NOTE: On Friday, hours after KFF Health News reported that the National Education Association had threatened to cut off striking workers’ health benefits, the union reversed course and said it would continue providing coverage. This story has been updated to reflect that decision.

The National Education Association, the nation’s largest union, reversed course Friday on its threat to cut off health insurance to about 300 Washington, D.C.-based workers in an effort to end a bitter contract dispute.

“The NEA is not discontinuing its unionized staff’s health insurance and will continue to pay insurance premiums as we bargain a new contract,” Kim Anderson, NEA’s executive director, said in a statement to KFF Health News. “Both parties have mutually agreed to mediation and we are making every effort to reach an agreement as quickly as possible.”

The NEA’s decision came just hours after KFF Health News reported on the union’s warning that it would cancel health benefits on Aug. 1 for striking workers, including some with ongoing medical issues. Reached Friday, officials at the NEA staff union could not immediately confirm whether they had been notified by the NEA.

Some private employers have used the threat of cutting off health benefits as leverage against unionized workers, a tactic that has drawn scrutiny from congressional Democrats and is prohibited for state employers in California. Experts on labor law say they’ve never seen a union make the move against its own workers.

“This is like a man-bites-dog situation where the union is now in a position as the employer,” said Paul Clark, a professor of labor and employment relations at Penn State University. “It’s not a good look for a union.”

NEA workers with pressing health needs were worried but said they wouldn’t fold. Joye Mercer Barksdale, a writer on the NEA’s government relations team, said she needs coverage for a medical procedure to address atrial fibrillation, a cardiac disorder. “This is insane for the NEA to use our health benefits as a bargaining chip,” she said.

But Barksdale had said she was “not ready to give in.” Reached Friday morning, she said she was thrilled by the reversal: “Oh my God, I am so thankful.”

The NEA Staff Organization, the union representing workers at the NEA’s headquarters, launched a strike on July 5 in Philadelphia, during the union’s annual delegate assembly. It was its second walkout this summer as the two parties negotiate a new contract, navigating sticking points such as wages and remote work.

In response, the NEA ended the conference early. President Joe Biden was supposed to speak at the event but withdrew, refusing to cross the picket line. The NEA on July 24 endorsed Kamala Harris for president.

On July 8, the day after the conference had been scheduled to end, the NEA locked out workers. In a letter the day before, the NEA informed its unionized workers that they would not be paid, effective immediately, and their health benefits would expire at the end of July unless a new deal were reached.

“NEA cannot allow NEASO to act again in a way that will bring such lasting harm to our members and our organization,” Anderson, the NEA’s executive director, wrote in the letter, obtained by KFF Health News. “We are, and have always been, committed both to our union values and to the importance of conducting ourselves as a model employer.”

Democrats in Congress, including Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, introduced legislation last year to protect striking workers from losing their health benefits, after several large companies, including General Motors, John Deere, RTX (formerly Raytheon Technologies), and the maker of Kellogg’s cereals, threatened to or did cut off coverage during labor disputes.

“Workers shouldn’t have to choose between their family’s health and a fair contract,” Brown said in a statement to KFF Health News.

The legislation was endorsed by large labor unions including the Service Employees International Union and United Steelworkers, according to a press release from Brown’s office. The NEA wasn’t among them.

“This tactic is immoral, and it should be illegal,” United Steelworkers’ president at the time, Thomas Conway, said in the release.

Officials at the NEA, which represents teachers and other administrators, declined an interview request. In a statement Wednesday, the organization’s president, Becky Pringle, said “we are making every effort to reach an agreement as quickly as possible” with its staff union.

“As union leaders who have been on strike, we recognize the significance and impact of these important decisions on a personal and family level. We truly value our employees and look forward to continued collaboration with NEASO to develop a new contract that benefits us all,” she said.

Kate Hilts, a digital strategist who works for the NEA, said she feared losing her coverage would leave her unable to afford treatment for a rare autoimmune disease that attacks her kidneys. Her next treatment was slated for August.

“I wake up every day and can’t believe this is happening,” she said. “You would expect this from an employer that is antiworker or has a terrible labor record, but I am totally flabbergasted that a labor union would do this that bills itself as pro-worker, pro-family, pro-education, and pro-children.”

The NEA staff union has filed multiple charges with the National Labor Relations Board this year, including allegations that the NEA withheld holiday overtime pay and failed to provide information on the outsourcing of millions of dollars in bargaining unit work.

California is one of the only states that protect striking workers from losing health coverage. The state legislature passed a law in 2021 that blocks the tactic from being used against public employees and another law in 2022 that allows any striking workers who lose their insurance to immediately get heavily discounted coverage through the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace.

If they had remained locked out, the NEA workers would have been eligible for coverage under COBRA, a federal program that allows people who are fired or laid off to maintain their employer-sponsored insurance for 18 months.

But the coverage can be a financial hardship, as individuals often must pay the entire cost of their insurance premiums, plus a 2% administrative fee.

Another option for workers would have been coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, though that also can be costly. And it may have been unclear how soon that coverage would begin or whether insurers would cover their existing doctors.

“I’m hoping the NEA will be so ashamed of what they are doing that, at the very least, they will not take away our health benefits,” Barksdale said before the NEA’s decision.

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).

Health insurance agents who fraudulently enroll consumers in Affordable Care Act health plans could be subject to criminal charges — and civil penalties of $10,000 to $200,000 — under legislation introduced Wednesday by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

Wyden first promised the bill in May, when he called on federal regulators to do more to combat sketchy Obamacare enrollment schemes. Often, consumers who are targeted don’t know they’ve been enrolled or that their coverage has been switched to a new plan until they lose access to preferred doctors, learn they have different deductibles, or find they owe taxes for ACA insurance premium subsidies.

The schemes exploit the federal health insurance enrollment system, which requires only minimal proof of identity — a name, birth date, and state — for a broker to create or access an account. The lure is monthly commissions paid by insurance companies — amounts that are only about $25 per person but can add up when multiplied across transactions.

“It is critical for these bad actors to be held criminally responsible and implement common sense consumer protections so working families can confidently purchase quality, affordable health insurance that works for them through honest brokers,” Wyden said in a statement.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said July 19 that more than 200,000 people have complained about unauthorized Obamacare enrollment or plan switches this year.

KFF Health News began reporting on Affordable Care Act enrollment schemes this spring.

CMS’ directive last week also detailed new rules aimed at thwarting the problem by blocking agents from making changes to consumers’ coverage unless they are already “associated” with that policyholder’s account, or take other steps to verify that they have consumers’ permission.

Wyden’s proposal, co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Patty Murray of Washington, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, would call on federal regulators to begin verifying that consumers have granted consent to brokers for ACA enrollment or plan switches, and to notify consumers whenever a change is made to their accounts or coverage.

The civil penalties would range from at least $10,000, in cases of straightforward negligence, to as much as $200,000 for agents who “knowingly and willfully” submit fraudulent information.

Wyden’s bill faces a seemingly impossible climb, landing in a very polarized Senate during an election year.

But next year, the ACA will be in the spotlight as Congress must decide whether to extend beyond 2025 enhanced subsidies that help people purchase coverage. Increased subsidies were instituted under the Biden administration at the height of the pandemic and are considered a key factor behind recent record ACA enrollment.

Some Republican lawmakers have demanded investigations of ACA enrollment-switching schemes, which they allege may be part of a larger problem of brokers or consumers misstating their incomes to garner insurance subsidies. Obamacare supporters say the complaint is a partisan effort to stop the enhanced subsidies from becoming permanent.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter July 8 to CMS questioning how federal regulators verify incomes for those who get subsidies and what enforcement efforts are underway related to potential ACA subsidy fraud.

Wyden’s office said his proposal is supported by some insurers and agent groups, including AHIP, the trade association for insurance companies; individual insurers like Centene Corp.; and several disease-specific patient advocacy groups, including the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

Health Agents for America, a group that has sought solutions to the issue, supports criminal charges for agents found to be falsely enrolling or switching consumers but stopped short of endorsing Wyden’s bill. Ronnell Nolan, its president and CEO, said her organization would like to see more effort “to hold CMS responsible” for allowing what she views as security loopholes in private sector enrollment websites, and in enforcement actions against bad actors.

“The bottom line is to stop fraud and help the consumer,” she said.

In a July 19 letter to Wyden’s office, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure outlined steps the agency has taken to increase “oversight of agents and brokers to protect consumers” — including suspending 200 agents in recent weeks from enrolling clients in Obamacare plans.

“The numbers being addressed are very low,” said Nolan, who suspects it isn’t just individual rogue agents seeking commissions by changing ACA enrollments, but a larger effort using automation to rapidly enroll or switch consumer policies.

Nolan and other agents say federal regulators should simply require private Obamacare enrollment sites to add layers of security before agents can access consumer accounts.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia run their own ACA marketplaces and require additional security measures, including two-factor authentication, before consumer accounts can be accessed. Two-factor authentication, a common internet security feature, requires people to enter a code — usually sent to their phones — before accessing accounts at banks, social media platforms, and many other services.

The state-run enrollment sites report far fewer problems than the federal marketplace, Nolan and others say. If CMS simply added two-factor authentication to healthcare.gov, Nolan said, “all these other shenanigans would not happen.”

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).

A lo largo de su presidencia, Joe Biden se apoyó en Kamala Harris, la ex fiscal y senadora frontal que eligió como vicepresidenta, para ser la voz de apoyo inquebrantable de la Casa Blanca en favor de los derechos de salud reproductiva.

Ahora, mientras los demócratas reconstruyen su candidatura presidencial a pocos meses de las elecciones, se esperaría que, de ser la nueva nominada, Harris adoptase una postura agresiva en apoyo al acceso al aborto, atacando al ex presidente Donald Trump en un tema que podría socavar sus posibilidades de victoria.

Biden respaldó a Harris el domingo 21 de julio cuando anunció su decisión de retirarse de la contienda.

Aunque Biden buscaba mantener el aborto como tema central de su campaña de reelección, defensores seguían teniendo dudas de que el presidente, un católico practicante que ha dicho que no es “muy partidario del aborto”, pudiera ser un abanderado efectivo. Especialmente mientras los esfuerzos republicanos erosionan el acceso al aborto y otros servicios de salud para mujeres en todo el país.

Por otro lado, Harris se convirtió en la primera vicepresidenta en visitar una clínica operada por Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Emprendió una gira nacional centrada en los derechos reproductivos. Y cuando el senador JD Vance de Ohio fue nombrado compañero de fórmula de Trump, Harris utilizó su siguiente mitín de campaña para criticarlo por bloquear protecciones para la fertilización in vitro.

“Lo más significativo es que Harris sería el rostro del impulso para proteger el derecho al aborto”, dijo Larry Levitt, vicepresidente ejecutivo de políticas de salud en KFF, organización sin fines de lucro de información de salud de la que KFF Health News es parte, en una entrevista antes de que Biden se retirara. “El acceso al aborto probablemente sería el tema central en su campaña”.

Una postura firme sobre el aborto no es el único gran contraste con el Partido Republicano (GOP) que ofrece Harris: tiene un gran conocimiento en política de salud. De niña, a menudo acompañaba a su madre al laboratorio donde trabajaba los fines de semana, como investigadora del cáncer de mama.

Durante su campaña presidencial en 2019, apoyó el “Medicare para Todos”, una propuesta de seguro de pagador único, que estableció sus credenciales como una voz más progresista en políticas de salud. Y como fiscal general de California, luchó contra la consolidación en la industria de la salud debido a la preocupación de que esto aumentaría los precios.

En abril, defendió una norma de la administración Biden que establece niveles mínimos de personal en los hogares de adultos mayores financiados con fondos federales.

“Se merece crédito, ha hablado de estos temas en la campaña. No veo ningún cambio en las prioridades sobre lo que los demócratas quieren hacer en salud si ella se convierte en la nominada”, dijo Debbie Curtis, vicepresidenta de McDermott + Consulting.

Un enfoque intensificado en la salud de la mujer y el aborto podría ayudar a consolidar a los votantes demócratas en la recta final hacia las elecciones.

Desde que en 2022 los tres jueces de la Corte Suprema nombrados por Trump ayudaron a derogar Roe vs. Wade, la opinión pública se ha vuelto en contra de los republicanos en el tema del aborto, incluso contribuyendo a un resultado inesperadamente pobre en las elecciones intermedias de ese año.

El 32% de los votantes dijeron que solo votarían por un candidato para un cargo importante que compartiera sus opiniones sobre el aborto, según una encuesta de Gallup realizada en mayo. Ese es un récord alto desde que Gallup hizo la pregunta por primera vez en 1992. Casi el doble de votantes que apoyan el aborto, en comparación con aquellos que se oponen al aborto, tienen esa opinión.

El 63% de los adultos dijeron que el aborto debería ser legal en todos o en la mayoría de los casos, según una encuesta realizada en abril por el Pew Research Center. El 36% dijo que debería ser ilegal en todos o en la mayoría de los casos.

Mientras tanto, los republicanos han estado ansiosos por distanciarse de su propia victoria en este tema. Trump enfureció a algunos miembros de su base al decir que dejaría las decisiones sobre el aborto a los estados.

Sin embargo, defensores advierten que la nueva moderación por omisión del GOP en el tema enmascara su postura real, más extrema. Vance ha sido claro en el pasado sobre su apoyo a una prohibición nacional del aborto.

Y aunque la plataforma del GOP adoptada durante la convención del partido hace pocos días puede no pedir explícitamente una prohibición nacional del aborto, el reconocimiento de los líderes del partido de la “personalidad fetal”, la idea de que tan pronto como se fertiliza un óvulo se convierte en una persona con todos los derechos legales, crearía una prohibición automáticamente si la Corte Suprema la encontrara constitucional.

Esas opiniones contrastan con las de muchos republicanos, especialmente mujeres. Alrededor de la mitad de las votantes republicanas creen que el aborto debería ser legal en todos o en la mayoría de los casos, según una encuesta nacional reciente de KFF.

Y la mayoría de las mujeres que votan por el Partido Republicano creen que el aborto debería ser legal en casos de violación, incesto o una emergencia durante el embarazo.

Si Harris encabeza la candidatura, se esperaría que enfatice esos temas en los próximos meses.

“Ha sido uno de los temas principales, si no el principal, que ha remarcado en el último año o dos”, dijo Matthew Baum, profesor Marvin Kalb de comunicaciones globales en la Universidad de Harvard. “Claramente, los republicanos están tratando de desactivar el tema. Ha sido un desastre para ellos”.

Es probable, sin embargo, que los republicanos presenten las opiniones de Harris sobre el aborto como extremistas. Durante el debate presidencial contra Biden, Trump afirmó falsamente que los demócratas apoyan los abortos tardíos en el embarazo, “incluso después del nacimiento”.

Poco después que se diera la noticia de que Biden había respaldado a Harris, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America emitió un comunicado criticando el historial de Harris y ofreciendo una muestra de lo que está por venir. “Mientras Joe Biden tiene problemas para decir la palabra aborto, Kamala Harris la grita”, dijo Marjorie Dannenfelser, presidenta del grupo.

Algunos encuestadores han dicho que Harris tendrá que hacer más que simplemente hacer campaña contra los esfuerzos republicanos para revertir el acceso al aborto para realmente motivar a los votantes: temas como la inflación, la economía y la inmigración, están compitiendo por atención.

“Tiene que decir que está luchando por una ley federal que restablezca Roe vs. Wade”, dijo Robert Blendon, profesor emérito de salud pública en la Universidad de Harvard. “Necesita algo muy específico y claro”.

La elevación de Harris a la cima de la candidatura llegaría en un momento crítico en la lucha por los derechos reproductivos.

La Corte Suprema escuchó dos casos de aborto en el término que acaba de finalizar. Pero los jueces no abordaron los méritos de los temas en ninguno de los casos, fallando en su lugar sobre cuestiones técnicas. Se espera que ambos regresen a la Corte Suprema tan pronto como el próximo año.

Harris también tendría una considerable libertad para hablar sobre lo que se considera los principales logros de la política de salud de la administración Biden.

Estos incluyen mejores subsidios en la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo precio (ACA) destinados a ayudar a los consumidores a obtener seguro de salud, que se extendieron, a través de la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación, hasta 2025, el límite mensual de $35 en copagos que algunos pacientes pagan por la insulina, y la negociación de precios de medicamentos en Medicare.

“Creo que está bien posicionada. Harris es parte central de la administración y podrá atribuirse el mérito de esas cosas”, dijo Dan Mendelson, CEO de Morgan Health, una subsidiaria de J.P. Morgan Chase.

Dicho esto, puede ser difícil para cualquier candidato lograr que los votantes se enfoquen en algunos de esos logros, especialmente en los esfuerzos relacionados con los precios de los medicamentos.

Aunque la administración ha tomado algunos pasos importantes, “nuevos medicamentos costosos siguen saliendo al mercado”, dijo Mendelson. “Así que si miras la percepción de los consumidores, no creen que el costo de los medicamentos esté bajando”.

Joseph Antos, del American Enterprise Institute, dijo que es probable que Harris diga que la administración Biden-Harris “ya le está ahorrando dinero a la gente” en insulina. Pero tendrá que ir más allá de estos logros y redoblar sus esfuerzos en los precios de los medicamentos y otros temas de costo, no hablar únicamente sobre derechos reproductivos.

“Tiene que concentrarse, si quiere ganar, en temas que tengan un amplio atractivo”, dijo Antos. “El costo es uno y el acceso a tratamientos es otro gran tema”.

Samantha Young de KFF Health News contribuyó con este informe.

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).

Throughout Joe Biden’s presidency, he leaned on the outspoken former prosecutor and senator he selected as his vice president, Kamala Harris, to be the White House’s voice of unflinching support for reproductive health rights.

Now, as Democrats rebuild their presidential ticket just a few months before Election Day, Harris would widely be expected to take an aggressive stance in support of abortion access if she became the party’s new presumptive nominee — hitting former President Donald Trump on an issue that could undermine his chances of victory. Biden endorsed Harris on Sunday when he announced his decision to leave the race.

While Biden sought to keep abortion center stage in his reelection bid, abortion advocates had harbored doubts that the president — a practicing Catholic who has said he is not “big on abortion” — could be an effective standard-bearer as Republican efforts erode access to abortion and other women’s health care around the country.

Harris, on the other hand, became the first vice president to visit a clinic run by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She undertook a nationwide tour focused on reproductive rights. And when Sen. JD Vance of Ohio was named Trump’s running mate, Harris used her next campaign appearance to criticize him for blocking protections for in vitro fertilization.

“Most significantly, Harris would be the face of the drive to protect abortion rights,” Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, said in an interview before Biden stepped aside. “Abortion access would likely be front and center in her campaign.”

A strong stance on abortion is not the only major contrast to the GOP that Harris offers: She is well versed in health policy. As a child, Harris often accompanied her mother to work on the weekends, visiting the lab where she was studying breast cancer.

While running for president in 2019, she backed “Medicare for All,” a single-payer insurance proposal that established her bona fides as a more progressive voice on health policy. And as California’s attorney general, she fought against consolidation in the health industry over concerns it would drive up prices. 

She stumped for a Biden administration rule setting minimum staffing levels at federally funded nursing homes in April.

“She deserves credit, she’s talked about them on the campaign trail. I don’t see any change there in the priorities on what Democrats want to do on health care if she becomes the nominee,” said Debbie Curtis, vice president at McDermott + Consulting. 

An intensified focus on women’s health and abortion could help galvanize Democratic voters in the final sprint to the election. Since the three Supreme Court justices named by Trump helped overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, public opinion has turned against Republicans on abortion, even contributing to an unexpectedly poor showing in the 2022 midterm elections.

Thirty-two percent of voters said they would vote only for a candidate for a major office who shares their views on abortion, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in May. That’s a record high since Gallup first asked the question in 1992. Nearly twice as many voters who support abortion, compared with those who oppose abortion, hold that view. 

Sixty-three percent of adults said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, based on a poll conducted in April by Pew Research Center. Thirty-six percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Republicans, in turn, have been eager to distance themselves from their own victory on the issue. Trump angered some members of his base by saying he would leave decisions on abortion to the states.

Regardless, advocates caution that the GOP’s new moderation-by-omission on the issue masks their actual, more extreme stance. Vance has been clear in the past about his support for a national abortion ban. And while the GOP platform adopted during the party’s convention last week may not explicitly call for a nationwide ban on abortion, party leaders’ recognition of “fetal personhood,” the idea that as soon as an egg is fertilized it becomes a person with full legal rights, would create such a ban automatically if the Supreme Court found it constitutional.

Those views stand in contrast to those of many Republicans, especially women. About half of Republican women voters think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a recent national survey by KFF. And majorities of women who vote Republican believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, or a pregnancy emergency.

If Harris heads the ticket, she would be expected to hammer on those issues in the coming months. 

“It’s been one of if not the main issue she’s emphasized in the last year or two,” said Matthew Baum, Marvin Kalb professor of global communications at Harvard University. “Clearly the Republicans are trying to defang the issue. It’s been a disaster for them.”

It is likely, though, that Republicans would paint Harris’ views on abortion as extremist. During the presidential debate against Biden, Trump falsely claimed Democrats support abortions late in pregnancy, “even after birth.”

Shortly after news broke that Biden had endorsed Harris, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America issued a statement calling out Harris’ record and offering evidence of what is to come. “While Joe Biden has trouble saying the word abortion, Kamala Harris shouts it,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president.

Some pollsters have said Harris would have to do more than just campaign against Republican efforts to roll back abortion access to truly motivate voters because so many issues, such as inflation, the economy, and immigration, are competing for attention.

“She has to say she is running for a federal law that will bring back Roe v. Wade,” said Robert Blendon, an emeritus public health professor at Harvard University. “She needs something very specific and clear.”

Harris’ elevation to the top of the ticket would come at a critical juncture in the fight over reproductive rights.

The Supreme Court heard two abortion cases in the term that ended this month. But the justices did not address the merits of the issues in either case, ruling instead on technicalities. Both are expected to return to the high court as soon as next year.

In one case, challenging the FDA’s 2000 approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, the justices ruled that the group of anti-abortion medical professionals who challenged the drug lacked standing to sue because they failed to show they were personally injured by its availability. 

But the Supreme Court returned the case to the district court in Texas where it was filed, and the GOP attorneys general of three states — Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri — have joined the case as plaintiffs. Whether the courts accept the states as viable challengers remains to be seen, but if they do, the justices could soon be asked again to determine the fate of the abortion pill.  

The other abortion-related case pitted a federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care against Idaho’s strict ban, which allows abortions when a pregnant patient’s life is in danger — but not in cases in which it is necessary to protect her health, including future fertility.

In that case, the justices apparently failed to reach any majority agreement, declaring instead that they were premature in accepting the case and sending it back to the lower court for further consideration. That case, too, could return in relatively short order.

Harris would also have substantial leeway to talk about what are considered to be the Biden administration’s core health policy accomplishments. These include enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits aimed at helping consumers get health insurance coverage, which were extended through the Inflation Reduction Act into 2025, the $35 monthly cap on copays some patients pay for insulin, and drug price negotiation in Medicare.

“I think she is well positioned. She is core to the administration and will be able to take credit for those things,” said Dan Mendelson, CEO of Morgan Health, a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Chase.

That said, it may be hard for any candidate to get voters to focus on some of those accomplishments, especially drug price efforts.

While the administration has taken some important steps, “new expensive drugs keep coming out,” Mendelson said. “So if you look at the perception of consumers, they do not believe the cost of drugs is going down.”

Joseph Antos, of the American Enterprise Institute, said Harris would likely say the Biden-Harris administration “is already saving people money” on insulin. But she will have to go beyond these accomplishments and double down on drug pricing and other cost issues — not talk solely about reproductive rights.

“She’s got to concentrate, if she wants to win, on issues that have a broad appeal,” Antos said. “Cost is one and access to treatments is another big issue.”

Samantha Young of KFF Health News contributed to this report.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Ni una palabra sobre el Obamacare o el aborto.

En la Convención Nacional Republicana en Milwaukee esta semana, donde los delegados nominaron oficialmente a Donald Trump como candidato presidencial del partido para 2024, los oradores principales le dieron poco lugar a los temas de atención médica.

Este silencio es sorprendente, dado que la atención médica constituye la mayor parte del presupuesto federal, casi $2 mil millones, así como el 17% de la producción económica del país.

También muestra un contraste marcado con las prioridades del Partido Republicano cuando nominó a Trump por primera vez.

En 2016, la última vez que los republicanos se reunieron en masa para una convención presidencial, derogar la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA) fue un tema favorito. También anular Roe vs. Wade y sus protecciones constitucionales para el aborto.

El cambio de tono refleja las sensibilidades políticas de Trump. En 2017, el intento fallido del ex presidente de derogar Obamacare contribuyó a una aplastante derrota del partido en las elecciones congresionales de medio término de 2018, y la ley ahora tiene un amplio apoyo.

El aborto también se ha convertido en un tema peligroso para los republicanos desde que Roe fuera anulado en 2022, con la mayoría de los estadounidenses oponiéndose a una prohibición nacional.

En una de las pocas piezas de política de salud en la plataforma del Partido Republicano para 2024, el ex presidente promete no recortar el Seguro Social ni Medicare, el programa de salud para estadounidenses mayores y que viven con discapacitados, ni cambiar la edad federal para jubilarse.

En su discurso de aceptación el jueves 18, Trump prometió proteger Medicare y encontrar curas para el Alzheimer y el cáncer. Pero no delineó ninguna propuesta de atención médica para un segundo mandato. “Los demócratas van a destruir el Seguro Social y Medicare”, dijo.

La atención médica no es un tema ganador para los republicanos, dijo Charles Coughlin, CEO de una firma de asuntos públicos de Phoenix que fue un órgano político republicano durante mucho tiempo antes de convertirse en independiente en 2017.

Los oradores en la convención se han centrado en cambios en la inflación, el crimen y la inmigración. “Tienen los datos de encuestas probados y verdaderos que muestran que, para ellos, esos son temas ganadores, y ahí es donde quieren mantener el foco narrativo”, dijo.

La inmigración se ha mezclado con algunos problemas de salud, incluida la crisis de opioides nacional y la cobertura de seguro público.

Algunos republicanos, incluida la representante por Georgia Marjorie Taylor Greene, quien se dirigió a la convención el 15 de julio, han afirmado que un aumento en las personas que cruzan la frontera sur ha causado más sobredosis de drogas y más muertes.

Sin embargo, la mayor parte del fentanilo incautado en la frontera con México entra por puertos de entrada legales, según el Instituto Cato, un grupo de expertos libertarios, y la mayoría de las personas sentenciadas en el país por tráfico de fentanilo son ciudadanos estadounidenses, según la Comisión de Sentencias de Estados Unidos.

Hablando el 17 de julio, la representante por Texas, Monica De La Cruz, afirmó que las políticas demócratas permiten que las personas que ingresan al país sin autorización reciban beneficios gubernamentales, aunque en gran medida no son elegibles para programas de salud federales.

De La Cruz también dijo que la administración Biden había recortado Medicare Advantage para los adultos mayores. Si bien la administración Biden este año recortó modestamente el gasto en planes privados, el gobierno federal aún gasta más dinero por beneficiario en Medicare Advantage que en los del programa tradicional de Medicare.

La escasez de oradores de la convención enfocados en la atención médica refleja la nueva plataforma del Partido Republicano, un documento que se ajusta estrechamente tanto al contenido como al tono de las opiniones de Trump.

Junto con su promesa de proteger Medicare, el documento de 28 páginas promete que los republicanos expandirán las opciones de atención médica para veteranos, así como el acceso a “nuevas opciones asequibles de atención médica y medicamentos recetados” de manera más amplia, sin dar más detalles.

Sobre el aborto, el partido eliminó de la plataforma su llamado de décadas a límites federales, incluyendo en cambio un lenguaje que sugiere que la Enmienda 14ª prohíbe el aborto. La plataforma también dice que el partido apoya elecciones a nivel estatal sobre la política de aborto y se opone al “Aborto tardío”.

Solo alrededor del 1% de los abortos en el país ocurren después de las 21 semanas de embarazo, según KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro de información sobre salud que incluye a KFF Health News.

En contraste, la plataforma de 2016 —un documento de 66 páginas— pedía convertir la financiación federal abierta de Medicaid en subvenciones en bloque e introducir un “modelo de apoyo premium” para Medicare para limitar el gasto. También pedía limitar los pagos de demandas por negligencia médica y combatir el abuso de drogas.

La palabra “aborto” aparece 32 veces en la plataforma de 2016, en comparación con una sola vez en el documento de 2024.

“El Partido Republicano está huyendo a toda velocidad de ese tema”, dijo Coughlin.

Durante la semana de la convención, apareció en internet el video de una llamada entre el candidato presidencial independiente Robert F. Kennedy Jr. y Trump. En el video, se escucha a Trump compartiendo afirmaciones refutadas sobre las vacunas infantiles, diciendo falsamente que las inyecciones pueden hacer que un bebé “cambie radicalmente” y descartando sus beneficios para la salud.

Como candidato, Kennedy ha hecho repetidamente afirmaciones falsas sobre la seguridad y eficacia de las vacunas. Trump le ha seguido la corriente durante mucho tiempo a los escépticos de las vacunas. Pero como presidente, en 2020, ordenó la creación del programa “Operación Warp Speed” que ayudó a impulsar el desarrollo de vacunas contra covid-19.

Desde el inicio de la pandemia, sin embargo, el escepticismo sobre las vacunas ha explotado en el Partido Republicano. Solo el 36% dicen tener confianza en que las vacunas contra covid son seguras, y el 44% de los republicanos e independientes inclinados hacia los republicanos dicen que los padres deberían poder decidir no vacunar a sus hijos contra el sarampión, las paperas y la rubéola “incluso si eso puede crear riesgos de salud para otros niños y adultos”, según encuestas de KFF.

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).

No talk of Obamacare. Or abortion.

At the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee this week, where delegates officially nominated Donald Trump as the party’s 2024 presidential candidate, health care issues received little attention from prime-time speakers.

The silence is surprising, given health care makes up the largest chunk of the federal budget, nearly $2 trillion, as well as 17% of U.S. economic output.

It also stands in stark contrast to the GOP’s priorities when it first nominated Trump.

In 2016, the last time Republicans gathered en masse for a presidential convention, repealing the Affordable Care Act was a favorite topic. So was overturning Roe v. Wade and its constitutional protections for abortion.

The change in tone reflects Trump’s political sensitivities. The failed attempt under the former president to repeal Obamacare in 2017 contributed to a crushing GOP defeat in the 2018 congressional elections, and the law now enjoys broad support. Abortion, too, has become a treacherous topic for Republicans since Roe was overturned in 2022, with most Americans opposed to a national ban.

In one of the only pieces of health policy in the GOP’s 2024 platform, the former president vows not to cut Social Security or Medicare, the health program for older and disabled Americans, or change the federal retirement age.

In his speech accepting the nomination Thursday night, Trump promised to protect Medicare and find cures for Alzheimer’s disease and cancer. But he did not outline any health care proposals for a second term. “Democrats are going to destroy Social Security and Medicare,” he said.

Health care isn’t a winning subject for Republicans, said Charles Coughlin, CEO of a Phoenix public affairs firm who was a longtime GOP political operative before he became an independent in 2017.

Speakers at the convention have instead focused on inflation, crime, and immigration. “They have the tried-and-true polling data to show those are winning issues for them, and that’s where they want to keep the narrative focused,” he said.

Immigration has bled into a few health issues, including the U.S. opioid crisis and public insurance coverage. Some Republicans — including Georgia U.S. House Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who addressed the convention on July 15 — have claimed an increase in people crossing the southern border has caused a surge of drug overdoses and deaths.

However, most fentanyl seized at the border with Mexico enters through legal ports of entry, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and most people sentenced in the U.S. for fentanyl trafficking are American citizens, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Speaking on July 17, U.S. House Rep. Monica De La Cruz of Texas claimed Democratic policies allow people who come into the country without authorization to receive government benefits, even though they are largely not eligible for federal health programs.

De La Cruz also said the Biden administration had cut Medicare Advantage for seniors. While the Biden administration this year modestly cut spending on the private plans, the federal government still spends more money per beneficiary on Medicare Advantage than for those in the traditional Medicare program.

The paucity of convention speakers focused on health care reflects the new GOP platform, a document hewing closely to both the substance and tone of Trump’s views. Along with its promise to protect Medicare, the 28-page document vows that Republicans will expand veterans’ health care choices, as well as access to “new Affordable Healthcare and prescription drug options” more broadly, without elaboration.

On abortion, the party stripped from the platform its decades-old call for federal limits, including instead language suggesting the 14th Amendment prohibits abortion. The platform also says the party supports state-level elections on abortion policy and opposes “Late Term Abortion.” Only about 1% of abortions in the U.S. occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

In contrast, the 2016 platform — a 66-page document — also called for shifting open-ended federal Medicaid funding into block grants and introducing a Medicare “premium-support model” to cap spending. It also called for limiting payouts from medical malpractice lawsuits and combating drug abuse.

The word “abortion” appears 32 times in the 2016 platform, compared with once in the 2024 document.

“The GOP is in a headlong sprint away from that issue,” Coughlin said.

During the week of the convention, video of a call between independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Trump appeared online. In the video, Trump is heard sharing disproven claims about childhood vaccines, saying falsely that the shots can cause a baby to “change radically” and dismissing their health benefits.

As a candidate, Kennedy has repeatedly made false claims about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Trump has long entertained vaccine skeptics. (Before Trump took the oath of office in 2017, Kennedy told reporters Trump had invited him to chair a presidential commission on vaccines, though the commission never materialized.) But as president, Trump ordered the creation of the “Operation Warp Speed” program in 2020 that helped drive development of covid-19 vaccines.

Since the start of the pandemic, however, vaccine skepticism has blossomed in the Republican Party. Just 36% of Republicans say they’re confident covid vaccines are safe, and 44% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their children against measles, mumps, and rubella “even if that may create health risks for other children and adults,” according to KFF polling.

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).

Over three decades of relentless pain, Jonna Tallant has tried about every TMJ treatment: mouthguards, six sets of braces, dental crowns and appliances, drugs, physical therapy, Botox, massage, acupuncture, chiropractic care, and surgery.

Nothing has helped. Tallant, 51, of Knoxville, Tennessee, said she lives in agony and cannot eat any food that must be chewed. Despite spending a small fortune on treatment, she can barely open her mouth enough to squeeze in a toothbrush.

Tallant estimates she has paid at least $200,000 for TMJ care. She provided medical records showing more than $60,000 in out-of-pocket spending in just the past decade. She has exhausted her savings and borrowed money, she said, and her family sold a plot of land to help pay the bills.

Tallant will need another jaw surgery later this year, which could cost as much as $75,000. Her insurance is unlikely to pay for any of it, she said.

“It’s a bottomless pit,” Tallant said, choking up, as she leafed through a pile of medical records splayed on her dining table. “It has consumed so much of my life that there is not much left.”

Temporomandibular joint disorders, known as TMJ or TMD, cause pain and stiffness in the face and jaw and are believed to afflict as many as 33 million Americans. Scientific studies have found that women experience TMJ disorders two to nine times as often as men, and while minor symptoms may not require treatment, severe symptoms can include disabling pain that makes it challenging to eat, work, talk, or sleep.

Despite the commonness of TMJ disorders, treatments are often not covered by medical or dental insurance, leaving patients with out-of-pocket bills that can range from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars. Many medical insurers consider TMJ treatment too dental-focused for medical insurance, while dental insurers consider it too medical for dental insurance, leaving patients stuck in a “medical-dental divide” that hinders care and increases cost, according to the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.

Worse still, researchers warn that the meager insurance coverage available for TMJ often excludes the safest forms of care while steering patients toward surgery — a riskier and irreversible option that the National Institutes of Health recommends “staying away” from.

Terrie Cowley, a longtime TMJ patient who leads the TMJ Association, an advocacy group, has spoken with patients who refinanced their homes and cashed out retirement accounts to afford the out-of-pocket costs for their care.

“It bankrupts them,” Cowley said. “But it isn’t nearly as horrible as when the treatments go wrong.”

Insurance woes are just one facet of the problems with TMJ care in the United States. In April, a joint investigation by KFF Health News and CBS News found that TMJ disorders have been widely misunderstood by many dentists for decades, so some patients fall into a spiral of ineffective care and futile surgeries that do more harm than good. Dentistry has tried to correct course in recent years with the promising new specialty of orofacial pain, which treats TMJ disorders with a more conservative approach, but these specialists are few and rarely covered by insurance, so their services remain beyond the reach of many patients.

Tony Schwartz, president of the American Board of Orofacial Pain, said the specialty is still fighting for widespread acceptance from insurance companies and some dentists, who cling to “old, debunked theories” that TMJ disorders are caused by misaligned teeth or a bad bite.

“This is the basis for why insurance companies have been so reluctant to, over the years, pay for any treatment,” Schwartz said. “Because there has been so much controversy about what works and what doesn’t work.”

For this article, KFF Health News and CBS News interviewed 10 patients with severe TMJ disorders who have been in treatment for years, if not decades. Almost all the patients described spending thousands of dollars out-of-pocket at every stage of their care, usually because treatment fell outside their medical and dental insurance coverage. Some patients said their medical bills mounted just as debilitating pain forced them to leave jobs or abandon careers. Some underwent expensive TMJ surgeries offered by only a small group of surgeons who generally do not accept insurance.

Kyra Wiedenkeller, 45, of New York state, said she worked as a manager in the music industry, including on “American Idol,” before her “unrelenting pain” became too great.

Wiedenkeller, who is now on disability, said she’s spent at least $100,000 out-of-pocket on TMJ treatment and provided medical documents showing she had been billed for at least that much.

“Every doctor I’ve seen has made me progressively worse,” Wiedenkeller said. “I paid an exorbitant amount of money. I wiped out my 401(k) for these treatments in hopes of getting better time and time again. And just get worse and worse. I feel like there is no end.”

Wiedenkeller’s story echoes findings of the national academies, which conducted a comprehensive study of TMJ in 2020 that included input from more than 110 patients. The study found that TMJ patients are “often harmed” during “overly aggressive” treatment, which frequently falls into a chasm between medical and dental insurance, leaving most bills paid out-of-pocket at costs of up to tens of thousands of dollars.

As an example, the study describes how dental splints — a common TMJ treatment — have been considered to be medical care by some dental insurers and considered dental care by some medical insurance programs, and are “therefore not covered” by either.

And when TMJ is covered by insurance, it tends to exclude “low-risk, effective treatments,” like those used by orofacial pain specialists, but covers “higher-risk” options, like jaw surgery, according to the national academies study. This leads to patients receiving “the care that is best reimbursed, rather than the care that is best,” the study said.

Other researchers have come to the same conclusion.

James Fricton, an orofacial pain specialist who studies the lack of insurance coverage for TMJ care, said that even though surgery is appropriate for few patients, it is the only treatment covered by most insurance plans in most states.

“Patients will assume that insurance companies know what they’re doing,” Fricton said. “If that’s all that’s covered, what do you think they are going to get? Surgery.”

In contrast, insurance coverage appears to be weakest at the other end of the treatment spectrum.

“Orofacial pain,” officially recognized by the American Dental Association in 2020, is now taught in residency programs at a dozen U.S. colleges at least, including the universities of Michigan, Minnesota, and North Carolina. The specialty avoids making irreversible changes to the bite or jaw and instead treats TMJ disorders with tools like counseling, dietary changes, medication, physical therapy, and removable dental splints. Many TMJ patients can be treated by orofacial pain specialists for a few thousand dollars.

The national academies study describes this approach as one of the few promising options for TMJ patients, citing studies that showed improvement among patients who are taught how to manage their pain. But the national academies also said it is a “particular challenge” that this treatment is “often not considered reimbursable by insurance.”

In separate interviews, six orofacial pain specialists with clinics around the country said insurance coverage for this specialty care is patchy, poor, or nonexistent. Several said their specialty is often absent from dropdown menus on standard insurance forms. Most said the insurance industry had fallen behind on the evolving science of TMJ, missing a chance to help patients and cut costs.

“It’s a no-brainer,” said Jeffrey Okeson, dean of the University of Kentucky’s College of Dentistry. “If I was an insurance person, I’d want to supply $1,000 to a patient to do conservative treatment … instead of $15,000 or $30,000 for surgery. Think of the money that can be saved there.”

Okeson and the other orofacial pain specialists said unreliable insurance coverage has hamstrung the specialty by making it less attractive to the next generation of dentists.

Currently there are fewer than 300 certified orofacial pain specialists in the United States, according to a database maintained by the American Board of Orofacial Pain. At least 20 states have no certified specialists, and eight other states have only one or two.

Deepika Jaiswal, the only certified specialist in Iowa, said some patients with TMJ disorders drive across the state to see her.

However, most of her patients — and many of her fellow dentists — remain unaware of the orofacial pain specialty, Jaiswal said, so insurance companies likely feel little pressure to include it in their coverage.

“People don’t even know around the area that we exist,” Jaiswal said. “When there are more providers providing this service, I think at that point there will be more insurance.”

CBS News producer Nicole Keller contributed to this article.

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).

David Engler had been pretty sure he didn’t want children. Then a frustrating school day two years ago helped seal the deal for the now 43-year-old substitute teacher.

“It was wild. I had to call the office seven times to get kids pulled out,” he said. “The next day, I called Kaiser and said, ‘I’d like to know how much a vasectomy is.’”

A representative with Engler’s insurer, Kaiser Permanente, told him the procedure would be free because it was a form of birth control, he said. But after undergoing the vasectomy last winter, he received a bill for $1,080.

“I felt defeated, tricked, and frustrated,” said Engler, who lives in Portland, Oregon.

Engler’s experience highlights how a labyrinthine patchwork of insurance coverage rules on reproductive health care creates confusion for patients. Oregon requires that vasectomies be covered for most people who work in the public sector. But the federal Affordable Care Act — which mandates that most health plans cover preventive health services, such as contraception, at no cost to the consumer — does not require vasectomies to be covered.

And that perplexity surrounding coverage may get more complicated.

An ongoing federal lawsuit aims to strike down the ACA’s preventive care coverage requirements for private insurers. If the case knocks out the mandates, state-level laws — which vary widely across the country — would carry more weight, a change that would resume the “wild West” dynamic from before Obamacare, said Zachary Baron, a health policy researcher at Georgetown Law.

It would create an environment “in which insurers and employers pick and choose which services they want to cover or which services they want to charge for,” Baron said. “It would certainly threaten access to care for millions of Americans.”

Studies have shown the requirements to cover preventive care have reduced consumers’ out-of-pocket costs and increased their use of short- and long-term birth control methods.

The job of defining which contraceptive services should be covered falls to the Health Resources and Services Administration, or HRSA. Two other groups — the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, or USPSTF, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP — make recommendations on other kinds of care that the ACA requires insurers to cover.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, a group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses, argue the members of these three panels haven’t been properly appointed by Congress. They also say the recommendations for insurance plans to cover medication for HIV prevention violate their religious rights.

On June 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued what it called a “mixed bag” opinion in the case. It said one group — the USPSTF — had not been properly appointed, and therefore its recommendations made after the ACA was signed into law were unconstitutional. The plaintiffs had asked for a nationwide ruling, but the court said only the plaintiffs’ organizations could be exempted from its recommendations.

The court then sent the plaintiffs’ challenges to the recommendations made by HRSA and ACIP — including those on contraception — back to a lower court to consider.

The case is likely headed to Reed O’Connor, a federal judge in Texas who has issued decisions undermining the ACA — including a ruling striking down the entire law that the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned.

“O’Connor is a judge notoriously hostile to the Affordable Care Act,” said Gretchen Borchelt, vice president of reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center. “He is someone who is willing to impose remedies where he takes access to care away from everybody in the country based on what’s happening in one situation.”

A win for the plaintiffs, she worried, could create confusion about what kind of contraception is covered and how much it costs, which would ultimately lead to more unintended pregnancies — all at a time when women have less access to abortions.

Nearly two dozen organizations — including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association — have joined Borchelt’s group in filing briefs warning about the potential disruptions a ruling for the plaintiffs could cause.

Jay Carson, an attorney with the Buckeye Institute, a conservative think tank, said he’s happy with the court’s ruling. His group, along with the state of Texas, filed briefs in support of the plaintiffs.

“Unelected bureaucrats” shouldn’t have the power to decide what insurance plans should be required to cover, said Carson. “We’ve gotten so far afield of Congress actually making the laws and, instead, relying on Congress to just empower some agency to do the heavy lifting.”

What power agencies do have is likely to be curtailed in the wake of a June 28 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a decades-old precedent dictating that courts should defer to federal agencies when it comes to regulatory or scientific decisions.

“Courts are going to be more able to scrutinize experts,” said Richard Hughes, a health care regulatory attorney with the firm Epstein, Becker, and Green. “It’s a vibe shift — we’re moving in the direction of the administrative state being curtailed.”

Eliminating federal coverage requirements for contraception would leave it up to states to determine what services health insurance plans would be required to provide.

Fourteen states and Washington, D.C., currently protect the right to contraception. But states can go only so far with those rules, said Baron, because a federal statute prevents them from regulating self-funded health plans, which cover about 65% of workers.

“It would leave significant gaps in coverage,” Baron said.

A group of Democratic-led states made such an argument in a court brief last year, arguing for the mandates to be upheld to discourage self-funded plans from declining to offer preventive services, as they often did before the ACA.

Even when states can regulate what health plans cover, people still fall through the cracks. “I see denials all the time in instances where the treatment clearly is covered,” said Megan Glor, a health insurance attorney in Oregon.

Patients can appeal their insurers’ decisions, but that’s not easy. And if a patient’s appeals fail, litigation is generally the only option — but that’s a long, complicated, costly process, Glor said. Likely, the best outcome for a patient is an insurer covering what should have been covered in the first place.

When Engler called Kaiser Permanente about his vasectomy charge, he said a representative told him the bill was sent by mistake. Still, he said, the insurer kept asking for money. Engler filed and lost multiple appeals and eventually settled the charge for $540.

Engler’s vasectomy likely should have been free, Glor said. As a teacher, Engler is a public sector employee, which means his insurance would be subject to an Oregon law that mandates no-cost coverage for vasectomies.

Kaiser Permanente told KFF Health News that state law does not apply because of a federal rule for high-deductible health plans paired with health savings accounts. That rule requires patients to cover out-of-pocket costs until their deductible is met.

However, after KFF Health News contacted Kaiser Permanente about Engler’s situation, he said the company promised to issue a full refund for the $540 he had paid to settle his case.

“Although we administered the benefit correctly, an employee who spoke with Mr. Engler told him incorrectly that he would not have” to share the cost, said Debbie Karman, a Kaiser Permanente spokesperson.

Engler said he’s happy with the outcome, though he’s still unsure how Kaiser Permanente’s staff was confused about his insurance coverage.

He worries that others don’t have the means he had to advocate for himself.

“It’s scary,” he said. “So many people are limited in their resources or their understanding of how to fight — or even who to fight.”

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).