caps on therapy sessions.

Insurers frequently limit such sessions to as few as 20 a year, a KFF Health News examination finds, even for people with severe damage such as spinal cord injuries and strokes, who may need months of treatment, multiple times a week. Patients can face a bind: Without therapy, they can’t return to work, but without working, they can’t afford the therapy.

Paulo said she pressed her insurer for more sessions, to no avail. “I said, ‘I’m in pain. I need the services. Is there anything I can do?’” she recalled. “They said, no, they can’t override the hard limit for the plan.”

A typical physical therapy session for a privately insured patient to improve daily functioning costs $192 on average, according to the Health Care Cost Institute. Most run from a half hour to an hour.

Insurers say annual visit limits help keep down costs, and therefore premiums, and are intended to prevent therapists from continuing treatment when patients are no longer improving. They say most injuries can be addressed in a dozen or fewer sessions and that people and employers who bought insurance could have purchased policies with better therapy benefits if it was a priority.

Atul Patel, a physiatrist in Overland Park, Kansas, and the treasurer of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, said insurers’ desire to prevent gratuitous therapy is understandable but has “gone too far.”

“Most patients get way less therapy than they would actually benefit from,” he said.

Hard caps on rehab endure in part because of an omission in the Affordable Care Act. While that law required insurers to cover rehab and barred them from setting spending restrictions on a patient’s medical care, it did not prohibit establishing a maximum number of therapy sessions a year.

More than 29,000 ACA health plans — nearly 4 in 5 — limit the annual number of physical therapy sessions, according to a KFF Health News analysis of plans sold last year to individuals and small businesses. Caps generally ranged from 20 to 60 visits; the most common was 20 a year.

Health plans provided by employers often have limits of 20 or 30 sessions as well, said Cori Uccello, senior health fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries.

“It’s the gross reality in America right now,” said Sam Porritt, chairman of the Falling Forward Foundation, a Kansas-based philanthropy that has paid for therapy for about 200 patients who exhausted their insurance over the past decade. “No one knows about this except people in the industry. You find out about it when tragedy hits.”

Even in plans with no caps, patients are not guaranteed unlimited treatment. Therapists say insurers repeatedly require prior authorization, demanding a new request every two or three visits. Insurers frequently deny additional sessions if they believe there hasn’t been improvement.

“We’re seeing a lot of arbitrary denials just to see if you’ll appeal,” said Gwen Simons, a lawyer in Scarborough, Maine, who represents therapy practices. “That’s the point where the therapist throws up their hands.”

‘Couldn’t Pick Her Up’

Katie Kriegshauser, a 37-year-old psychologist from Kansas City, Missouri, developed pregnancy complications that shut down her liver, pancreas, and kidneys in November 2023. After giving birth to her daughter, she spent more than three months in a hospital, undergoing multiple surgeries and losing more than 40 pounds so quickly that doctors suspected her nerves became damaged from compression. Her neurologist told her he doubted she would ever walk again.

Kriegshauser’s UnitedHealthcare insurance plan allowed 30 visits at Ability KC, a rehabilitation clinic in Kansas City. She burned through them in six weeks in 2024 because she needed both physical therapy, to regain her mobility, and occupational therapy, for daily tasks such as getting dressed.

“At that point I was starting to use the walker from being completely in the wheelchair,” Kriegshauser recalled. She said she wasn’t strong enough to change her daughter’s diaper. “I couldn’t pick her up out of her crib or put her down to sleep,” she said.

The Falling Forward Foundation paid for additional sessions that enabled her to walk independently and hold her daughter in her arms. “A huge amount of progress happened in that period after my insurance ran out,” she said.

In an unsigned statement, UnitedHealthcare said it covered the services that were included in Kriegshauser’s health plan. The company declined to permit an official to discuss its policies on the record because of security concerns.

A Shattered Teenager

Patients who need therapy near the start of a health plan’s year are more likely to run out of visits. Mari Villar was 15 and had been walking with high school friends to get a bite to eat in May 2023 when a car leaped over a curb and smashed into her before the driver sped away.

The accident broke both her legs, lacerated her liver, damaged her colon, severed an artery in her right leg, and collapsed her lung. She has undergone 11 operations, including emergency exploratory surgery to stop internal bleeding, four angioplasties, and the installation of screws and plates to hold her leg bones together.

Villar spent nearly a month in Shirley Ryan AbilityLab’s hospital in Chicago. She was discharged after her mother’s insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, denied her physician’s request for five more days, making her more reliant on outpatient therapy, according to records shared by her mother, Megan Bracamontes.

Villar began going to one of Shirley Ryan’s outpatient clinics, but by the end of 2023, she had used up the 30 physical therapy and 30 occupational therapy visits the Blue Cross plan allowed. Because the plan ran from July to June, she had no sessions left for the first half of 2024.

“I couldn't do much,” Villar said. “I made lots of progress there, but I was still on crutches.”

Dave Van de Walle, a Blue Cross spokesperson, said in an email that the insurer does not comment on individual cases. Razia Hashmi, vice president for clinical affairs at the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, said in a written statement that patients who have run out of sessions should “explore alternative treatment plans” including home exercises.

Villar received some extra sessions from the Falling Forward Foundation. While her plan year has reset, Villar is postponing most therapy sessions until after her next surgery so she will be less likely to run out again. Bracamontes said her daughter still can’t feel or move her right foot and needs three more operations: one to relieve nerve pain, and two to try to restore mobility in her foot by lengthening her Achilles tendon and transferring a tendon in her left leg into her right.

“Therapy caps are very unfair because everyone’s situation is different,” Villar said. “I really depend on my sessions to get me to a new normalcy. And not having that and going through all these procedures is scary to think about.”

Rationing Therapy

Most people who use all their sessions either stop going or pay out-of-pocket for extra therapy.

Amy Paulo, a 34-year-old Massachusetts woman recovering from two operations on her left leg, maxed out the 40 visits covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts in 2024, so she spent $1,445 out-of-pocket for 17 therapy sessions.

Paulo needed physical therapy to recover from several surgeries to shorten her left leg to the length of her right leg — the difference a consequence of juvenile arthritis. Her recovery was prolonged, she said, because her femur didn’t heal properly after one of the operations, in which surgeons cut out the middle of her femur and put a rod in its place.

“I went ballistic on Blue Cross many, many times,” said Paulo, who works with developmentally delayed children.”

Amy McHugh, a Blue Cross spokesperson, declined to discuss Paulo’s case. In an email, she said most employers who hire Blue Cross to administer their health benefits choose plans with “our standard” 60-visit limit, which she said is more generous than most insurers offer, but some employers “choose to allow for more or fewer visits per year.”

Paulo said she expects to restrict her therapy sessions to once a week instead of the recommended twice a week because she’ll need more help after an upcoming operation on her leg.

“We had to plan to save my visits for this surgery, as ridiculous as it sounds,” she said.

Medicare Is More Generous

People with commercial insurance plans face more hurdles than those on Medicare, which sets dollar thresholds on therapy each year but allows therapists to continue providing services if they document medical necessity. This year the limits are $2,410 for physical and speech therapy and $2,410 for occupational therapy.

Private Medicare Advantage plans don’t have visit or dollar caps, but they often require prior authorization every few visits. The U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found last year that MA plans deny requests for physical and occupational therapy at hospitals and nursing homes at higher rates than they reject other medical services.

Therapists say many commercial plans require prior authorization and mete out approvals parsimoniously. Insurers often make therapists submit detailed notes, sometimes for each session, documenting patients’ treatment plans, goals, and test results showing how well they perform each exercise.

“It’s a battle of getting visits,” said Jackee Ndwaru, an occupational therapist in Jacksonville, Florida. “If you can’t show progress they’re not going to approve.”

An Insurer Overruled

Marjorie Haney’s insurance plan covered 20 therapy sessions a year, but Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield approved only a few visits at a time for the rotator cuff she tore in a bike accident in Maine. After 13 visits in 2021, Anthem refused to approve more, writing that her medical records “do not show you made progress with specific daily tasks,” according to the denial letter.

Haney, a physical therapist herself, said the decision made no sense because at that stage of her recovery, the therapy was focused on preventing her shoulder from freezing up and gradually expanding its range of motion.

“I went through those visits like they were water,” Haney, now 57, said. “My range was getting better, but functionally I couldn’t use my arm to lift things.”

Haney appealed to Maine’s insurance bureau for an independent review. In its report overturning Anthem’s decision, the bureau’s physician consultant, William Barreto, concluded that Haney had made “substantial improvement” — she no longer needed a shoulder sling and was able to return to work with restrictions. Barreto also noted that nothing in Anthem’s policy required progress with specific daily tasks, which was the basis for Anthem’s refusal.

“Given the member’s substantial restriction in active range of motion and inability to begin strengthening exercises, there is remaining deficit that requires the skills and training of a qualified physical therapist,” the report said.

Anthem said it requires repeated assessments before authorizing additional visits “to ensure the member is receiving the right care for the right period of time based on his or her care needs.” In the statement provided by Stephanie DuBois, an Anthem spokesperson, the insurer said this process “also helps prevent members from using up all their covered treatment benefits too quickly, especially if they don’t end up needing the maximum number of therapy visits.”

In 2023, Maine passed a law banning prior authorization for the first 12 rehab visits, making it one of the few states to curb insurer limitations on physical therapy. The law doesn’t protect residents with plans based in other states or plans from a Maine employer who self-insures.

Haney said after she won her appeal, she spaced out the sessions her plan permitted by going once weekly. “I got another month,” she said, “and I stretched it out to six weeks.”

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:

Tweet

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': The Ax Falls at HHS

The Host

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

As had been rumored for weeks, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled a plan to reorganize the department. It involves the downsizing of its workforce, which formerly was roughly 80,000 people, by a quarter and consolidating dozens of agencies that were created and authorized by Congress.

Meanwhile, in just the past week, HHS abruptly cut off billions in funding to state and local public health departments, and canceled all research studies into covid-19, as well as diseases that could develop into the next pandemic.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Maya Goldman of Axios News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Maya Goldman Axios @mayagoldman_ Read Maya's stories Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico @JoanneKenen Read Joanne's stories. Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico @AliceOllstein Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As federal health officials reveal the targets of a significant workforce purge and reorganization, the GOP-controlled Congress has been notably quiet about the Trump administration’s intrusions on its constitutional powers. Many of the administration’s attempts to revoke and reorganize federally funded work are underway despite Congress’ previous approval of that funding. And while changes might be warranted, reviewing how the federal government works (or doesn’t) — in the public forums of congressional hearings and floor debate — is part of Congress’ responsibilities.
• The news of a major reorganization at HHS also comes before the Senate finishes confirming its leadership team. New leaders of the National Institutes of Health and the FDA were confirmed just this week; Mehmet Oz, the nominated director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, had not yet been confirmed when HHS made its announcement; and President Donald Trump only recently named a replacement nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, after withdrawing his first pick.
• While changes early in Trump’s second term have targeted the federal government and workforce, the impacts continue to be felt far outside the nation’s capital. Indeed, cuts to jobs and funding touch every congressional district in the nation. They’re also being felt in research areas that the Trump administration claims as priorities, such as chronic disease: The administration said this week it will shutter the office devoted to studying long covid, a chronic disease that continues to undermine millions of Americans’ health.
• Meanwhile, in the states, doctors in Texas report a rise in cases of children with liver damage due to ingesting too much vitamin A — a supplement pushed by Kennedy in response to the measles outbreak. The governor of West Virginia signed a sweeping ban on food dyes and additives. And a woman in Georgia who experienced a miscarriage was arrested in connection with the improper disposal of fetal remains.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF senior vice president Larry Levitt about the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act and the threats the health law continues to face.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: CNN’s “State Lawmakers Are Looking To Ban Non-Existent ‘Chemtrails.’ It Could Have Real-Life Side Effects,” by Ramishah Maruf and Brandon Miller. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times Wirecutter’s “23andMe Just Filed for Bankruptcy. You Should Delete Your Data Now,” by Max Eddy. 

Maya Goldman: KFF Health News’ “‘I Am Going Through Hell’: Job Loss, Mental Health, and the Fate of Federal Workers,” by Rachana Pradhan and Aneri Pattani. 

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “America Is Done Pretending About Meat,” by Yasmin Tayag. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “West Virginia Bans 7 Artificial Food Dyes, Citing Health Concerns,” by Alice Callahan.
• The Washington Post’s “Why I Left My Job Leading Public Health Messaging for the CDC,” by Kevin Griffis.
• Politico’s “The Limits of RFK Jr.’s Power,” by Joanne Kenen.

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on 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:

Tweet

Montana Examines Ways To Ease Health Care Workforce Shortages

HELENA, Mont. — Mark Nay’s first client had lost the van she was living in and was struggling with substance use and medical conditions that had led to multiple emergency room visits.

Nay helped her apply for Medicaid and food assistance and obtain copies of her birth certificate and other identification documents needed to apply for housing assistance. He also advocated for her in the housing process and in the health care system, helping her find a provider and get to appointments.

After a year of “steady engagement,” Nay said, the client has a place to live, is insured, is connected to the health care system, and has the resources needed to “really start to be successful and stable” in her life.

Nay is one of two community health workers in a program that St. Peter’s Health of Helena started in 2022, focusing on people experiencing or at risk of homelessness who had five or more ER visits in a year. Nay and his colleague, Colette Murley, link their clients to services to meet basic needs, whether it’s health care, food, housing, or insurance. The goal is to provide stability and, ultimately, to improve health outcomes.

Similar work is done in hospitals, community health centers, and other settings across Montana by people with titles such as case manager, outreach worker, navigator, and care manager. State Rep. Ed Buttrey, a Great Falls Republican, is sponsoring a bill in Montana’s legislative session to put a common title — community health worker — to the type of work they do and define in law what the role entails. The bill also would provide for licensure and allow, but not require, Medicaid to cover the service.

“Health care is just a very difficult system to navigate, especially when you’re trying to sign up for service and you’re trying to get access to coverage for service,” Buttrey said. “So that’s where I see the biggest benefit.”

Buttrey’s HB 850 is one of several bills still alive this session that are related to Montana’s health care workforce, which is stretched thin throughout the state, the fourth-largest by land area. According to the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, more than one-fourth of the state’s residents live in an area with a shortage of primary care health professionals.

Other pending workforce bills include three interstate compact bills, to recognize licenses issued in other states for physician assistants, psychologists, and respiratory therapists. Then there are bills to prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians and some categories of mid-level practitioners. Other measures would allow more unsupervised activities by certain aides and assistants, let nurses provide low-cost home visits to low-income patients, allow licensure of doulas, and let physician assistants and physical therapists be considered “treating physicians” for workers’ compensation purposes.

State Rep. Jodee Etchart, a Billings Republican and a physician assistant, is sponsoring two of the interstate compact licensure bills and one of the bills to limit noncompete clauses.

Etchart termed the compact bills “a no-brainer” because they allow people to get licensed, get a job, and start working in Montana right away.

In 2023, Etchart sponsored successful bills to allow physician assistants to practice without physician supervision and to expand the scope of practice for direct-entry midwives. Those bills, she said, helped pave the way for the progress this year’s workforce bills have made this session.

“It opened a lot of people’s eyes about how we can increase access to health care all over Montana,” she said.

The 2023 bill allowing independent practice by physician assistants drew opposition from physicians, with the Montana Medical Association saying it extended their scope of practice without requiring additional training. This session, the MMA has supported the bills to remove noncompete provisions but opposed bills on expanding the scope of practice for chiropractors and optometrists. MMA CEO Jean Branscum said the group generally believes scope-of-practice changes don’t fix workforce problems if the expanded practice isn’t supported by evidence or training.

Buttrey said this session’s bills to extend unsupervised practice and enact licensure compacts are an acknowledgment of the difficulty that small, rural communities have in attracting doctors. Physician assistants and nurse practitioners have been filling those gaps, he said.

Community health workers fill a different type of gap. They don’t provide direct medical care, instead helping people find the health care and support services they need to become and remain healthy.

Many states have already adopted definitions for community health workers and started providing Medicaid reimbursement for their services.

The requests to add to the list of Medicaid-covered services come at a time when Congress is considering significant budget cuts that could affect the amount of funding the federal government contributes to the Medicaid program. Although the legislature this session continued Montana’s Medicaid expansion program for low-income adults without disabilities, some legislators expressed concern about potential federal changes that could lower the amount of federal funds available for the program.

State Sen. Carl Glimm, a Kila Republican, was one of those legislators. He said he has similar concerns about increasing the types of services covered by Medicaid.

“The more stuff we add,” he said, “the more responsibility the state has” if the federal government shifts more of the program’s costs to the states.

Buttrey’s bill would define a community health worker as a “frontline public health worker” who helps people obtain medical and social services, advocates for their health, and educates individuals, providers, and the community about health care needs. Workers could be licensed after completing training and supervision requirements.

Most medical providers don’t have time to delve into all the outside factors influencing a patient’s health, said Cindy Stergar, CEO of the Montana Primary Care Association, which is supporting Buttrey’s bill. Community health workers can assist with that, she said, adding that research shows people with complex needs become healthier faster when their basic nonmedical needs, such as food and housing, are met.

“At the end of the day, the patient is better,” Stergar said. “That’s first and foremost.”

The Area Health Education Center at Montana State University has been offering community health worker training since 2018, and the University of Montana’s Center for Children, Families and Workforce Development began a training program in 2023. Together, the programs have trained nearly 500 people in how to identify the medical and social factors influencing a person’s health and in strategies for connecting the person with the right community resources.

“Ideally, what community health workers are doing is getting out of the clinic walls, meeting people where they are, and addressing the priorities of the client to get to the root cause of their health conditions and health needs,” said Mackenzie Petersen, project director for the training program at the University of Montana.

Supporters of the community health worker role say the workers are uniquely positioned to observe, understand, and address the barriers preventing a person from getting and staying healthy.

The barriers might be a lack of transportation or insurance or, for a homeless person, the inability to refrigerate a prescribed medication. A community health worker can arrange rides to appointments, help with insurance applications, or make sure a health care provider prescribes a medication that doesn’t need refrigeration.

Murley, with the St. Peter’s Health program, recalled that one of her clients was making frequent trips to the ER with suicidal ideation. Murley learned that he faced bullying in his apartment building and helped him relocate. The ER visits dropped off.

As Nay put it: “It’s really about helping the people that we work with create a path to their health.”

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:

Tweet

In New York, Providers Must Put Patient Costs on the Table

The routine is familiar for most people: When checking in for an appointment with a doctor or other health care provider, patients typically complete and sign a pile of paperwork, including a form that contains some version of the statement, “I agree to pay for all charges not covered by my insurance company.”

Patients may not feel comfortable making that financial promise, often before they have any idea what the charges will be. But they generally sign the form anyway, because the alternative is often not to get the services they’re seeking.

As a result, consumers may be responsible for unexpected bills and at risk for medical debt.

In New York, state officials, advocates, and the health care provider community have been engaged in a policy tug-of-war over efforts to protect consumers. Their advocates don’t want them to get stuck signing “blank check” forms that put them in financial jeopardy. Doctors, hospitals, and other providers don’t want to disrupt their practices’ workflow and payment logistics with cost discussions and paperwork, especially after services have been provided. State officials’ efforts to find a satisfying compromise have so far fallen short.

At the center is a state law that took effect last fall to prohibit requiring patients to sign such consent-to-pay forms before they’ve received treatment and discussed the costs.

Legal analysts described it as the first such law in the country. Physician groups cried foul, saying it would raise payment issues and other significant logistical problems.

Those concerns found traction. Shortly before the law’s start date, the state’s Department of Health delayed its implementation indefinitely. In addition, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget would let providers go back to requiring patients to agree to pay for care in advance of receiving treatment. It also clarified that the consent requirements would not apply to emergency care.

A key provision of the new law would remain in place, however: Doctors and other providers would still be obligated to have the cost discussion with patients before the patient is asked to sign the form agreeing to pay for the service. Some consider this a significant step.

“Providers having an affirmative obligation to discuss treatment costs is unique,” said Gregory Mitchell, a partner in the health and life sciences practice group at McDermott Will & Emery law firm who specializes in managed care. Clients from around the country have been reaching out to the law firm with questions.

Requiring providers to discuss costs with patients, whether before or after services are provided, would pose a “significant burden,” he said. Doctors and other providers typically don’t know specifics about patient deductibles, cost sharing, or other insurance coverage details until after a claim is submitted to a health plan.

Health care services are different than refrigerators or other goods that people buy, doctors say. If a patient gets a colonoscopy and doesn’t want to pay for it, “it’s not possible to take the service back,” said Jerome Cohen, a gastroenterologist and the president of the Medical Society of the State of New York, which represents physicians. As for the proposed changes in the 2026 budget, Cohen said the medical society “very much appreciates the governor’s efforts to try to fix this problematic financial consent requirement.”

But patient advocates are pushing back. The current practice is “unfair and it’s wrong,” said Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president of health initiatives at the Community Service Society of New York, a nonprofit that has successfully pushed for passage of several medical debt-related laws in recent years. No patient should ever have to preemptively agree to pay whatever a provider charges, Benjamin said.

In a written response to questions, Danielle De Souza, a spokesperson for the state Department of Health, said that the proposed law change is justified, “given the burden of this requirement on both patients and providers.” De Souza didn’t respond to a request for clarification about what those patient burdens are.

Helen Krim walked out of a doctor’s office in the Bronx borough of New York City a few years ago rather than sign an open-ended form agreeing to pay for any services recommended by the doctor.

It was the first time that Krim, who is covered by Medicare, had visited that primary care practice. When she told them she didn’t want to sign the form, she was told they wouldn’t serve her unless she did.

“I’m one of those annoying people who actually reads the forms,” the retired bank project manager said. “It’s kind of like signing a consent to be scammed.” She found another practice that didn’t ask her to sign a similar form.

There are other consumer medical debt protections at the federal and state level. The federal No Surprises Act restricts providers from billing consumers for out-of-network services in certain instances. It also requires providers to give good-faith cost estimates for self-pay patients. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a final rule in January that would have removed medical debt from people’s credit reports, but the rule’s implementation has been frozen by the Trump administration. Several states besides New York have also taken steps to protect consumers with medical debt.

Benjamin said that simply requiring an unspecified “discussion” about costs doesn’t address patients’ potential unlimited financial liability. Under a bill that Benjamin’s organization has drafted, providers would have to give patients a written good-faith estimate of their expected costs before the patient receives services and patients could not be held liable for unlimited or unspecified costs beyond that estimate.

“Let’s be the first state to really have fair rules of engagement for both the providers and the patients about what is it that you’re agreeing to be financially liable for at the point, beforehand,” Benjamin said.

The measure was introduced in the Senate this month.

Providers are taking a wait-and-see attitude, Mitchell said, because the budget plan must still move through the legislative process.

Another New York medical debt-related law that took effect in October takes aim at the use of credit cards to pay for medical services. The Hochul administration has not proposed changing it. The law prohibits providers from requiring pre-authorization of credit cards or keeping a patient’s card on file. It also requires providers to notify patients of the risks of paying for medical care with credit cards, which may lack medical debt protections. In addition, providers aren’t allowed to help patients complete credit card applications under the law.

The laws are aimed at stopping unfair billing practices and reducing medical debt for New Yorkers. Earlier laws ban credit reporting of all medical debt and prohibit hospitals from suing patients with incomes under 400% of the poverty level, among other things.

New York providers don’t like the credit card law either, though it hasn’t generated the pushback seen with the consent-to-pay law.

In a statement, Brian Conway, a spokesperson for the Greater New York Hospital Association, said, “It’s important to clarify that hospitals do not oppose the goals of the hospital financial assistance law reforms overall, but rather the operational burdens and patient disclosure overload that a few specific provisions create.”

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:

Tweet

Amid Plummeting Diversity at Medical Schools, a Warning of DEI Crackdown’s ‘Chilling Effect’

The Trump administration’s crackdown on DEI programs could exacerbate an unexpectedly steep drop in diversity among medical school students, even in states like California, where public universities have been navigating bans on affirmative action for decades. Education and health experts warn that, ultimately, this could harm patient care.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has issued a handful of executive orders aimed at terminating all diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives in federally funded programs. And in his March 4 address to Congress, he described the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning the consideration of race in college and university admissions as “brave and very powerful.”

Last month, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — which lost about 50% of its staff in mid-March — directed schools, including postsecondary institutions, to end race-based programs or risk losing federal funding. The “Dear Colleague” letter cited the Supreme Court’s decision.

Paulette Granberry Russell, president and CEO of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, said that “every utterance of ‘diversity’ is now being viewed as a violation or considered unlawful or illegal.” Her organization filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

While California and eight other states — Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington — had already implemented bans of varying degrees on race-based admissions policies well before the Supreme Court decision, schools bolstered diversity in their ranks with equity initiatives such as targeted scholarships, trainings, and recruitment programs.

But the court’s decision and the subsequent state-level backlash — 29 states have since introduced bills to curb diversity initiatives, according to data published by the Chronicle of Higher Education — have tamped down these efforts and led to the recent declines in diversity numbers, education experts said.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, the numbers of Black and Hispanic medical school enrollees fell by double-digit percentages in the 2024-25 school year compared with the previous year, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Black enrollees declined 11.6%, while the number of new students of Hispanic origin fell 10.8%. The decline in enrollment of American Indian or Alaska Native students was even more dramatic, at 22.1%. New Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander enrollment declined 4.3%.

“We knew this would happen,” said Norma Poll-Hunter, AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity. “But it was double digits — much larger than what we anticipated.”

The fear among educators is the numbers will decline even more under the new administration.

At the end of February, the Education Department launched an online portal encouraging people to “report illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning,” stating that students should have “learning free of divisive ideologies and indoctrination.” The agency later issued a “Frequently Asked Questions” document about its new policies, clarifying that it was acceptable to observe events like Black History Month but warning schools that they “must consider whether any school programming discourages members of all races from attending.”

“It definitely has a chilling effect,” Poll-Hunter said. “There is a lot of fear that could cause institutions to limit their efforts.”

Numerous requests for comment from medical schools about the impact of the anti-DEI actions went unreturned. University presidents are staying mum on the issue to protect their institutions, according to reporting from The New York Times.

Utibe Essien, a physician and UCLA assistant professor, said he has heard from some students who fear they won’t be considered for admission under the new policies. Essien, who co-authored a study on the effect of affirmative action bans on medical schools, also said students are worried medical schools will not be as supportive toward students of color as in the past.

“Both of these fears have the risk of limiting the options of schools folks apply to and potentially those who consider medicine as an option at all,” Essien said, adding that the “lawsuits around equity policies and just the climate of anti-diversity have brought institutions to this place where they feel uncomfortable.”

In early February, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit against the University of California-San Francisco’s Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland over an internship program designed to introduce “underrepresented minority high school students to health professions.”

Attorney Andrew Quinio filed the suit, which argues that its plaintiff, a white teenager, was not accepted to the program after disclosing in an interview that she identified as white.

“From a legal standpoint, the issue that comes about from all this is: How do you choose diversity without running afoul of the Constitution?” Quinio said. “For those who want diversity as a goal, it cannot be a goal that is achieved with discrimination.”

UC Health spokesperson Heather Harper declined to comment on the suit on behalf of the hospital system.

Another lawsuit filed in February accuses the University of California of favoring Black and Latino students over Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions. Specifically, the complaint states that UC officials pushed campuses to use a “holistic” approach to admissions and “move away from objective criteria towards more subjective assessments of the overall appeal of individual candidates.”

The scrutiny of that approach to admissions could threaten diversity at the UC-Davis School of Medicine, which for years has employed a “race-neutral, holistic admissions model” that reportedly tripled enrollment of Black, Latino, and Native American students.

“How do you define diversity? Does it now include the way we consider how someone’s lived experience may be influenced by how they grew up? The type of school, the income of their family? All of those are diversity,” said Granberry Russell, of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. “What might they view as an unlawful proxy for diversity equity and inclusion? That’s what we’re confronted with.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, recently joined other state attorneys general to issue guidance urging that schools continue their DEI programs despite the federal messaging, saying that legal precedent allows for the activities. California is also among several states suing the administration over its deep cuts to the Education Department.

If the recent decline in diversity among newly enrolled students holds or gets worse, it could have long-term consequences for patient care, academic experts said, pointing toward the vast racial disparities in health outcomes in the U.S., particularly for Black people.

A higher proportion of Black primary care doctors is associated with longer life expectancy and lower mortality rates among Black people, according to a 2023 study published by the JAMA Network.

Physicians of color are also more likely to build their careers in medically underserved communities, studies have shown, which is increasingly important as the AAMC projects a shortage of up to 40,400 primary care doctors by 2036.

“The physician shortage persists, and it’s dire in rural communities,” Poll-Hunter said. “We know that diversity efforts are really about improving access for everyone. More diversity leads to greater access to care — everyone is benefiting from it.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Tweet

Checking the Facts on Medicaid Use by Latinos

Spending cuts, immigration, and Medicaid are at the top of the Washington agenda. That climate provides fertile ground for misinformation and myths to multiply on social networks. Some of the most common are those surrounding immigrants, Latinos, and Medicaid.

These claims include assertions that Latinos who use Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people and those with disabilities, “do not work” and exaggerations of the percentage of people with Medicaid who are Latinos.

The U.S. House voted narrowly on Feb. 25 in favor of a budget blueprint that could lead to Medicaid cuts of up to $880 billion over a decade.

Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program are part of the national safety net, covering about 80 million people. Medicaid enrollment grew under the Affordable Care Act and after the start of the covid-19 pandemic but then started falling during the final two years of the Biden administration.

Immigrants’ impact on the nation’s health care system can be overstated in heated political rhetoric. Now-Vice President JD Vance said on the campaign trail last year that “we’re bankrupting a lot of hospitals by forcing these hospitals to provide care for people who don’t have the legal right to be in our country.” PolitiFact rated that statement “False.”

KFF Health News, in partnership with Factchequeado, compiled five myths circulating on social media and analyzed them with experts in the field.

1. Do Latinos who receive Medicaid work?

Most do. A KFF analysis of Medicaid data found that almost 67% of Latinos on Medicaid work, “which is a higher share of Medicaid adults who are working compared to other racial and ethnic groups,” said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“For many low-income people, the myth is that they are not working, even though we know from a lot of data that many people work but don’t have access to affordable employer-sponsored insurance,” said Timothy McBride, co-director at the Center for Advancing Health Services, Policy and Economics Research, part of the Institute for Public Health at Washington University in St. Louis.

Neither the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health nor the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services responded to requests for comment.

2. Are Latinos the largest group enrolled in Medicaid?

No. White people who are not Hispanic represent the biggest demographic group in Medicaid and CHIP. The programs’ enrollment is 42% non-Hispanic white, 28% Latinos, and 18% non-Hispanic Black, with small percentages of other minorities, according to a CMS document.

Latinos’ share of total Medicaid enrollment “has remained fairly stable for many years — hovering between 26 and 30% since at least 2008,” said Gideon Lukens, research and data analysis director on the health policy team at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research organization.

In a Feb. 18 blog post, Alex Nowrasteh and Jerome Famularo of the libertarian Cato Institute wrote: “The biggest myth in the debate over immigrant welfare use is that noncitizens — which includes illegal immigrants and those lawfully present on various temporary visas and green cards — disproportionately consume welfare. That is not the case.” They included Medicaid in the term “welfare.”

Although Latinos are not the biggest group in Medicaid, they are the demographic group with the greatest percentage of people receiving Medicaid. There are about 65.2 million Hispanics in the country, representing 19.5% of the total U.S. population.

Approximately 31% of the Latino population is enrolled in Medicaid, in part because employed Latinos often have jobs that do not offer affordable insurance.

Eligibility for Medicaid is based on factors such as income, age, and pregnancy or disability status, and it varies from state to state, said Kelly Whitener, associate professor of practice at the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy.

“Medicaid eligibility is not based on race or ethnicity,” Whitener said.

3. Do most Latinos living in the country without legal permission use Medicaid?

No. Under federal law, immigrants lacking legal status are not eligible for federal Medicaid benefits.

As of January, 14 states and the District of Columbia had used their own funds to expand coverage to children in the country without regard to immigration status. Of those, seven states and D.C. expanded coverage to some adults regardless of immigration status.

The cost of providing health care to these beneficiaries is covered entirely by the states. The federal government does not put up a penny.

The federal government does pay for Emergency Medicaid, which reimburses hospitals for medical emergencies for people who, because of their immigration status or other factors, do not normally qualify for the program.

Emergency Medicaid began in 1986 under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, signed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.

In 2023, Emergency Medicaid accounted for 0.4% of total Medicaid spending.

Some conservative lawmakers say immigrants in the country illegally should not get any Medicaid benefits.

“Medicaid is meant for American citizens who need it most — seniors, children, pregnant women, and the disabled,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said on social media. “But liberal states are finding ways to game the system and make taxpayers cover healthcare for illegal immigrants.”

4. Do Latinos stay on Medicaid for decades?

Experts say there is no analysis by race or ethnicity of the length of time people use the program.

“The people who stay on Medicaid the longest are people who have Medicaid due to a disability and who live with a medical situation that does not change,” Tolbert said.

People who use long-term Medicaid support services represent 6% of the total number of people in the program.

Many beneficiaries are in the program temporarily, McBride said.

“Some studies indicate that as many as half of the people on Medicaid churn off of Medicaid within a short period of time,” he said, such as within a year.

5. Are Latinos on Medicaid the group that uses medical services the most?

Latinos do not use significantly more Medicaid services than others, experts say. Latinos receive preventive services (such as mammograms, pap smears, and colonoscopies), primary care and mental health care less than other groups, according to documents from CMS and the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, a nonpartisan organization that provides policy and data analysis.

Latinos do account for a disproportionate share of Medicaid labor and delivery services. Latino families and white families each represent about 35% of Medicaid births, although white people make up a bigger share of the overall population.

While Latinos represent 28% of all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees, they account for 37% of beneficiaries with limited benefits that cover only specific services.

“They actually use health care services less than other groups, because of systemic barriers such as limited English proficiency and difficulty navigating the system,” said Arturo Vargas Bustamante, a professor at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health and the faculty research director at the university’s Latino Policy and Politics Institute.

Latino people also avoid using services out of fear of the “public charge” rule and other policies, Vargas Bustamante said. President Donald Trump expanded the public charge policy and strongly enforced it during his first term, though it was softened under President Joe Biden. The policy was intended to make it harder for immigrants who use Medicaid or welfare programs to obtain green cards or become U.S. citizens.

“The chilling effect of public charge persists, but recent orders such as mass deportation or the elimination of birthright citizenship have generated their own chilling effects,” Vargas Bustamante added.

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:

Tweet

Progressives Seek Health Privacy Protections in California, But Newsom Could Balk

When patients walked into Planned Parenthood clinics, a consumer data company sold their precise locations to anti-abortion groups for targeted ads.

When patients picked up prescriptions for testosterone replacement therapy, law enforcement retrieved their names and addresses without a warrant.

And when a father was arrested by immigration authorities, agents allegedly accessed his personal information from a medical clinic where he received diabetes treatment.

Progressive California lawmakers have proposed a number of bills aimed at bolstering privacy protections for women, transgender people, and immigrants in response to such intrusions by anti-abortion groups, conservative states, and federal law enforcement agencies as President Donald Trump declares the nation “will be woke no longer” and flexes his executive power to roll back rights.

Democrats have supermajorities in the state legislature, but even if they pass the proposals, they may first need to lobby one of their own: Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has noticeably tempered his once harsh criticism of Trump.

Last month, the Democratic governor issued a rare veto threat against a bill that would expand the state’s sanctuary law to limit cooperation between state prisons and federal immigration agents. And Newsom recently called transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair” on his new podcast with guest Charlie Kirk, a founder of the conservative group Turning Point USA. Newsom went on to tell Kirk that he had a “hard time with” the way the right talks about transgender people.

Billions of dollars are also on the line for California. Newsom visited the White House last month seeking unconditional aid for wildfire victims in Los Angeles, and the state relies on Washington for over 60% of its Medicaid budget, which is vulnerable to significant cuts under the GOP’s budget blueprint.

“California’s leaders have not been as aggressive, out of recognition that there are many things that the state needs federal cooperation on,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at the University of California-San Diego.

A Newsom spokesperson declined to comment on pending legislation. He has a track record of supporting abortion, transgender, and immigrant rights.

Since taking office, Trump has granted the Elon Musk-controlled Department of Government Efficiency — created through a Trump executive order — access to previously restricted data, including medical information, raising concerns that sensitive information could be exposed without proper safeguards. 

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

While most Americans are familiar with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA, it offers only narrow protection for patients in health care settings. There’s no comprehensive federal law protecting data privacy.

Health care information has increasingly become a tool of surveillance and enforcement, and in states that have banned certain medical treatments or toughened immigration laws, vulnerable populations are at greater risk, said Suzanne Bernstein, a health privacy rights expert with the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Progressive Democrats are concerned that personal information and people’s medical decisions could be used to monitor or criminalize patients, facilitate arrests in or near health care facilities, or jeopardize access to health care services.

They and health privacy advocates say now is the time to shore up protections for the nearly 2 million immigrants living in California without authorization, the more than 200,000 transgender adults in the state, and thousands of people — living in the state or out of state — in need of abortion care in California each year. Some of these laws could take effect immediately if signed.

“This is about making sure that people are able to access critical health care in California and to take the politics out of our hospitals and health clinics,” said state Sen. Jesse Arreguín, who hopes the governor would sign his bill to protect immigrants.

The bills are expected to be debated in Sacramento in the coming months.

Since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, anti-abortion groups have purchased location information from consumer data companies to target people seeking abortion care with anti-abortion ads. And authorities in states with abortion bans have used cellphone data to enforce laws beyond their borders.

A bill introduced by state Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, AB 45, would make geofencing, the collection of phone location by data brokers, illegal around health care facilities that provide in-person services. It would also prevent reproductive health information collected during research from being disclosed in response to out-of-state requests.

Conservative organizations said the proposal would single them out by restricting their ability to inform women about alternatives to abortion, including services offered by crisis pregnancy centers.

“I think that could very well be a First Amendment violation,” said Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council, a statewide anti-abortion nonprofit. “It doesn’t seem like the bill would be prohibiting or putting any restrictions on a group like Planned Parenthood if they wanted to market or target to a local high school or college.”

So far this year, lawmakers in 49 states have introduced more than 700 anti-transgender bills, seeking to ban gender-affirming care, prohibit gender identity education in schools, or restrict transgender students from participating in sports, according to the Trans Legislation Tracker, a national research organization tracking bills affecting transgender people. Transgender adults represent less than 1% of the U.S. population.

And some states with bans or restrictions on gender-affirming care have been targeting health care data. In 2023, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis requested that Florida universities release data on the number of individuals who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria or received treatment at campus clinics. That same year, Missouri’s Republican attorney general, Andrew Bailey, submitted 54 requests to one hospital seeking information about gender-affirming care procedures.

Trump has issued a series of executive orders to ban access to gender-affirming care for minors. Federal judges have temporarily blocked some portions of his orders.

To guard against other states that criminalize or ban gender-affirming care, California state Sen. Scott Wiener wants to expand current protections for minors to include adults.

His bill, SB 497, would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant to access state databases on gender-affirming care and make it a misdemeanor to release the data to unauthorized parties. It would also prohibit health care providers, employers, and insurers from releasing information about a person who seeks or obtains gender-affirming physical and mental health care to an agency or individual from another state.

“We want to make sure that we are as comprehensively as possible shielding trans people from hate emanating from the federal government, other states, and private parties,” Wiener said.

Keller countered that authorities in states with bans on abortion or gender-affirming care should have access to medical information as they investigate providers who could harm patients or coerce them into procedures against their will. He cited a lawsuit against Kaiser Permanente over a teenager who detransitioned after undergoing gender-affirming care. A 2015 survey found it was uncommon for people undergoing gender-affirming care to decide to permanently detransition.

“The only way that you’re able to uncover that level of widespread malpractice and malfeasance is if these health care records are able to be accessed,” Keller said.

The California Family Council plans to oppose both bills.

Earlier this year, Trump rescinded a long-standing policy of not making immigration arrests near hospitals, schools, or churches. The decision has providers fearful that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will disrupt their work at health facilities and prompt immigrants to skip medical care — for themselves or, of particular concern, their children.

Anticipating the move, California’s Democratic attorney general, Rob Bonta, issued guidance in December advising health care providers how best to respond if ICE comes to their doorstep. But while private entities are encouraged to follow these policies, only state-run facilities are required to adopt them.

“Some health care providers have implemented them, but not everyone has,” Arreguín said.

Arreguín’s SB 81 would require all health care facilities, including hospitals and community-based clinics, to follow state guidance to limit cooperation with immigration authorities. It would also prohibit providers from granting access to private areas or places where a patient is actively receiving treatment or care, unless there’s a warrant.

Another immigration bill, AB 421, would limit the sharing of local law enforcement information if agents plan to make an arrest within a one-mile radius of a hospital or medical office, a child care or day care facility, a religious institution, or a place of worship. California law enforcement has some discretion to share information with immigration agents when an individual has been convicted of a serious crime or felony.

Kousser said immigration is more complicated for California politicians than health privacy. Although a February poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 7 in 10 Californians think immigrants are a benefit to the state, Kousser said that lawmakers, especially those who won by narrow margins in contested districts, still have to make tough political choices.

Senate Republican leader Brian Jones, who represents a predominantly Democratic district in San Diego, is proposing to change California’s sanctuary policies to require law enforcement to share information with ICE when a person has been convicted of a serious crime.

“When these violent felons are released from local custody, they go right back into the communities that they came from to re-victimize those same immigrant communities,” Jones said.

But Jones acknowledged the need for nuance when it comes to health privacy.

“Look, the bottom line for me on this immigration reform in America is it needs to be humanitarian and it needs to make sense,” Jones said. “And so, if there are areas that we need to protect folks, it might make sense.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Tweet

In Trump’s Team, Supplement Fans Find Kindred Spirits in Search of Better Health

President Donald Trump’s health officials want you to take your vitamins.

Mehmet Oz, the nominee to lead the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has fed calves on camera to tout the health wonders of bovine colostrum on behalf of one purveyor in which he has a financial stake. Janette Nesheiwat, the potential surgeon general, sells her own line of supplements.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services, said he takes more vitamins than he can count — and has suggested he’ll ease restrictions on vitamins, muscle-building peptides, and more.

Their affection for supplements might lead to tangible consequences for Americans’ health regimens. Late in the 2024 campaign, Kennedy claimed the federal government was waging a “war on public health” by suppressing a vast array of alternative therapies — many of them supplements, like nutraceuticals and peptides.

In February, Trump announced the “President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission” with Kennedy at the helm, calling for “fresh thinking” on nutrition, “healthy lifestyles,” and other pathways toward combating chronic disease. Spokespeople for Kennedy did not reply to multiple requests for comment.

Supplements can be beneficial, particularly in aiding fetal development or warding off anemia, said Pieter Cohen, a general internist at the Cambridge Health Alliance, who researches supplements. “I recommend supplements routinely,” he said.

Still, “the majority of use is not necessary to improve or maintain health,” and due to only light regulations, supplement makers may make claims about their benefits without sufficient evidence, Cohen said. “No supplement needs to get tested or vetted by the FDA before it’s sold.”

Consumer watchdogs, regulators, and researchers have reported cases of finding traces of lead and other toxins in supplements. And a 2015 analysis from a team of federal health researchers attributed about 23,000 emergency department visits annually to supplement use. (The Council for Responsible Nutrition, the industry’s lobbying group, challenged the findings, arguing some visits were due to over-the-counter and homeopathic medicines that should not have been included.)

Nevertheless, many Americans are ready to buy in. Internet forums populated by biohackers, weight lifters, and enthusiasts of alternative medicine, along with supplement producers, applauded Kennedy’s elevation to health secretary. Many express hopes that he’ll loosen what they perceive as unwarranted restrictions on these products.

The Natural Products Association saluted Trump’s health nominees as a victory for “health freedom.”

“For the first time in our industry’s history, the top healthcare political appointees think it is important that Americans have the right to use nutritional supplements,” wrote Kyle Turk, the association’s vice president for government affairs.

The worlds of supplement users and the Trump team overlap substantially when it comes to being skeptical of the traditional health system.

Supplement use is part of “a broadening sort of health populist movement,” said Callum Hood, the head of research at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit that researches online disinformation, pointing to influencers who criticize conventional public health measures and offer alternatives like supplements, powders, or peptides.

To many supplement enthusiasts, Kennedy’s views align with theirs — particularly his dislike for Big Pharma and Big Food, which he characterizes as corrupt, profiting from Americans’ ill health.

Kennedy promotes supplements as a key part of good health. In a prerecorded interview aired this month, amid a growing measles outbreak that started in West Texas, he said doctors had had “very, very good results” by treating those patients with cod liver oil, which can be delivered in pill form, along with a steroid and an antibiotic. (Separately, he wrote in a Fox News op-ed that parents should discuss the vaccine with their doctors, adding, “The decision to vaccinate is a personal one.”)

“What we’re trying to do is really to restore faith in government and to make sure that we are there to help them with their needs and not particularly to dictate what they ought to be doing,” Kennedy said in a Fox News interview.

Kennedy spoke of federal officials delivering vitamin A to affected communities — a treatment he pushed in past remarks as chairman of the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense.

“What is the cure for measles?” he told an audience in 2021 at an Amish country fair in Pennsylvania. “Chicken soup and vitamin A. And neither of those things can be patented.”

The World Health Organization advises people who contract measles to take vitamin A, which can prevent blindness and death — but it also strongly urges all children be vaccinated against the disease.

While the image of natural wellness has long evoked organic supermarket-patronizing, liberal types, supplement use is bipartisan — and now slightly more popular with Republicans. A December poll from Ipsos and Axios found that 63% of Republicans take supplements daily or most days, versus 58% of independents and 52% of Democrats.

Supplement companies sometimes explicitly court right-wing customers. In the days before Trump’s inauguration, the brand Nugenix posted an ad on the social platform X for its testosterone supplement with the president’s trademark red hat perched on the bottle, bearing the slogan “Make Your T-Levels Great Again.” (Adaptive Health, Nugenix’s parent company, did not respond to requests for comment.)

Some industry observers think the shift rightward happened during the pandemic. “During the covid era, Democrats became the party of science and establishment,” said John Roulac, a California-based supplements entrepreneur. In his telling, the party and especially its elected officials were more likely to trust the FDA and other big institutions — and to discount any potential contribution to health from supplements.

“Under RFK, you have people associated less with pharmaceutical drugs and more with healthier lifestyle choices, whether that’s eating organic food or using herbs or taking vitamins,” Roulac said.

Kennedy and others in Trump’s orbit have found a particularly warm reception among some of the biggest supplement evangelists: influencers, who often promote personal responsibility, in the form of vitamins and other products, as the key to health — and have provided plenty of airtime in recent years for Trump’s newly minted health officials.

On popular podcast host Lex Fridman’s show in 2023, Kennedy accepted praise for being in “great shape” and attributed it, in part, to his vitamin regimen. “I take a lot of vitamins,” he said. “I can’t even list them to you here because I couldn’t even remember them at all.”

In November, Oz endorsed Kennedy’s nomination on his TikTok channel — and then, in his next post, told viewers they need “an alphabet soup” of vitamins to protect their brains and power their organs.

Oz, who at the time had not yet been named to lead CMS, pointed viewers to a “trusted source” of vitamins: iHerb.

Federal ethics rules generally bar public officials from using their office for financial gain. Last month, in a letter to the health agency’s ethics official, Oz disclosed that he is an adviser to iHerb and holds a financial stake in the company. He wrote that, if he is confirmed, he plans to resign and divest from iHerb, as well as recuse himself from policy matters directly involving the company “until I have divested.”

Oz’s Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled for March 14. A spokesperson for Oz did not reply to multiple requests for comment.

Nesheiwat, Trump’s pick for surgeon general, has touted BC Boost, a combination of vitamins promising to toughen one’s immune system and rev energy. The supplement — which advertising claims was formulated by Nesheiwat herself — bears her name and portrait on the package.

“After years of educating my patients, now I made it a little easier to get all the nutrition you need to live strong and stay healthy,” reads a marketing quote attributed to Nesheiwat.

The surgeon general, considered “the nation’s doctor,” does not set policy but rather acts as a spokesperson for public health. During the Biden administration, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy outlined the ills from alcohol, loneliness, and social media.

Nesheiwat, whose financial disclosures are not yet public, did not reply to an inquiry to her website, nor did an HHS spokesperson reply to a request for comment.

It’s unclear what moves the administration might take to boost supplements. Industry officials say they hope the government will make it easier for everyday consumers to use health savings accounts to buy vitamins and other products. The FDA could also decide to allow manufacturers to make more aggressive claims about their wares’ health benefits.

Contrary to Kennedy’s claim of a “war on public health,” in recent years the supplements industry has seen its fortunes grow, and attempts to increase regulations have fallen short amid pressure from supplement makers.

According to the Nutrition Business Journal, revenues for the supplement industry surged during the pandemic, as customers became “more invested in their health,” said Journal analyst Erika Craft. Revenues have continued to increase since then, outpacing earlier industry expectations and boosting product sales to some $70 billion per year, she told KFF Health News.

One FDA attempt to put more stringent regulations — like registration — on businesses, during the 1990s, was defeated soundly after the industry and its clients lobbied Congress.

“It was one of the largest campaigns to Congress imaginable,” David Kessler, the FDA commissioner at the time, said in an oral history.

Grace Sparks, a survey analyst at KFF, the health policy research, polling, and news organization that includes KFF Health News, provided research assistance for the Ipsos-Axios poll.

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:

Tweet