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

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

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 That would turn both his and Biden’s regulations into law, making them less susceptible to being weakened or repealed by a future administration.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Tom Contos is an avid runner. When he started experiencing rectal bleeding in March, he thought exercise could be the cause and tried to ignore it. But he became increasingly worried when the bleeding continued for weeks.

The Chicago health care consultant contacted his physician at Northwestern Medicine, who referred him for a diagnostic colonoscopy, at least partly because Contos, 45, has a family history of colon issues.

“I work out a lot,” he said. “But my partner said this isn’t normal. My primary care physician said, ‘Given your family history, let’s get you in.’”

Northwestern Memorial Hospital asked him to prepay $1,000 out-of-pocket, and he underwent the procedure in June.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Procedure

Colonoscopies are performed in the United States more than 15 million times a year. Rates of colorectal cancer are on the rise, particularly among younger people.

The procedure, which is also a recommended screening for people 45 or older, involves examining the large intestine using a tube with a video camera that can also collect tissue samples.

It typically takes less than one hour, with another hour spent taking the patient’s history, administering anesthesia, and monitoring their recovery, said Glenn Littenberg, a physician who recently chaired the reimbursement committee of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

According to Contos’ medical record, the gastroenterologist who performed his colonoscopy described it as “not difficult.” He biopsied and removed small growths called polyps from two spots and identified large internal hemorrhoids, which are swollen veins.

The biopsy samples were sent to pathology for testing and found to be precancerous. But the gastroenterologist reported finding no evidence of cancer, and after reviewing the pathology report, he concluded hemorrhoids were the likely cause of the bleeding.

The Final Bill

The hospital charged a total of $19,206 for the procedure, including physician fees. The insurer negotiated the price to $5,816 and paid $1,979, leaving a patient share of $4,047. (It wasn’t clear why the payments added up to slightly more than the negotiated price.) After Contos had paid $1,000 up front, plus $1,381 right after the procedure, the hospital said he still owed $1,666.

The Billing Problem: Colonoscopies That Find Polyps Cost More

Contos was shocked and angry when he received his itemized bill. “I said, ‘I don’t understand this.’ Then I started to research the cost.”

He asked the hospital what it charges for a diagnostic colonoscopy and was told he’d been sent a cost estimate through his online patient portal prior to the procedure.

The estimate, which took his deductible of $3,200 into account, listed a total price of $7,203, with an out-of-pocket bill of $2,381. He asked Northwestern why the charges were nearly three times the estimate and why his out-of-pocket share was nearly twice as high.

One big reason was revealed in an explanation of benefits (EOB) statement from Contos’ insurance company, Aetna: Northwestern had charged for two colonoscopies, at $5,466 each. And there were two fees for the gastroenterologist — $1,535 and $1,291.

The first procedure was listed as “colonoscopy and biopsy,” while the second was listed as “colonoscopy w/lesion removal.” Aetna’s negotiated member rate reduced the first $5,466 hospital charge to $3,425, while the charge for the second procedure was lowered to $1,787 — $1,638 less.

Neither the bill nor the EOB explained why there was a second procedure listed, at a reduced price.

After examining Contos’ bill, Littenberg said it’s standard for providers to bill for two colonoscopies if they remove two or more polyps in different ways, because of the extra work. As in this case, hospitals typically use a modifier code that reduces the amount charged for the second billed colonoscopy so they charge only for the extra work, he added.

“How do you explain that in sensible terms that anyone could understand?” Littenberg said.

Even with that reduction, Littenberg said, he thought Contos’ total out-of-pocket cost of $4,047 was “a lot, though not rare for large academic centers.”

Contos’ insurance documents show Aetna’s negotiated rate for his colonoscopy at Northwestern was more than twice the insurer’s median negotiated rate for the same procedure at other Chicago-area hospitals, according to Forrest Xiao, director of quantitative research at Turquoise Health, a company that gathers health care price data.

In exchanges with Northwestern and Aetna representatives, Contos asked why he was charged for two colonoscopies. A Northwestern representative said that because of the modifier code, he wasn’t actually being billed for two procedures, which Contos found bewildering.

“I told Northwestern, ‘I’m not paying that, and I don’t care if you send me to collections,’” he said. He filed appeals with the hospital and Aetna but was ultimately told the billing was correct.

The Resolution

In an email, Contos told the billing department that its charge was “ridiculously high.” A representative responded that Northwestern’s pricing is in line with other academic medical centers in Chicago and “non-negotiable” — and that his account would be turned over to a collections agency.

CVS Health spokesperson Phillip Blando said in a written statement to KFF Health News that the claims for Contos were “paid accurately” by Aetna, declining further comment. (CVS Health owns Aetna.)

Northwestern did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Contos said he wrote to his physician that he was regretfully dropping him and leaving Northwestern entirely because of the health system’s high pricing.

He said he’s still experiencing periodic symptoms, which he relieves with over-the-counter Preparation H. A one-ounce tube of the ointment costs $10.99 at CVS.

The Takeaway

To get a colonoscopy at a lower price, Littenberg said, patients should consider going to a freestanding endoscopy center or ambulatory surgery center not associated with a hospital. A 2023 study found that ambulatory surgery centers billed insurers an average of about $1,030 for a colonoscopy with biopsy or with removal of a polyp, compared with $1,760 at a hospital.

Bill of the Month

• A Toddler Got a Nasal Swab Test but Left Before Seeing a Doctor. The Bill Was $445. Nov 27, 2024
• Toddler’s Backyard Snakebite Bills Totaled More Than a Quarter Million Dollars Oct 30, 2024
• In Chronic Pain, This Teenager ‘Could Barely Do Anything.’ Insurer Wouldn’t Cover Surgery. Sep 25, 2024

More from the series

To get a sense of how much a diagnostic colonoscopy could cost, patients can consult a hospital’s price website and an insurer’s cost-estimator website, both required by federal price transparency rules.

Patients also can look up a good-faith estimate of the cash price, which can be lower than the price for patients using insurance to pay for a procedure. In addition, they can check prices through websites such as Turquoise Health and Fair Health, which draw from federal price transparency data or claims data from insurers.

Still, the actual cost could be higher than the estimate if the colonoscopy finds one or more polyps that need to be removed and biopsied, which occurs in at least 40% of all colonoscopies, Littenberg said. Patients should ask whether the price includes those potentially extra services. After all, the point of a diagnostic colonoscopy is to find and, if necessary, treat lesions that could cause problems — regardless of the number found.

It all should be easier for patients, Xiao said: “You shouldn’t have to be a medical billing expert to know what you’re going to pay.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Un juez federal en Dakota del Norte falló a favor de 19 estados que impugnaron una regla de la administración Biden que permite —por primera vez— que las personas traídas a Estados Unidos de niños, sin papeles, conocidas como Dreamers, se inscribieran para obtener cobertura de salud a través de los mercados establecidos por la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA).

La decisión prohíbe a los beneficiarios del programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) en esos 19 estados inscribirse o recibir subsidios para pagar los planes de ACA.

Abogados que siguen el caso dijeron que este fallo no parece afectar la inscripción ni la cobertura en otros estados.

La administración Biden probablemente apelará, aunque un representante de los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS,) la entidad federal que coordina estos mercados, dijo por correo electrónico que la agencia no comentará sobre el litigio.

Aunque se podría presentar una apelación rápidamente, una decisión final podría no ocurrir antes de que comience la próxima administración Trump. “Podrían tomar una posición diferente sobre el litigio”, dijo Zachary Baron, experto legal de Georgetown Law, quien ayuda a administrar el O’Neill Institute Health Care Litigation Tracker.

Mientras tanto, no está claro qué sucederá con los Dreamers inscritos en los 19 estados cuya cobertura ya comenzó o comienza a principios del próximo año, aunque la decisión del juez no menciona que sea retroactiva, señaló Baron.

El caso fue presentado en agosto en el Tribunal de Distrito de los EE.UU. para el Distrito de Dakota del Norte.

Anteriormente, el gobierno federal estimó que alrededor de 100.000 personas sin seguro, de medio millón de beneficiarios de DACA, podrían inscribirse a partir del 1 de noviembre, la fecha de inicio de la temporada de inscripción en todos los estados excepto Idaho.

La regla de la administración Biden, finalizada en mayo, aclaró que quienes califican para DACA serían considerados como “presentes legalmente” en el país a los propósitos de inscripción en planes de salud de ACA, que están disponibles para ciudadanos estadounidenses e inmigrantes denominados “presentes legalmente”.

Al otorgar una orden judicial preliminar y una suspensión, el juez federal Daniel Traynor, nombrado en 2019 por el entonces presidente Donald Trump, señaló en su fallo del lunes 9 de diciembre que es probable que los demandantes ganaran gracias a los méritos de su argumento.

Los estados que impugnan la regla de ACA argumentan que causará cargas administrativas y de recursos al aumentar el número de inscritos y que alentará a más personas a permanecer en el país sin documentos legales.

Además de Kansas y Dakota del Norte, los estados que se unieron a la demanda son Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Carolina del Sur, Dakota del Sur, Tennessee, Texas y Virginia.

“El fallo del juez Traynor es tanto decepcionante como erróneo en cuanto a la ley”, dijo Nicholas Espíritu, subdirector legal del Centro Nacional de Leyes de Inmigración, en un comunicado por correo electrónico.

“Mientras estudiamos la decisión del tribunal para evaluar los próximos pasos en este caso, continuaremos luchando en nombre de nuestros clientes y cientos de miles de beneficiarios de DACA que han esperado más de una década para acceder a atención vital bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio”.

DACA fue establecido mediante acción ejecutiva en junio de 2012 por el presidente Barack Obama, protegiendo de la deportación y proporcionando permiso de trabajo a algunos residentes no autorizados traídos al país de niños. Debían cumplir con ciertos requisites para calificar: haber llegado antes de junio de 2007 y haber completado la escuela secundaria, estar asistiendo a la escuela o servir en el ejército.

Antes de la orden judicial, otros 19 estados y el Distrito de Columbia presentaron un informe en apoyo de la regla de la administración Biden. Liderados por Nueva Jersey, esos estados incluyen muchos en el Este y Oeste del país, como California, Colorado, Nevada, Nuevo México, Nueva York, Oregon y Washington.

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 federal judge in North Dakota has ruled in favor of 19 states that challenged a Biden administration rule allowing — for the first time — enrollment in Affordable Care Act coverage by people brought to the U.S. as children without immigration paperwork, known as “Dreamers.”

The move effectively bars those who have qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in those 19 states from enrolling in or getting subsidies for ACA plans. It does not appear to affect enrollment or coverage in other states, lawyers following the case said Tuesday.

The Biden administration is likely to appeal, although a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services representative said in an email that the agency would not comment on the litigation.

While an appeal may be filed quickly, a final decision may not occur before the incoming Trump administration takes office. “They could take a different position on the litigation,” said Zachary Baron, a legal expert at Georgetown Law, who helps manage the O’Neill Institute Health Care Litigation Tracker.

In the meantime, it is not clear what will happen to Dreamer enrollees in the 19 states whose coverage has already started or begins early next year, although the judge’s ruling does not say it is retroactive, Baron noted.

The case was filed in August in U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.

Previously, the federal government estimated that about 100,000 uninsured people out of the half-million DACA recipients might sign up starting Nov. 1, the sign-up season start date in all states except Idaho.

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

In granting a preliminary injunction and stay, U.S District Judge Daniel Traynor, who was appointed in 2019 by then-President Donald Trump, noted in his Monday ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to win on the merits of their argument.

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

“Judge Traynor’s ruling is both disappointing and wrong on the law,” said Nicholas Espíritu, a deputy legal director of the National Immigration Law Center, in an emailed statement. “While we study the court’s ruling to evaluate the next steps in this case, we will continue to fight on behalf of our clients and hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients who have been waiting over a decade to access life-sustaining care under the Affordable Care Act.”

DACA was established through executive action in June 2012 by President Barack Obama, protecting from deportation and providing work authorization to some unauthorized residents brought to the U.S. as children by their families. It had certain requirements, including that they arrived before June 2007 and had completed high school, were attending school, or were serving in the military.

Before the injunction, 19 other states and the District of Columbia filed a brief in support of the Biden administration rule. Led by New Jersey, those states include many in the East and West, including California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington.

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).

KFF Health News senior correspondent Arthur Allen discussed the fragility of our vaccine infrastructure on The Atlantic’s “Radio Atlantic” on Dec. 5.

• Click here to hear Allen on “Radio Atlantic”
• Read Allen’s “Scientists Fear What’s Next for Public Health if RFK Jr. Is Allowed To ‘Go Wild’”

KFF Health News contributor Andy Miller discussed U.S. obesity rates on WUGA’s “The Georgia Health Report” on Nov. 29.

• Click here to hear Miller on “The Georgia Health Report”

KFF Health News senior correspondent Julie Appleby discussed how Wisconsinites can get health insurance from the federal marketplace on Wisconsin Public Radio’s “Wisconsin Today” on Nov. 15.

• Click here to hear Appleby on “Wisconsin Today”
• Read Appleby’s “What’s New and What To Watch For in the Upcoming ACA Open Enrollment Period”

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).

Los cambios no autorizados en los planes médicos de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA) parecen haberse reducido en las últimas semanas: reguladores federales informaron que hay menos quejas de los consumidores.

Los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS), que supervisan ACA, atribuyen esta reducción a las medidas adoptadas para prevenir problemas de inscripción y cambios de planes, que ya habían generado más de 274,000 quejas hasta agosto.

Ahora, el período anual de inscripción abierta de ACA, que comenzó el 1 de noviembre, plantea una prueba en el mundo real: ¿lograrán estos cambios frenar el fraude perpretado por agentes o corredores deshonestos sin ralentizar demasiado el proceso de inscripción o reducir el número total de inscripciones para la cobertura de 2025?

“Realmente tienen que caminar por una cuerda floja”, dijo Sabrina Corlette, codirectora del Centro de Reformas de Seguros de Salud de la Universidad de Georgetown. “Cuanto más se endurecen las medidas para prevenir el fraude, más barreras podrían existir que inhiban la inscripción de quienes necesitan la cobertura”.

En julio, los CMS anunciaron que ciertos tipos de cambios de póliza, particularmente aquellos en los que el agente no está “afiliado” al plan existente, enfrentarán requisitos adicionales, como una llamada tripartita con el consumidor, el corredor y un representante del centro de llamadas de cuidadodesalud.gov.

En agosto, la agencia prohibió a dos de unas doce plataformas privadas de inscripción en línea conectarse con cuidadodesalud.gov debido a preocupaciones relacionadas con cambios indebidos de planes. Además, los CMS suspendieron a 850 agentes sospechosos de participar en cambios no autorizados de planes dentro de los mercados de seguros de salud de ACA.

Sin embargo, estas medidas podrían agregar complejidad al proceso de inscripción y hacerlos más lento. Por ejemplo, un consumidor podría tener que esperar en “fila” para realizar una llamada tripartita o buscar un nuevo agente porque el anterior fue suspendido.

“Empiecen rápido”, recomendó Ronnell Nolan, presidenta y directora ejecutiva de Health Agents for America, una organización profesional de corredores de seguros.

Mientras tanto, algunos reportes sugieren que entidades deshonestas ya están encontrando formas de eludir las protecciones contra el fraude implementadas por CMS.

“La realidad es que el fraude y el abuso aún están ocurriendo”, dijo Nolan.

Los corredores ayudan a la mayoría de las personas que se inscriben activamente en planes de ACA y reciben una comisión mensual de las aseguradoras por sus esfuerzos.

Los consumidores pueden comparar planes o inscribirse ellos mismos en línea a través de los sitios web del mercado federal o estatal. También pueden buscar ayuda de asistentes, a veces llamadas navegadores, quienes están certificados pero no reciben comisiones.

Bajo “encuentren ayuda local” en el sitio federal y en los de los mercados estatales, los consumidores prueben encontrar a corredores o navegadores locales.

Los CMS afirman que han “ampliado las operaciones de apoyo” en sus centros de llamadas del mercado federal cuidadodesalud.gov, los cuales están abiertos las 24 horas del día, anticipando una mayor demanda de llamadas tripartitas.

Según Jeff Wu, subdirector de políticas del Centro de Información y Supervisión de Seguros para Consumidores de los CMS, se esperan “tiempos de espera mínimos”.

Wu aclaró que estas llamadas tripartitas solo son necesarias cuando un agente o corredor que no está asociado con la inscripción de un consumidor desea modificarla o finalizar su cobertura. No aplican para personas que buscan cobertura por primera vez.

Los navegadores, que cuentan con una línea telefónica directa al mercado federal, pueden asistir en estas llamadas tripartitas si es necesario.

El problema de los cambios no autorizados no es nuevo, pero se intensificó durante la temporada de inscripción abierta del año pasado.

Los corredores culpan en gran parte de este problema a la facilidad con la que agentes deshonestos pueden acceder a la información de ACA en el mercado federal, necesitando solo el nombre, la fecha de nacimiento y el estado en donde vive la persona. Aunque los reguladores han trabajado para limitar este acceso, no han implementado lo que algunos grupos de agentes consideran necesario: la autenticación en dos pasos, que podría requerir un código que los consumidores recibirían en su teléfono móvil.

Estos cambios no autorizados pueden causar una serie de problemas para los consumidores, desde deducibles más altos hasta la inclusión en redes que no incluyen a sus médicos o hospitales preferidos. Algunas personas han recibido facturas de impuestos cuando pólizas no autorizadas venían con créditos para pagar las primas para los cuales no calificaban.

Los cambios no autorizados plantearon una responsabilidad política para la administración Biden, una mancha en dos años de inscripciones récord en ACA.

La práctica generó críticas de legisladores de ambos partidos; los demócratas exigieron más supervisión y castigo a los agentes deshonestos, mientras que los republicanos dijeron que los intentos de fraude fueron alimentados por las medidas de la administración Biden que permitieron subsidios de primas más generosos y períodos de inscripción especiales.

El destino de esos subsidios mejorados, que expirarán, lo decidirá el Congreso el próximo año cuando la administración Trump tome el poder. Pero las primas y los subsidios que vienen con los planes 2025 en los que las personas se están inscribiendo ahora permanecerán vigentes durante todo el año.

Las medidas adoptadas este año para frustrar las inscripciones no autorizadas se aplican al mercado federal, utilizado por 31 estados. Los estados restantes y el Distrito de Columbia tienen sus propios sitios web, y muchos de ellos cuentan con capas de seguridad adicionales.

A pesar de la controversia, los CMS dicen que sus esfuerzos están funcionando, destacando una disminución del 30% en las quejas.

La agencia también informó una reducción del 90% en el número de veces que el nombre de un agente fue reemplazado por otro, lo que indica que ahora es más difícil para los agentes rivales robar clientes para obtener las comisiones mensuales.

No obstante, algunos grupos de agentes critican que algunos de los 850 agentes suspendidos no tuvieron oportunidad de responder a las acusaciones antes de ser sancionados. “Habrá agentes y corredores suspendidos sin un debido proceso”, dijo Nolan. Según estos grupos, implementar la autenticación en dos pasos sería más efectivo que las medidas actuales. “Estamos saltando tantos obstáculos que no estoy segura de que vayamos a sobrevivir”, concluyó Nolan.

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).

Medicare officials are pushing back against a federal watchdog’s call to crack down on home visits by Medicare Advantage health plans — a practice the watchdog says may waste billions of tax dollars every year.

In late October, a Health and Human Services inspector general audit found that the insurers pocketed $7.5 billion in 2023 from diagnosing health conditions that prompted no medical services — about $4.2 billion of it through the health assessments done in patients’ homes.

Assistant Inspector General Erin Bliss told me the plans are raking in billions of dollars without providing any treatment for medical conditions the plans flagged during the visits, including serious diseases such as diabetes and major depression.

But the power to curb billing tied to home visits rests with regulators at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who appear unmoved by the OIG’s criticism.

In a statement to KFF Health News by spokesperson Alexx Pons, CMS said it “appreciates the OIG’s review in this area” and will keep studying the issue.

In a formal response published in the audit report, CMS said it disagreed with the watchdog’s call to restrict use of home health assessments in computing how much to pay health plans. People on Medicare “should have access to care that is appropriately provided in the home setting,” CMS wrote.

That’s just fine with the insurance industry. The OIG drew “inaccurate conclusions,” said Heather Soule, a spokesperson for UnitedHealthcare. The insurer is the largest Medicare Advantage contractor and accounted for about two-thirds of the payments tied to home visits and related data mining of patient files cited in the audit.

The home visits are “among the most comprehensive and thorough assessments of a patient’s health and physical environment available in the health-care system, helping to identify and drive needed follow-on care for the vast majority of the patients with whom we engage,” Soule said in the statement.

Medicare Advantage plans serve more than 33 million Americans, more than half of the people eligible for Medicare.

Government spending on the program, which is dominated by a handful of private health insurance companies, is expected to hit $462 billion this year. The industry argues that most Medicare Advantage enrollees are satisfied with the care they receive and typically pay less out-of-pocket than those enrolled in original Medicare.

But critics of the program point to years and years of federal audits, whistleblower lawsuits and other investigations revealing that many health plans exaggerate how sick patients are to boost their payments.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).