Nurse Crystal Dhooghe is used to dealing with blood and broken bones in the emergency room. But she didn’t expect to witness so much violence against her own colleagues.

“I’ve seen nurses get shoved, pushed, scratched. The biggest one is bitten,” said Dhooghe, who works at Henry Ford Genesys Hospital in Grand Blanc, Michigan.

The prevalence of workplace violence in healthcare has fueled strikes in states such as Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Michigan, where Dhooghe and many of her co-workers have been on the picket line since Labor Day last year.

“People will question me and be like, ‘Why are you still working in a place if you’re treated like this?’” said Dhooghe, who gets by on strike benefits and working extra shifts at another hospital. The problem, she said, is that other hospitals aren’t any better. “It’s the same everywhere I go.”

In a statement, Henry Ford Health spokesperson Dana Jay acknowledged violence against healthcare workers is a “national epidemic” and said the health system’s efforts to address the problem include metal detectors, armed security officers trained to make “misdemeanor arrests,” and de-escalation training.

“We have zero tolerance for violence of any kind,” said Jay, asserting the strike is not about safety but is instead “simply an economic strike.”

Nationwide, hospital workers are seven times as likely to be injured on the job due to violent acts as members of the general working population, according to the most recent data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The outcry over workplace violence in healthcare is pitting workers’ demands for better compensation and staffing against hospital operators pressured to cut costs.

‘A Powder Keg’

Violent outbursts are so common that they’ve been dramatized on the popular medical TV series The Pitt. “Emergency rooms right now are like a powder keg,” said Rachel Odes, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing.

In hospitals, a combative or violent patient is known as a “code gray.” Outbursts can be spontaneous and unpredictable, making some almost impossible to prevent. But research shows the risk of violence increases when hospitals are understaffed or employees are insufficiently trained or experienced.

Mental health worker Andrew Kimball-Mirzaie said he got hurt in February 2024 at Butler Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island.

Andrew Kimball-Mirzaie, a mental health worker at Butler Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island, who says he was assaulted by a patient, participated in a three-month strike in spring and summer 2025. (Lynn Arditi)

He’d been working at the private psychiatric hospital for about six weeks and said he hadn’t yet worked in the ER. He said he was sent there to “monitor” a man in his 20s who was waiting for an inpatient bed.

The patient was alone in a back room watching a Knicks basketball game on TV, he recalled. Kimball-Mirzaie said he got the patient a drink and a snack. They were watching the game when, suddenly, he said, the patient stood up and punched him in the face. He said the assault left him with a concussion and broken nose. His injuries were documented in the hospital’s incident log.

“I understand that there is an inherent danger with the job,” Kimball-Mirzaie said. He doesn’t blame the patient, who was very ill at the time. “We should have had at least another staff member with us,” he said, “and I should have been adequately trained on the unit.”

The attack emboldened Kimball-Mirzaie to join some 700 other unionized Butler workers last spring and summer in a months-long strike, which forced the hospital to close nearly half of its beds. Service Employees International Union 1199 New England declared the strike a win.

Employees received wage increases that union leaders said would enable the hospital to attract and retain more staff. The hospital also agreed to provide financial support for workers violently injured on the job. And the hospital and union agreed to jointly fund a “time bank” to supplement workers’ compensation for injured workers who need more time to recover.

But five months later, a nurse supervisor at Butler had to call 911 because an unarmed patient in the hospital’s ER was assaulting staff. According to the police report, by the time police arrested the patient, he’d injured two nurses, a security guard, and a police officer.

“Butler recognizes the importance of being proactive in protecting those who provide care,” Mary Marran, Butler’s president and chief operating officer, said in a statement. She added that hospital leadership meets regularly with staff to review safety measures and “identify opportunities to strengthen protection for everyone.”

The patient was charged with four counts of felony assault, including against the two nurses.

The American Hospital Association has said punishment is key to preventing violence. It has been lobbying Congress to make assaulting healthcare workers a federal crime that would carry up to 10 years in prison. At least 45 states, including Michigan and Rhode Island, have enacted similar laws. But workplace safety experts say there is no evidence that such laws have reduced the incidence of violence against healthcare workers.

Catherine Maynard, a nurse at Butler Hospital, speaks at a union rally at the State House in Providence, Rhode Island, on May 23, 2025. (Steve Ahlquist)

Calls for ‘Safe Staffing’

Striking healthcare workers around the country often have demanded “safe staffing” instead of stronger punishments for patients who cause injuries.

The rise in violence against healthcare workers has caught the attention of the Joint Commission, the accreditation organization for more than 80% of U.S. hospitals and health systems. The commission released national performance goals that took effect in January and require hospitals to be properly staffed and that staff be trained “to provide safe, quality care.”

But no federal law limits the number of patients in a nurse’s care across healthcare settings, despite the nation’s largest nurses union, National Nurses United, having pressed for a national standard since 2018. Hospitals must “safely staff all units” to enable nurses to “provide the care that patients need before they get agitated or disoriented,” said Jane Thomason, lead industrial hygienist for National Nurses United.

Some states have passed their own staffing laws. Only California has enacted broad mandatory nurse staffing ratios, which research shows were associated with lower mortality rates and likely higher retention. Oregon enacted a staffing law, with exceptions. Legislators in Massachusetts and New Jersey have introduced similar bills, but they have failed to advance to floor votes.

The American Hospital Association opposes mandatory minimum nurse staffing ratios in hospitals, saying they would “remove real-time clinical judgment and flexibility,” compound staffing shortages, and potentially force some hospitals to turn away patients or delay care, spokesperson Colleen Kincaid said. And she pointed to California, whose new emergency nurse staffing ratios for psychiatric hospitals reportedly forced bed closures in at least four counties.

“There are a lot of other things you can do to prevent workplace violence than just increasing staffing levels,” said Jordan Barab, who was a deputy assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration during the Obama administration and helped develop OSHA’s 2016 guidelines for healthcare and social service workers.

Barab said hospitals can, for example, train employees in de-escalation, install metal detectors, or have specially trained security guards on-site so staff don’t have to wait for police to arrive when an incident happens.

Debbie Berkowitz, a worker safety and health policy expert at Georgetown University, said the health provisions in congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act will squeeze hospitals’ budgets in the next few years.

When funding dries up, she said, “protecting workers is going to be the first thing that gets cut.”

This article is from a partnership that includes NPR and KFF Health News.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Tammy Chalala, a retired dietitian in New York, was thrilled with the results of her cataract surgeries, which left her with close to 20/20 vision.

She said she paid nearly $4,000 out-of-pocket for her two surgeries last year because she opted to have her doctor use a laser to assist with the procedure.

Chalala, 69, chose that method over the traditional scalpel after doing research online and consulting with her doctors, believing it would give her the best outcome. “It seemed like the better option,” she said.

Cataract surgery — one of the most common operations paid for by Medicare — typically leaves enrollees owing a few hundred dollars. Some patients pay more to have their vision corrected during the procedure.

But, like Chalala, a growing number of those patients are paying even more out-of-pocket simply because they agree to have their doctor use a laser rather than the scalpel method.

Both methods are safe and can significantly reduce or eliminate the need for patients to wear glasses.

However, many doctors say the laser helps make more precise cuts than the scalpel. The laser method gives patients more options, they say, and recoups more revenue as Medicare has gradually cut what it pays doctors for cataract surgery.

Others, such as Oliver Schein, an ophthalmologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine, point out the strong financial incentive to use the laser, as the equipment can cost a practice up to $500,000.

Schein said his colleagues used the laser a few years after it came out but did not see any benefit over traditional cataract surgery. Still, the laser doesn’t cause harm and provides patients with good results.

“That’s a powerful combination for a surgeon,” Schein said. But in the end, he added, most patients believe paying more will yield a better result.

Medicare pays doctors about $520 for a standard cataract procedure, down about 20% in the past decade. The fee includes pre- and postoperative visits.

While Medicare generally prohibits doctors from billing patients above what the government program pays, doctors are allowed to bill patients extra when using the laser only when it is used to improve vision, because most vision correction is not covered by traditional Medicare.

Specifically, doctors may bill patients when using the laser to insert premium lenses or fix astigmatism. Doctors typically charge $1,000 to $3,000 per eye for use of the laser.

Medicare enrollees also pay out-of-pocket for the premium lenses that can eliminate their need for reading or distance glasses, with charges ranging from $1,000 to $4,000.

Private insurers, including those operating Medicare Advantage plans, typically follow Medicare benefit rules.

Research shows the laser does not provide better outcomes than the scalpel for a standard cataract procedure.

The American Academy of Ophthalmology, the world’s largest organization of eye physicians and surgeons, says on its website: “Studies do not show that laser surgery results in fewer complications. Also, studies haven’t found that laser surgery provides better outcomes.”

Nearly 12% of the 5 million annual cataract surgeries performed nationally are laser-assisted, and that number has been growing, according to the St. Louis-based ophthalmic market data company Market Scope.

“It’s a win-win for patient and doctor,” said Kevin Miller, a UCLA ophthalmology professor. “Doctor makes a little more money on top of the Medicare reimbursement; the industry gets money to develop new technology; and society benefits because these patients are not going for eyeglasses anymore.”

By age 80, more than half of Americans have had cataracts, a condition that causes blurred vision and poor night vision. Most cataracts develop slowly as part of the aging process when proteins and fibers in the eye’s lens break down and clump together.

Doctors for decades have used scalpels to perform cataract surgery, which involves removing the cataract and replacing the cloudy natural lens with a clear artificial one.

Barbara Cobuzzi, 71, a medical billing consultant with traditional Medicare coverage, needed cataract surgery last year. When her eye doctor in New Jersey recommended she get the surgery using a laser at a cost to her of $1,500 per eye, she went looking for a second opinion. “I felt like he was trying to pull a fast one.”

Cobuzzi said the second doctor performed her procedure without a laser, and she was happy with the results, including no longer needing glasses for distance vision.

“Doctors are using the laser as a moneymaker,” she said.

Vance Thompson, an ophthalmologist who is a past president of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, said some patients want the laser because it provides a more precise way of doing the surgery, while others choose it to avoid the need for glasses.

He said he talks to patients about the advantages of the laser and lets them decide which method is right for them. “They deserve to be educated on all their options,” Thompson said.

He said about half his patients at his Sioux Falls, South Dakota, practice choose the laser, up from about 10% a decade ago.

The laser is not suitable for all patients, though, including those who have corneal scarring or a small pupil, Thompson said.

It’s challenging to illustrate the benefit of the laser because traditional cataract surgery is already safe and effective, with low infection rates, said Barrett Eubanks, a U.S.-trained ophthalmologist in Toronto.

He said he’s found that, compared with the older method, using the laser makes it easier to implant premium lenses or remove certain types of cataracts. That’s because the laser can make the exact cut it’s programmed to make, unlike the human hand.

Miller, the UCLA ophthalmologist, said the laser helps bring money to his practice as Medicare reimbursement continues to decline. “One of the problems with ophthalmology is everybody is scrambling to keep the lights on,” he said.

Miller said his practice has offered laser cataract surgery for several years. He compares the choice to buying a Toyota Camry or buying a Lexus. “Both will get you where you want to go, but one will get you there with a premium feel and leather seats,” he said.

He said his patients know they can choose the surgery without a laser. “We do not pressure anybody to do anything,” Miller said.

At his practice in an affluent part of Los Angeles, he said, 80% of patients opt for laser cataract surgery. “What you buy with a laser is precision and reproducibility, as every laser cut looks exactly the same,” he said. “It does not make vision better.”

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Connecting people with clinical trials is complicated — even if people identify a promising match, there’s a slew of potentially thorny factors, including geographic incompatibility, and financial and time considerations.

Simply finding an appropriate trial can present an enormous hurdle. In a recent online survey of more than 2,000 adults, 71% of patients with chronic conditions said they would be likely to participate in a clinical trial if given the chance. But two-thirds said that their healthcare provider had never discussed clinical trials with them. According to one study using data from 2020, just 9% of adults reported ever being invited to participate in a clinical trial.

Clinical trials are essential to the development of new and effective medical treatments. But gathering the real-world human data necessary to win Food and Drug Administration approval for drugs, devices, and other interventions can be an arduous task. By one estimate, up to 86% of clinical trials don’t meet their recruitment targets during the trial time frame.

Getting people signed up isn’t the only challenge.

“Recruitment is one thing — retention is another,” said Alan Balch, executive board chair at the Patient Advocate Foundation, which has a clinical trial search tool and maintains extensive educational materials online. “Every touchpoint is an opportunity for access and affordability to be a problem.”

The need to improve patient participation in clinical trials is not a new concern, but it’s attracting new interest.

In June, the Department of Health and Human Services announced an effort to streamline and enhance clinical research in the United States. It included a public request for information about whether to modify federal rules that currently deter some trial sponsors from paying clinical trial participants for expenses such as travel and lodging.

In July, a group of nearly 200 patient advocacy and public health groups sent a letter to the Senate sponsors of the Clinical Trial Modernization Act, urging its passage. The bill would allow trial sponsors to cover trial participants’ medical costs, such as insurance deductibles and copays, and nonmedical expenses like travel and childcare. It would also exclude up to $2,000 in financial support for clinical trial participation from federal taxes, so people wouldn’t risk losing their eligibility for Medicaid or other income-based programs if they signed on.

While these efforts to improve clinical trials and patient participation are ongoing, here are answers to some questions about how the system works now and what patients can do if they want to take part.

Why Be a Guinea Pig? Understand the Facts

In some trials, some participants are given a new drug or therapy that’s being investigated while others receive a placebo with no physical effect.

But there are many types of clinical trials. Some test different drug combinations, for example. They can test medical devices, preventive measures such as vaccines, or lifestyle changes. Others test ways to screen for or diagnose medical conditions.

For people with very serious illnesses, a clinical trial may offer the best hope for extending their life or improving their quality of life.

“Cancer is often a fatal disease, and clinical trials offer an opportunity to try something that may or may not be better,” said Mark Fleury, the policy principal for emerging science at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. “If you know the existing standard of care has an average survival of eight months, you want something with a better opportunity.”

In addition, even if patients don’t receive the therapy being tested in the clinical trial, they are monitored closely throughout and receive the gold standard of care, which they might not receive elsewhere, patient advocates said.

Some people decide to participate in trials to aid in advancing science.

Jim Taylor’s wife, Geri, died of Alzheimer’s disease two years ago, more than a decade after her diagnosis in 2012. The couple became advocates for people with the disease, and Taylor is continuing that effort. He’s currently participating in three observational Alzheimer’s trials that are employing cognitive tests and scans to track how his brain is changing compared with the brains of people who’ve been diagnosed with the disease.

“The reason I’ve done it is so I can explain to people, with some authenticness and experience, what a trial is like,” he said.

Finding a Clinical Trial

Despite widespread interest in clinical trial participation, most patients don’t know how to find one.

They can’t necessarily count on their doctors for help. According to an online survey of just over 500 primary care physicians in March, sponsored by the Patient Advocate Foundation, even though 86% of respondents said they were somewhat or very likely to refer their patients to a trial, only 37% had ever done so. When doctors did discuss clinical trials with their patients, it was usually because they had asked about them (67%), they weren’t responding to standard treatment (65%), or their disease was progressing (55%).

But for time-strapped doctors, identifying clinical trials for which patients might be eligible isn’t a simple task. A community oncologist, for example, would typically have to conduct a search using one of the available clinical trial search engines (clinicaltrials.gov is the most comprehensive), type in all the patient’s characteristics, look at the trials that might be appropriate, and call the site to ask whether the trial is still open, Fleury said.

“And if they’re successful, what happens? They lose their patient,” he said.

Patients may have an even tougher time searching for trials on their own. Some patient advocacy groups have in-person or online navigators that can help people identify trials they might be eligible for.

The American Cancer Society has a clinical trial matching service, for example. Organizations such as the Arthritis Foundation and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society have information about disease-specific trials on their websites.

If a hospital or health facility is part of a clinical trial, patients there are often best positioned to enroll. Patients can ask their doctor or the facility for more information.

“Most recruitment for a trial happens at the site where the trial is happening,” Balch said.

There’s a Trial, but You Can’t Enroll

Much of the clinical research in the U.S. is conducted at large, often urban, academic medical centers. It can be tough for patients to enroll in a trial at a site unless they live nearby or are already being treated there, according to clinical trial experts.

To participate in a trial, people generally have to meet periodically with the researchers conducting it. They may also need to get regular blood draws or imaging, or to answer questionnaires to monitor their progress.

“The number one barrier keeping patients out of trials is a lack of onsite clinical trials,” Fleury said.

A 2019 study that examined 8,893 cancer patients’ participation in clinical trials found that more than half (55.6%) didn’t have an available trial for their type and stage of cancer at the medical facility where they were being treated. An additional 21.5% didn’t meet the eligibility criteria for an available trial.

If a patient identifies a clinical trial at a viable location and wants to be considered, the patient should contact the trial recruiters directly and ask them, Balch said.

“That’s just the beginning,” he said. Patients also need to find out whether they meet a trial’s eligibility requirements and whether it’s covered by insurance, and to consider how they’re going to pay for any medical or nonmedical costs.

Recently there’s been a lot of interest in decentralized access to clinical trials, so patients could do at least some of the trial tasks at home or at their local cancer center, for example.

“It’s not common yet,” Balch said. But if decentralization grows, he said, it will open up the opportunity to more patients — and more representative groups of patients.

There’s a Trial, but You Can’t Afford It

If someone participates in a clinical trial, the trial sponsor picks up the tab for costs stemming directly from the trial, including the drug or device being investigated.

In addition, under the Affordable Care Act, most commercial health plans are required to cover routine patient costs associated with participating in a clinical trial.

But that doesn’t mean members won’t owe anything. They are generally still responsible for any deductibles, copays, or coinsurance amounts for the routine care that they receive during a clinical trial. And the ACA doesn’t require plans to have out-of-network benefits. That means if a clinical trial is sponsored by a provider that is out of someone’s provider network, the plan might not cover those costs.

Medicare and Medicaid have similar requirements for coverage of routine clinical trial costs.

For some patients, incidental expenses can put participation in a clinical trial out of financial reach. Participants may face costs for travel to the trial site, parking, lodging, childcare, or taking time off work.

“There shouldn’t be an added set of concerns and disincentives around costs and financial toxicity,” said Wendy Selig, the founder and CEO of WSCollaborative, a healthcare consultancy. Selig is also the project lead for Equitable Access to Clinical Trials, which aims to eliminate incidental costs for patients in trials.

Some trial sponsors pay for incidental expenses but might not make that clear up front to patients who are considering participating.

Patients should take the initiative and ask, Selig said. “There may in fact be help, and you should take advantage of it if it’s available.”

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services added new peer support programs to the Title-IV Prevention Services Clearinghouse

Media round-up related to HHS food policy reforms to advance President Trump’s MAHA agenda.

It had been a rough few months. Cynthia Tompkins was hospitalized in May for osteomyelitis — a bone infection — then spent six weeks in a rehabilitation facility. “It was a struggle,” she said. “I didn’t bounce back too well.”

Tompkins returned to her home in San Diego, but she was still taking antibiotics, along with a host of other drugs for diabetes, pain, and blood clots. The deaths of her husband the previous year and her closest friend more recently had sapped her spirits.

In early July, a new symptom appeared: violent vomiting three times within about 24 hours. “I was so depleted,” she said. “I got weaker and weaker.” A friend who was visiting her called an ambulance.

“It’s the last place you think you want to go, the ER,” said Tompkins, 75, a retired teacher and family program director. She anticipated spending hours on an uncomfortable stretcher in a chilly hallway. Arriving at the emergency department at UC San Diego Health in La Jolla early in the morning, “I was in a knot,” she said.

But the place upended Tompkins’ expectations. Since 2022, this and every other adult ER in San Diego has been accredited as a geriatric emergency department, redesigned to address the specific risks and needs of older patients. It’s an approach, recent studies show, that can reduce hospital admissions and deaths among older adults and lower costs.

“They took me right to a room,” Tompkins said. She was transferred to a gurney with a thicker mattress to prevent bedsores and given blankets. “I got an IV right away because I needed fluids,” she said.

She was pleased that the small, curtained room, with sound-absorbing walls to lower the cacophony of emergency care, had a cushioned chair for her friend, who would stay with her, and a window looking out on trees.

The window served a medical purpose, too. Patients “can see whether it’s day or night,” said Denise Valenzuela, the geriatric emergency nurse assigned to Tompkins. “It prevents delirium,” the sudden change in mental status that can arise in hospitalized older patients and increase dementia risk.

Before long, “I just felt a calmness,” Tompkins said. “I felt, I’m where I need to be right now.”

Since 2017, the American College of Emergency Physicians has accredited 624 such geriatric emergency departments across the United States, including 73 in Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. “A fairly exponential rate of growth,” said Kevin Biese, the emergency doctor who directs the Geriatric Emergency Department Collaborative.

Few of these units are restricted to older patients. Instead, like the ER in La Jolla, they serve all ages but incorporate senior-friendly practices and protocols in an environment aimed at staving off disorientation, falls, and other elder hazards. They’re classified from Level 1, for those fulfilling the highest number of criteria, to Level 3.

Adults 75 and older visit the emergency room at a higher rate than any other age group except infants: 76 visits per 100 people in 2022. Yet standard emergency care “wasn’t correctly designed for the needs of older adults,” Biese said.

The mission of a traditional ER is to speedily identify the central problem and either fix it or admit the patient to the hospital for ongoing care. “We ask, ‘What’s your chief complaint?’” Biese said. “You fell down the stairs and broke your leg.”

Older patients rarely arrive with a single ailment, however. Like Tompkins, most contend with several chronic conditions, take multiple prescriptions, and need a variety of tests and assessments. Trained geriatric emergency teams focus not only on the broken leg but on determining what caused the fall, and how to prevent another one.

“An emergency department doesn’t routinely screen for delirium” and cognitive impairment, said Ula Hwang, an emergency doctor and researcher at NYU Langone Health. “But it’s one of the first things geriatric emergency departments will do,” along with a careful review of all the patient’s medications.

Geriatric ERs also try to counter sensory impairment, another contributor to delirium, by distributing reading glasses and sound-amplifying devices. They dim glaring lights and offer eye masks and earplugs to promote sleep. If Tompkins had forgotten her walker, the unit would have lent her one.

These ERs also aim to address a rising concern in emergency departments: hours or even days spent “boarding,” when admitted patients wait for open beds before they can leave the ER.

“Prolonged boarding has increased among older adults,” said Cameron Gettel, an emergency doctor and researcher at the Yale School of Medicine, referring to waits that last over three hours. He is a co-author of a study on the topic published in Health Affairs Scholar.

Spending more time boarding isn’t merely uncomfortable or inconvenient. Researchers studied patients 75 and older in emergency departments across France. They found that those kept there overnight before moving to an inpatient ward had a higher in-hospital mortality rate (15.7%) than those admitted to a ward before midnight (11.1%). Overnight boarding was associated with more falls and infections, too.

What geriatric emergency staffers prefer, however, is to help patients avoid hospitalization altogether. “Admission may not be the best thing for an older adult,” Hwang said. “It might be the worst.”

Hospital patients, she said, are exposed to infections, staff errors, and the rapid deconditioning that accompanies days spent in bed. All pose a greater threat to older patients.

Previous studies have found reduced admissions from geriatric emergency departments, but most of those studies involved one or two hospitals. Now, Hwang and her team have used nationwide data from the federal “Health and Retirement Study” and Medicare claims for nearly 4,600 adults age 65 or up, comparing those treated in geriatric emergency departments with a matched group seen in standard ERs.

The differences were stark: Patients in the geriatric units had a 39% lower likelihood of hospital admission and a 38% reduction in mortality over 30 days. The geriatric ERs also saved Medicare up to about $3,000 a visit, according to an earlier study Hwang led.

So having more than 600 accredited geriatric emergency departments nationwide represents both great strides and — in a country with more than 5,000 emergency departments — missed opportunities, Biese said.

“I’d encourage people to ask why their hospitals don’t have an accredited GED,” he added, referring to a geriatric emergency department. “We should demand that.”

In La Jolla, Tompkins began feeling stronger. The intravenous fluids supplied anti-nausea medication and corrected the electrolyte abnormalities that her lab work revealed. She was able to sip water and juice and eat a few graham crackers.

A battery of other screens and scans found no serious concerns. After completing a geriatric assessment, Valenzuela, the nurse, suspected Tompkins hadn’t been eating well and was taking medications on a mostly empty stomach.

By about 6 p.m., Tompkins and her doctor agreed she could return home. She left the hospital with numbers to call for further help, and several staff members checked in by phone to see how she was doing.

Better, was her answer. “They took care of the whole me and put me on the right track,” Tompkins said. “I’m progressing. It’s slow, but I’m OK.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with The New York Times.

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

HHS launched the Systems for Tracking and Resilience in Efficient Agricultural-input Management program

HHS announced $96.7 million in grants and cooperative agreements to strengthen behavioral health services.

HHS announced the latest action to advance a major shift in the federal government’s approach to homelessness.

SAN FRANCISCO — At a Walgreens in this city’s bustling Japantown neighborhood, pharmacist Margaret On stocks two boxes of long-acting insulin pens from California’s new prescription drug label, CalRx, emblazoned with the state’s iconic grizzly bear.

Although she hasn’t dispensed any, On plans to keep them on hand. “It’s good to have if a patient comes in and doesn’t have health insurance,” she said. “Or just in case of emergencies.”

Seven months after the launch of its own low-cost insulin brand, state health officials said California has distributed more than 120,000 five-pen packs of insulin glargine priced at $55 each, significantly less than the $89 to $411 that the state says most popular brand names charge before any retail markups or consumer discounts.

While it represents a tiny amount of the state’s insulin pipeline, it marks the first time a state is competing against the three biggest insulin drugmakers — Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk — under its own prescription drug label. CalRx, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s experimental initiative, has dual aims: to act as an emergency supplier for people who are uninsured or can’t afford their prescriptions, and to disrupt the nation’s deep-pocketed pharmaceutical industry, which cost the U.S. $467 billion in 2024, the federal government reported in June.

Newsom, a Democrat considering a presidential run in 2028, is expected to make healthcare a central pillar of his national platform as he concludes his second and final term as governor. To create the state brand of generic drugs, California inked a $50 million contract with Civica, a Utah-based nonprofit drugmaker, to develop the CalRx insulin, known as a biosimilar. Though major distributors make the drug available in pharmacies around the state, uptake has been limited.

Newsom’s goal is to saturate the insulin market and offer generic versions of drugs either high in cost or low in supply, or that can improve public health. The state is also distributing free naloxone, used in a nasal spray to reverse opioid overdoses, and trying to bring albuterol inhalers to public schools for students with asthma emergencies. In the next two years, the state plans to launch epinephrine injectables, commonly known by the brand name EpiPen, which are used to treat severe allergic reactions, as well as a state-branded medication to treat tuberculosis.

Before he leaves office in January, Newsom said, he wants to add generic GLP-1 medications to compete with brand-name drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy. The drugs have exploded in popularity, but employers have raised concerns about their cost.

Taking on drug costs is a winning political issue for both Democrats and Republicans, who have for years tried to rein in soaring healthcare spending as Americans feel the pinch of high prices at pharmacy counters, in doctors’ offices, and from health insurance premiums. The U.S. spends roughly twice as much per capita on prescription drugs as other industrialized countries. Six in 10 adults in the U.S. say they’re worried about being able to afford their prescription drug costs, according to a poll last winter by KFF, and 4 in 10 say they’ve tried to save money such as by skipping doses and not filling prescriptions.

In February, President Donald Trump launched TrumpRx to potentially lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers. But TrumpRx doesn’t produce drugs; rather, it directs consumers to find more affordable medications with coupons or on drugmakers’ websites. Newsom, in contrast, is trying to drive down the underlying price of medicines by increasing the manufacturing and availability of generic drugs.

While some people with diabetes may benefit from CalRx insulin, California’s generic drug effort is largely symbolic at this time, said Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the Schaeffer Center at the University of Southern California. “There is some value, but it’s for a very limited number of drugs for just a fraction of the population,” Joyce said.

And TrumpRx isn’t helping at a large scale either, Joyce added, because many medications it advertises have cheaper generic versions available elsewhere. It would be better, he said, to develop large-scale initiatives that tackle key drivers of the high cost of drugs, for rare cancers for instance, and produce safer and higher-quality medicines.

“What you really need is a national effort that focuses on vulnerabilities like supply shortages and increasing the supply of generic products for higher-priced drugs,” Joyce said.

Market Disruptor

CalRx aims to make insulin more affordable and accessible for the nearly 3.7 million California adults diagnosed with diabetes. Newsom last year singled out the three major drugmakers that control more than 90% of the global insulin market, while also targeting intermediaries known as pharmacy benefit managers for promoting higher-priced drugs over cheaper generic alternatives.

Patients with health insurance often receive discounts at the pharmacy counter and do not pay sticker prices, yet those discount programs can be hard to navigate and patients can face restrictions. While drugmakers and pharmacy benefit managers said they’ve already initiated $35-a-month caps on out-of-pocket costs and pass price discounts on to consumers, Newsom argues that consumers still struggle to afford their medications.

He has criticized pharmaceutical companies for gouging Californians and contended that the industry’s discounting schemes don’t adequately address inflated prescription drug spending, which in the U.S. rose 7.9% in the most recent reporting year.

In his announcement last year that CalRx insulin would go on sale in January 2026, Newsom said the industry had been using discounts to distract consumers from solutions that could bring overall prices own. “One of the things that all of us should be increasingly concerned about is announcements around caps, announcements around discounts,” he said.

In January, California joined dozens of other states in setting insulin price caps. It also passed a law attempting to ban price inflation practices by pharmacy benefit managers.

Representatives for drug companies and pharmacy benefit managers said insulin is largely an affordable medicine in the U.S., arguing that consumers have benefited from discounts.

“While insulin prices, set solely by pharma companies, may be high in some instances, the amount patients are paying out of pocket has declined significantly,” said Christine Rex, senior director of state public affairs for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which represents pharmacy benefit managers.

Reid Porter, a spokesperson for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents brand-name drugmakers, said PBMs have driven up costs for consumers by excluding lower-cost medicines from their lists of covered drugs. “Too often, patients face a system in which insurers and PBMs exclude coverage of those medicines on formularies because of supply-chain incentives,” he said.

Where To Find CalRx Insulin

CalRx insulin has been slow to reach pharmacies around the state, and in interviews, patient advocates said many people with diabetes aren’t aware it’s an option.

In Sacramento, pharmacist Sharon Ngo, who works at a Safeway pharmacy, was surprised to learn that California had a long-acting insulin product on the market. She didn’t know that CalRx insulin was interchangeable with Lantus, which was on back order for roughly two weeks.

“I had no idea this was available,” she said as she took notes on a pad of paper. “We’re going to give this a try.”

CalRx insulin has a suggested retail price of $55 a pack and is available with or without insurance. California has inked deals with four health insurers to cover CalRx insulin on their health plan formularies, potentially making it cheaper, depending on copays. They include Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California, the Valley Health Plan for Santa Clara County employees, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, according to the state Department of Health Care Access and Information.

Pharmacist Margaret On keeps two boxes of California’s new generic insulin product under the CalRx brand on hand in case of emergencies. (Angela Hart/KFF Health News)

Elizabeth Landsberg, the department’s director, said the state is working to get more insurers to cover CalRx insulin and to provide it at more pharmacies. The state doesn’t know how many boxes have been dispensed. However, Landsberg said it was more meaningful that the state had reached agreements with three major pharmaceutical wholesalers to distribute its product in California. Currently, CalRx insulin is available on Amazon and at Costco, as well as at some retail and grocery store pharmacies including CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart.

“What we’re really trying to do is change market behavior and offer both affordable and transparent pricing,” Landsberg said. “The rebates and discounts are hard for consumers to understand and can change at any time, so we are trying to be straightforward and say, ‘Let’s not play this shell game anymore.’”

Allan Coukell, chief government affairs and public policy officer at Civica, said the company first partnered with the state on long-acting insulin that helps patients keep blood sugar steady for 24 hours or more. Next, it plans to help California develop rapid-acting insulin, which is used to pull elevated glucose down within minutes, to compete with brand names such as Humalog and NovoLog.

Health insurance companies welcomed the state’s efforts, in part because they could help save money they pay out on prescriptions.

“Making this drug available is really about helping people improve their health,” said Paul Markovich, CEO of Blue Shield of California’s parent company. “And the more supply we can get on the market, the more we can get rid of the profit motives in the pharmaceutical industry.”

One July afternoon in the Southern California city of Corona, Chris Noble went to a CVS pharmacy to get a box of CalRx insulin. The pharmacist didn’t have any on hand, but Noble, a healthcare organizer with Type 1 diabetes, was told he could get a prescription filled in 24 hours.

“I have insurance, but I see myself using this if I’m traveling and something happens like my insulin pump malfunctions,” he said. “Now I know I can go to a CVS and get insulin within a day.”

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.