State and local governments are receiving billions of dollars in opioid settlements to address the drug crisis that has ravaged America for decades. But instead of spending the money on new addiction treatment and prevention services they couldn’t afford before, some jurisdictions are using it to replace existing funding and stretch tight budgets.

Scott County, Indiana, for example, has spent more than $250,000 of opioid settlement dollars on salaries for its health director and emergency medical services staff. The money usually budgeted for those salaries was freed to buy an ambulance and create a financial cushion for the health department.

In Blair County, Pennsylvania, about $320,000 went to a drug court the county has been operating with other sources of money for more than two decades.

And in New York, some lawmakers and treatment advocates say the governor’s proposed budget substitutes millions of opioid settlement dollars for a portion of the state addiction agency’s normal funding.

The national opioid settlements don’t prohibit the use of money for initiatives already supported by other means. But families affected by addiction, recovery advocates, and legal and public health experts say doing so squanders a rare opportunity to direct additional resources toward saving lives.

“To think that replacing what you’re already spending with settlement funds is going to make things better — it’s not,” said Robert Kent, former general counsel for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. “Certainly, the spirit of the settlements wasn’t to keep doing what you’re doing. It was to do more.”

Settlement money is a new funding stream, separate from tax dollars. It comes from more than a dozen companies that were accused of aggressively marketing and distributing prescription painkillers. States are required to spend at least 85% of the funds on addressing the opioid crisis. Now, with illicit fentanyl flooding the drug market and killing tens of thousands of Americans annually, the need for treatment and social services is more urgent.

Thirteen states and Washington, D.C., have restricted the practice of substituting opioid settlement funds for existing dollars, according to state guides created by OpioidSettlementTracker.com and the public health organization Vital Strategies. A national set of principles created by Johns Hopkins University also advises against the practice, known as supplantation.

Paying Staff Salaries

Scott County, Indiana — a small, rural place known nationally as the site of an HIV outbreak in 2015 sparked by intravenous drug use — received more than $570,000 in opioid settlement funds in 2022.

From August 2022 to July 2023, the county reported using roughly $191,000 for the salaries of its EMS director, deputy director, and training officer/clinical coordinator, as well as about $60,000 for its health administrator. The county also awarded about $151,000 total to three community organizations that address addiction and related issues.

In a public meeting discussing the settlement dollars, county attorney Zachary Stewart voiced concerns. “I don’t know whether or not we’re supposed to be using that money to add, rather than supplement, already existing resources,” he said.

But a couple of months later, the county council approved the allocations.

Council President Lyndi Hughbanks did not respond to repeated requests to explain this decision. But council members and county commissioners said in public meetings that they hoped to compensate county departments for resources expended during the HIV outbreak.

Their conversations echoed the struggles of many rural counties nationwide, which have tight budgets, in part because they poured money into addressing the opioid crisis for years. Now as they receive settlement funds, they want to recoup some of those expenses.

The Scott County Health Department did not respond to questions about how the funds typically allocated for salary were used instead. But at the public meeting, it was suggested they could be used at the department’s discretion.

EMS Chief Nick Oleck told KFF Health News the money saved on salaries was put toward loan payments for a new ambulance, purchased in spring 2023.

Unlike other departments, which are funded from local tax dollars and start each year with a full budget, the county EMS is mostly funded through insurance reimbursements for transporting patients, Oleck said. The opioid settlement funds provided enough cash flow to make payments on the new ambulance while his department waited for reimbursements.

Oleck said this use of settlement dollars will save lives. His staff needs vehicles to respond to overdose calls, and his department regularly trains area emergency responders on overdose response.

“It can be played that it was just money used to buy an ambulance, but there’s a lot more behind the scenes,” Oleck said.

Still, Jonathan White — the only council member to vote against using settlement funds for EMS salaries — said he felt the expense did not fit the money’s intended purpose.

The settlement “was written to pay for certain things: helping people get off drugs,” White told KFF Health News. “We got drug rehab facilities and stuff like that that I believe could have used that money more.”

Phil Stucky, executive director of a local nonprofit called Thrive, said his organization could have used the money too. Founded in the wake of the HIV outbreak, Thrive employs people in recovery to provide support to peers with mental health and substance use disorders.

Stucky, who is in recovery himself, asked Scott County for $300,000 in opioid settlement funds to hire three peer specialists and purchase a vehicle to transport people to treatment. He ultimately received one-sixth of that amount — enough to hire one person.

In Blair County, Pennsylvania, Marianne Sinisi was frustrated to learn her county used about $322,000 of opioid settlement funds to pay for a drug court that has existed for decades.

“This is an opioid epidemic, which is not being treated enough as it is now,” said Sinisi, who lost her 26-year-old son to an overdose in 2018. The county received extra money to help people, but instead it pulled back its own money, she said. “How do you expect that to change? Isn’t that the definition of insanity?”

Blair County Commissioner Laura Burke told KFF Health News that salaries for drug court probation officers and aides were previously covered by a state grant and parole fees. But in recent years that funding has been inadequate, and the county general fund has picked up the slack. Using opioid settlement funds provides a small reprieve since the general fund is overburdened, she said. The county’s most recent budget faces a $2 million deficit.

Forfeited Federal Dollars

Supplantation can take many forms, said Shelly Weizman, project director of the addiction and public policy initiative at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute. Replacing general funds with opioid settlement dollars is an obvious one, but there are subtler approaches.

The federal government pours billions of dollars into addiction-related initiatives annually. But some states forfeit federal grants or decline to expand Medicaid, which is the largest payer of mental health and addiction treatment.

If those jurisdictions then use opioid settlement funds for activities that could have been covered with federal money, Weizman considers it supplantation.

“It’s really letting down the citizens of their state,” she said.

Officials in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, forfeited more than $1 million in federal funds from September 2022 to September 2023, the bulk of which was meant to support the construction of a behavioral health crisis stabilization center.

“We were probably overly optimistic” about spending the money by the grant deadline, said Diane Rosati, executive director of the Bucks County Drug and Alcohol Commission.

Now the county plans to use $3.9 million in local and state opioid settlement funds to support the center.

Susan Ousterman finds these developments difficult to stomach. Her 24-year-old son died of an overdose in 2020, and she later joined the Bucks County Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee, which developed a plan to spend the funds.

In a September 2022 email to other committee members, she expressed disappointment in the suggested uses: “Please keep in mind, the settlement funds are not meant to fund existing programs or programs that can be funded by other sources, such as federal grants.”

But Rosati said the county is maximizing its resources. Settlement funds will create a host of services, including grief groups for families and transportation to treatment facilities.

“We’re determined to utilize every bit of funding that’s available to Bucks County, using every funding source, every stream, and frankly every grant opportunity that comes our way,” Rosati said.

The county’s guiding principles for settlement funds demand as much. They say, “Whenever possible, use existing resources in order that Opioid Settlement funds can be directed to addressing gaps in services.”

Ed Mahon of Spotlight PA 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).

Tax season is never fun. But some tax filers this year face an added complication: Their returns are being rejected because they failed to provide information about Affordable Care Act coverage they didn’t even know they had.

While the concern about unscrupulous brokers enrolling unsuspecting people in ACA coverage has simmered for years, complaints have risen in recent months as consumers discover their health insurance coverage isn’t what they thought it was.

Now such unauthorized enrollments are also causing tax headaches. Returns are getting rejected by the IRS and some people will have to pay more in taxes.

“It’s definitely gotten worse over the past year. We’ve helped three to four dozen people this year already,” said Erin Kinard, director of systems and intake for the Health and Economic Opportunity Program at Pisgah Legal Services in North Carolina, which helps low-income families enroll in ACA plans and get tax help.

Neither the IRS nor the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees the federal Obamacare marketplace, responded to questions about the problem.

The IRS did, however, issue an FAQ in February instructing consumers on what to do if their electronically filed returns are rejected because of ACA issues.

Unauthorized sign-ups can happen in several ways, Kinard and others said. Some rogue agents troll online enrollment portals that are accessible only to brokers but are integrated with the healthcare.gov website. When those agents open a new policy or switch an already enrolled policyholder to a different plan, they garner the associated monthly commissions. Other consumers unwittingly sign up when they respond to advertisements touting gift cards or government subsidies then are transferred to agents who enroll them in health coverage. It’s happening even after new rules were put in place requiring agents to get written or recorded consent from clients before making changes.

CMS has not released details on how many consumers have been affected or how many agents have been sanctioned for participating in such schemes.

There’s also no public tally of how many taxpayers are facing problems as a result. And the tax consequences can come as a surprise.

“Many people are finding out when they go to e-file their taxes and it bounces back and the IRS says it can’t accept your return,” said Christine Speidel, an associate professor and the director of the Federal Tax Clinic at Villanova University’s Charles Widger School of Law.

Returns are rejected if the IRS has information indicating the taxpayer has ACA coverage but the returns don’t include forms that help determine whether premium tax credits paid on the policyholder’s behalf to insurers were correct. If their income was misstated by the rogue broker who enrolled them, for example, they might not have qualified for the full amount paid. Or, if they had affordable employer coverage, they would not have been eligible for ACA subsidies at all.

Ashley Zukoski, an ultrasound technologist in Charlotte, North Carolina, had employer coverage but now faces a tax bill for an ACA plan she said she never signed up for. She reached out to KFF Health News after it reported on such unauthorized plan enrollments.

Unbeknownst to her, she said, a broker in Florida enrolled her family in an ACA plan in late February 2023, even though Zukoski had coverage starting that January through her job. The broker listed an income that qualified the household for a full subsidy, so Zukoski never received a premium bill.

Her first inkling that something was amiss came early in 2024 when she received a special form, called a 1095-A, which showed she had an ACA plan. After reporting the problem to the federal marketplace, she sought to get the 1095-A voided so she would not be liable for the plan’s premium subsidies paid by the government to the insurer.

But, because Zukoski’s pharmacy had billed the ACA plan instead of her job-based coverage, her request was denied. She plans to appeal.

In the meantime, the family has filed an extension on their taxes.

“Instead of getting a $4,100 refund, we now owe almost $700 in taxes based on the 1095-A and premium tax credit applied,” Zukoski said.

With the April 15 federal tax filing deadline upon us, there are some important steps for affected consumers to take, tax and insurance experts said.

First, because it could take weeks to get corrected forms, experts recommend filing for an extension to buy more time. When consumers file for that extension, they should also pay any taxes owed to avoid penalties and interest.

In general, consumers who at any point in the year think they are victims of an unauthorized enrollment or plan switch should report it immediately to the relevant federal or state ACA marketplace and request a corrected Form 1095-A. But move fast. Appeals to cancel coverage retroactively must be made within 60 days of discovering the fraudulent enrollment, Speidel said.

Consumers can ask for help filing a complaint with federal or state regulators by contacting their own insurance agents or seeking help from assisters or “navigator” programs, which are government-funded nonprofit groups that help people enroll or deal with insurance problems.

Navigators and assisters are fielding many such cases this year and can submit what are called “complex case forms,” which help federal officials investigate such complaints, said Lynn Cowles, program manager for Prosper Health Coverage, a navigator program in Texas.

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).

Deputy Secretary Palm Highlighted the Importance of Tribal Self-Determination

STI awareness week is an opportunity to raise awareness about how STI impact our lives.

We wish you a steady return to full health.

Nearly a quarter of adults disenrolled from Medicaid in the past year say they are now uninsured, according to a survey released Friday that details how tens of millions of Americans struggled to retain coverage in the government insurance program for low-income people after pandemic-era protections began expiring last spring.

The first national survey of adults whose Medicaid eligibility was reviewed during the unwinding found nearly half of people who lost their government coverage signed back up weeks or months later — suggesting they should never have been dropped in the first place.

While 23% reported being uninsured, an additional 28% found other coverage — through an employer, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplace, or health care for members of the military, the survey by KFF found.

“Twenty-three percent is a striking number especially when you think about the number of people who lost Medicaid coverage,” said Chima Ndumele, an associate professor of health policy at the Yale University School of Public Health.

Going without insurance even for a short period of time can lead people to delay seeking care and leave them at financial risk when they do.

Seven in 10 adults who were disenrolled during the unwinding process say they became uninsured at least temporarily when they lost their Medicaid coverage.

Adrienne Hamar, 49, of Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, said she struggled to enroll in an Affordable Care Act marketplace plan this winter after the state informed her that she and her two children no longer qualified for Medicaid. They had been enrolled since 2020. She said phone lines were busy at the state’s marketplace and she couldn’t complete the process online.

Hamar, who works as a home health aide, and her children were uninsured in March. But since April 1, they’ve been enrolled in a marketplace plan that, with the help of government subsidies, costs $50 a month for the family.

“I was very relieved,” she said. Unsure of their insurance status, Hamar said, her 23-year-old daughter delayed getting a dental checkup.

Hamar’s struggles were common, the survey found.

Of adults enrolled in Medicaid before the unwinding, about 35% who tried to renew their coverage described the process as difficult, and about 48% said it was at least somewhat stressful.

About 56% of those disenrolled say they skipped or delayed care or prescriptions while attempting to renew their Medicaid coverage.

“People’s current insurance status is likely to be very much in flux, and we would expect at least some of the people who say they are currently uninsured to reenroll in Medicaid — many say they are still trying — or enroll in other coverage within a short period of time,” said Jennifer Tolbert, a co-author of the KFF report and the director of KFF’s State Health Reform and Data Program.

The survey didn’t include children, and the KFF researchers said their findings therefore couldn’t be extrapolated to determine how the Medicaid unwinding has affected the overall U.S. uninsured rate, which hit a record low of 7.7% in early 2023. Nearly half of enrollees in Medicaid and the related Children’s Health Insurance Program are children.

The unwinding, in which states are reassessing eligibility for Medicaid among millions of Americans who enrolled before or during the pandemic and dropping those who no longer qualify or did not complete the renewal process, won’t be completed until later this year. Enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP grew to a record of nearly 94.5 million in April of last year, three years after the federal government prohibited states from cutting people from their rolls during the covid-19 public health emergency.

Nationally, states have disenrolled about 20 million people from Medicaid in the past year, most of them for procedural reasons such as failure to submit required paperwork. That number is expected to grow, as states have a few more months to redetermine enrollees’ eligibility.

Among adults who had Medicaid prior to the start of the unwinding, 83% retained their coverage or reenrolled, while 8% found other insurance and 8% were uninsured. The share left uninsured was larger in states that have not expanded Medicaid under the ACA (17%) than in states that have (6%). Forty states have expanded Medicaid to cover everyone with an income under 138% of the federal poverty rate, or $31,200 for a family of four this year.

The KFF survey found that nearly 1 in 3 disenrolled adults discovered only when they sought health care — such as going to a doctor or a pharmacy — that they had been dropped from Medicaid.

Indira Navas of Miami found out that her 6-year-old son, Andres, had been disenrolled from Florida’s Medicaid program when she took him to a doctor appointment in March. She had scheduled Andres’ appointment months in advance and is frustrated that he remains uninsured and his therapy for anxiety and hyperactivity has been disrupted.

Navas said the state could not explain why her 12-year-old daughter, Camila, remained covered by Medicaid even though the children live in the same household with their parents.

“It doesn’t make sense that they would cover one of my children and not the other,” she said.

Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, said the sheer volume of millions of people being redetermined for eligibility has overwhelmed some state call centers trying to support enrollees.

She said states have tried many ways to communicate with enrollees, including through public outreach campaigns, text, email, and apps. “Until the moment your coverage is at stake, it’s hard to penetrate people’s busy lives,” she said.

The KFF survey, of 1,227 adults who had Medicaid coverage in early 2023 prior to the start of the unwinding on April 1, 2023, was conducted between Feb. 15, 2024, and March 11, 2024. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

KFF Health News correspondent Daniel Chang 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).

MONROE, N.C. — Regina Barrett, a 69-year-old retiree who lives in this small North Carolina city southeast of Charlotte, has not been happy with her tap water for a while.

“Our water has been cloudy and bubbly and looks milky,” said Barrett, who blames fluoride, a mineral that communities across the nation have for decades added to the water supply to help prevent cavities and improve dental health.

“I don’t want fluoride in my nothing!” said Barrett, echoing a growing number of people who not only doubt the mineral’s effectiveness but also believe it may be harmful despite decades of data pointing to public health and economic benefits.

In February, the Board of County Commissioners in Union County, whose seat is Monroe, voted 3-2 to stop adding fluoride to drinking water at the Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant, the only water source wholly owned and operated by the county. But the decision came after heated discussions among residents and county officials.

“My children had the blessing of growing up with fluoride in their water and … they have very little dental issues,” said Commissioner Richard Helms ahead of the vote. A fellow commissioner saw it differently: “Let’s stop putting something in the water that’s meant to treat us, and give people the freedom to choose,” said David Williams.

Barrett’s water comes from the city of Monroe, not the Yadkin facility. So, for now, she will continue to drink water enhanced with fluoride. “I’m suspicious as to why they add that to our water,” she told KFF Health News.

It is a scenario playing out nationwide. From Oregon to Pennsylvania, hundreds of communities have in recent years either stopped adding fluoride to their water supplies or voted to prevent its addition. Supporters of such bans argue that people should be given the freedom of choice. The broad availability of over-the-counter dental products containing the mineral makes it no longer necessary to add to public water supplies, they say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that while store-bought products reduce tooth decay, the greatest protection comes when they are used in combination with water fluoridation.

The outcome of an ongoing federal case in California could force the Environmental Protection Agency to create a rule regulating or banning the use of fluoride in drinking water nationwide. In the meantime, the trend is raising alarm bells for public health researchers who worry that, much like vaccines, fluoride may have become a victim of its own success.

The CDC maintains that community water fluoridation is not only safe and effective but also yields significant cost savings in dental treatment. Public health officials say removing fluoride could be particularly harmful to low-income families — for whom drinking water may be the only source of preventive dental care.

“If you have to go out and get care on your own, it’s a whole different ballgame,” said Myron Allukian Jr., a dentist and past president of the American Public Health Association. Millions of people have lived with fluoridated water for years, “and we’ve had no major health problems,” he said. “It’s much easier to prevent a disease than to treat it.”

According to the anti-fluoride group Fluoride Action Network, since 2010, over 240 communities around the world have removed fluoride from their drinking water or decided not to add it.

One needs only to look to Union County to see just how intense discussions can be. Usually when the commissioners meet on the first floor of the Government Center in downtown Monroe, there are more vacant seats than attendees. But sessions about the prohibition of fluoride in public water supplies were packed, and residents who signed up to speak were divided.

One person who came to the microphone on Feb. 5 compared water fluoridation to a seat belt. It does not “prevent the car crash, but it limits the harm done,” he said. Another argued that there is no proof fluoride is safe or effective. “It’s a significant potential milestone to reverse 60-plus years of poisoning the public,” he said, using an unproven claim often made by opponents of fluoridation.

Fluoride opponents claim the mineral is responsible for everything from acne to high blood pressure and thyroid dysfunction to bone cancer.

The National Institutes of Health acknowledges that, when ingested in extremely large amounts, fluoride from dental products or dietary supplements can cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, bone pain, and even death in extremely rare cases.

Infants and children who receive too much fluoride can develop discoloration or small dents in their teeth. In adults, consumption of excessive fluoride for extended periods can lead to skeletal fluorosis, a very rare condition that causes joint pain and stiffness, weak bones, muscle loss, and nerve problems.

However, the recommended dosage in drinking water has always been small. In 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services lowered the optimal fluoride concentration from 1.2 milligrams per liter to 0.7 mg/L.

Juneau, Alaska, voted to remove fluoride from its drinking water in 2007. A study published in the journal BMC Oral Health in 2018 compared the dental records of children and adolescents who received dental care for decaying teeth four years before and five years after the city stopped adding fluoride to the water. Cavity-related procedures and treatment costs were significantly higher in the latter group, the study found.

Portland, Oregon, is the largest city in the nation that has consistently refused to fluoridate its drinking water. Voters have repeatedly rejected measures to add it, first in 1956 and the latest time in 2013.

Despite the strong recommendation of local doctors and dentists, voters in Wichita, Kansas, have rejected adding fluoride to the water several times, most recently in 2012.

The Brushy Creek Municipal Utility District in Williamson County, Texas, had been adding fluoride to its water system since 2007 but ended the practice in December.

In 2016, Collier County, Florida, commissioners opted not to remove fluoride from the water system. But they unanimously reversed that decision following a 2023 Health Freedom Bill of Rights county ordinance in response to covid-19 “to safeguard the healthcare rights and freedoms of Collier County residents.”

The State College Borough Water Authority in Pennsylvania stopped adding fluoride to the water of its 75,000 customers in March 2023. Officials used claims often cited by fluoride opponents, such as potential environmental contamination, concerns about medical freedom, and possible adverse health effects, like the potential for the appearance of faint white lines on the teeth and lowered IQ for babies.

A study published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2019, conducted in six Canadian cities, associated fluoride exposure during pregnancy with lower IQ scores in children. But the study was based on self-reporting and has been criticized for its perceived methodological shortcomings.

In 2016, several consumer advocacy groups, including the Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, and Moms Against Fluoridation, petitioned the EPA to end water fluoridation under the Toxic Substances Control Act, alleging that significant research showed fluoride was neurotoxic at the doses now used. The same group filed a federal lawsuit against the EPA the following year, after the agency denied their citizen petition.

During a 10-day bench trial in San Francisco that concluded in mid-February, the two sides debated the risks and areas of uncertainty. If Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Chen determines water fluoridation presents an “unreasonable risk” to human health, the EPA will be forced to create a rule regulating or banning water fluoridation in the U.S. A decision is expected soon.

For the time being, decisions about whether to fluoridate community water systems are still made primarily at the local level, which Barrett hopes will change.

“Of all things, they want our teeth healthy when basic needs of housing and food are lacking.”

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).

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Thirty years after prisoners with disabilities sued the state of California and 25 years after a federal court first ordered accommodations, a judge found that state prison and parole officials still are not doing enough to help deaf and blind prisoners — in part because they are not using readily available technology such as video recordings and laptop computers.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s rulings on March 20 centered on the prison system’s need to help deaf, blind, and low-vision prisoners better prepare for parole hearings, though the decisions are also likely to improve accommodations for hundreds of other prisoners with those disabilities.

“I believe I should have the same opportunity as hearing individuals,” a prisoner, deaf since birth, said in court documents.

The lawsuit is one of several class-action proceedings that have led the courts to assume oversight of the prison system’s treatment of those who are sick or suffer from mental illnesses.

“It is difficult not to despair,” a blind prisoner said in written testimony. “I am desperate for some kind of assistance that will let me prepare adequately for my parole hearing.”

The parole process can begin more than a year before an incarcerated person’s hearing and last long afterward. And the consequences of rejection are great: People denied parole typically must wait three to 15 years before they can try again.

Prisoners are expected to review their prison records and a psychologist’s assessment of whether they are at risk for future violence, write a release plan including housing and work plans, write letters of remorse, and prepare a statement to parole officials on why they should be released.

“It is a very time-consuming and important process,” said Gay Grunfeld, one of the attorneys representing about 10,000 prisoners with many different disabilities in the federal class-action lawsuit. “All of these tasks are harder if you are blind, low-vision, or deaf.”

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and its Board of Parole Hearings “remain committed to conducting fair hearings and ensuring access to the hearings for all participants. We are assessing the potential impact of the order and exploring available legal options,” said spokesperson Albert Lundeen.

The department counts more than 500 prisoners with serious vision problems and about 80 with severe hearing problems, though Grunfeld thinks both are undercounts.

California’s prison system has lagged in adopting technological accommodations that are commonly used in the outside world, Wilken found in her ruling.

For instance, California gives prisoners digital tablets that can be used for communications and entertainment, and since late 2021 has gradually been providing secure laptops to prisoners who are enrolled in college, GED, and high school diploma programs.

But officials balked at providing computers that Wilken decided are needed by some prisoners with disabilities. She required the department to develop a plan within 60 days of her order to, among many things, provide those individuals with laptops equipped with accommodations like screen magnification and software that can translate text to speech or Braille.

“It would make a huge difference to me to have equipment that would let me listen to and dictate written words, or produce written documents in another accessible manner,” testified the blind prisoner. He added that such accommodations “would finally let me properly prepare for my parole hearing with the privacy, independence, and dignity that all humans deserve.”

Similarly, California routinely uses video cameras during parole proceedings, including when it conducted hearings remotely during the coronavirus pandemic. But prison policy has prohibited videotaping the hearings, including sign language translations that some deaf prisoners rely on to understand the proceedings.

The deaf-since-birth prisoner, for example, testified that he also doesn’t speak, his primary method of communication is American Sign Language, and his English is so poor that written transcripts do him no good. He advocated for recorded sign language translations of the hearings and related documents that he could review whenever he wanted, in the same way that other inmates can review written text.

Wilken ordered prison officials to comply.

“They need to be able to watch it later, not read it later,” said Grunfeld. “It’s going to make a huge difference in the lives of deaf signers.”

The department recently acquired 100 portable electronic video magnifiers, at a cost of $1,100 each, that prisoners with low vision can check out to use in their cells. The technology will augment similar devices in prison libraries that prisoners say aren’t private and can be used only during libraries’ limited hours.

Wilken said officials acquired the magnifiers only after prodding by prisoners and their attorneys.

Grunfeld said the judge’s detailed order, which includes requirements like better assistance from attorneys, will “make sure that people with disabilities are on an equal footing as people who don’t have disabilities.”

“My colleagues and I have been working for several years to persuade CDCR to adopt this technology, and it’s been slow-going. But they’ve gradually accepted that they do need to do this,” Grunfeld said. “It’s long past due, but at least it’s coming.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

The Arizona Supreme Court shook up the national abortion debate this week, ruling that a ban originally passed in 1864 — before the end of the Civil War and decades before Arizona became a state — could be enforced. As in some other states, including Florida, voters will likely have the chance to decide whether to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution in November.

The Arizona ruling came just one day after former President Donald Trump declared that abortion should remain a state issue, although he then criticized the ruling as having gone “too far.”

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat.

Panelists Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico @AliceOllstein Read Alice's stories. Rachel Roubein The Washington Post @rachel_roubein Read Rachel's stories. Rachel Cohrs Zhang Stat News @rachelcohrs Read Rachel's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Former President Donald Trump’s remarks this week reflect only the latest public shift in his views on abortion access. During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in 1999, he described himself as “very pro-choice,” but by the 2016 presidential campaign, he had committed to nominating conservative Supreme Court justices likely to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion. Trump later blamed Republican losses in the 2022 elections on the overturning of that right.
• Arizona officials, as well as doctors and patients, are untangling the ramifications of a state Supreme Court ruling this week allowing the enforcement of a near-total abortion ban dating to the Civil War. Yet any ban — even one that doesn’t last long — can have lasting effects. Abortion clinics may not survive such restrictions, and doctors and residents may factor them into their decisions about where to practice medicine.
• Also in abortion news, an appeals court panel in Indiana unanimously ruled that the state cannot enforce its abortion ban against a group of non-Christians who sued, siding with mostly Jewish plaintiffs who charged that the ban violates their religious freedom rights.
• A discouraging new study finds that paying off an individual’s medical debt once it has reached collections doesn’t offer them much financial — or mental health — benefit. One factor could be that the failure to pay medical debt is only a symptom of larger financial difficulties.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Molly Castle Work, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature about an air-ambulance ride for an infant with RSV that his insurer deemed not to be medically necessary. If you have an outrageous or baffling medical bill you’d like to send us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Your Dog Is Probably on Prozac. Experts Say That Says More About the American Mental Health Crisis Than Pets,” by Sarah Owermohle.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: KFF Health News’ “Ten Doctors on FDA Panel Reviewing Abbott Heart Device Had Financial Ties With Company,” by David Hilzenrath and Holly K. Hacker.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Texas Tribune’s “How Texas Teens Lost the One Program That Allowed Birth Control Without Parental Consent,” by Eleanor Klibanoff.

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “As Obesity Rises, Big Food and Dietitians Push ‘Anti-Diet’ Advice,” by Sasha Chavkin, Caitlin Gilbert, Anjali Tsui, and Anahad O’Connor.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Live Action’s “Hi, My Name’s Olivia” video.
• The New York Times’ “Insurers Reap Hidden Fees by Slashing Payment. You May Get the Bill,” by Chris Hamby.
• The Nation Bureau of Economic Research’s “The Effects of Medical Debt Relief: Evidence From Two Randomized Experiments,” by Raymond Kluender, Neale Mahoney, Francis Wong, and Wesley Yin.
• USA Today’s “The Database You Don’t Want to Need: Check to See if Your Health Data Was Hacked,” by Cecilia Garzella.

Click to open the transcript Transcript: Arizona Turns Back the Clock on Abortion Access

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 11, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And we welcome back from her leave Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi, happy to be here.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my KFF Health News colleague Molly Work about the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month,” about yet another very expensive air-ambulance ride that an insurer deemed “unnecessary.” As you will hear, that is hardly the case.

But first, this week’s news, and there is lots of it. We start again this week with abortion because, again, that’s where the biggest news is. I want to do this chronologically because there were a lot of things that happened and they all built on each piece before them. So on Monday, former President [Donald] Trump, as promised, issued his long-awaited statement on abortion, a four-minute video posted on his platform Truth Social, in which he took credit for appointing the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, but then kind of declared the job done because abortion is now up to the individual states. And while he didn’t say so directly, that strongly suggested he would not be supporting efforts by anti-abortion groups to try to pass a federal 15-week ban, should Republicans retake the presidency and both houses of Congress. That alone was a big step away from some of his strongest anti-abortion supporters like the SBA List [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America], which helped got him elected in 2016, right, Alice? I see you nodding.

Ollstein: Yes. He kind of left himself some wiggle room. He made a statement that, at first, people could sort of read into it what they wanted. And so you had several anti-abortion groups going, “Well, he didn’t advocate for a national ban, but he also didn’t rule it out.” But then, as I’m sure we’ll get to, he was asked follow-up questions and he kind of did rule it out. He kind of did say, “No, I wouldn’t sign a national ban if it were presented to me.” And so the little crumbs of hope anti-abortion groups were picking up on may or may not be there. But it was both notable for what he did say and what he didn’t say. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about what he would do in office, both in terms of legislation, which is really a remote possibility that no one thinks is real, but he didn’t say anything.

Rovner: It would need 60 votes in the Senate.

Ollstein: Exactly.

Rovner: Legislation.

Ollstein: Exactly. And no one really on the right or left thinks that is going to happen, but he didn’t say anything about what he would do with executive powers, which, as we’ve discussed, could go a long, long way towards banning abortion nationwide.

Rovner: One of the things that sort of fascinates me, I’ve been covering abortion for a long time, longer than some of you have been alive, and I have seen lots of politicians switch sides on this. I mean, Joe Biden started out as very anti-abortion, now very in favor of abortion rights. So I’ve seen politicians go both ways, but the general rule has always been you get to switch once. You get to either go from being pro-life to pro-choice or being pro-choice to pro-life. You don’t get to go back and forth and yet that seems to be very much what Trump has done. He seems to have taken every conceivable position there is on this extraordinarily binary issue and gotten away with it.

Ollstein: One last thing I wanted to flag in the statement was that he kind of said the quiet part out loud and that he directly said that this is about winning elections. So he’s saying, “This is what we need to say in order to win,” which leaves open what he really believes or what he really would do.

Roubein: Yeah, I mean, going back to Trump’s shifting view on abortion, because that’s really important and that’s something that the anti-abortion movement is sort of looking towards. I mean, in 1999 in an interview in “Meet the Press,” he called himself “very pro-choice,” and then we kind of saw by 2016, he had committed to naming justices who had anti-abortion views. And as Alice mentioned then, after the midterms in 2022, he blamed Republican losses on that.

Rovner: Yeah, I assume that makes it hard for people who try to follow him. I know [Sen.] Lindsey Graham came out, Lindsey Graham, who’s been sort of the major backer of the 15-week abortion ban in Congress for some time now, and suddenly Lindsey Graham, who has been nothing but loyal to Trump, finds himself on the other side of a big, important issue. I mean, Trump seems to get away with it. The question is, are his followers going to get away with having different positions on this?

Cohrs Zhang: Oh, I also just wanted to say that I think it’ll be interesting to see who Trump chooses as his running mate on this because obviously his opinion and his position is very important, but I think we saw kind of last time around with him leaning on Mike Pence a little bit for credibility with the anti-abortion movement. So I think it’ll be interesting to see whether he chooses someone again who can mend some of these relationships or whether he’s just going to carry on and make those decisions himself and lean less on his VP.

Rovner: Well, let’s move on to Tuesday because on Tuesday the Trump abortion doctrine got a pretty severe test from the Arizona Supreme Court, which ruled that an almost absolute abortion ban that was passed in 1864, before Arizona was a state, before the end of the Civil War, can be enforced. Alice, what’s this law and when might it take effect?

Ollstein: So the Supreme Court kicked some of those issues back down to the lower court and so it’s still being worked out. Currently, abortion is banned after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The total ban could go into effect in a little over a month, but it’s really uncertain. And so you’re seeing a lot of the same fear and confusion that we saw in the immediate aftermath of Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization], where providers and patients don’t know what’s legal and whether they can provide or receive care and are, in some instances, over-complying and holding off on doing things that are still legal.

And so just a great example of how Trump and these national political figures, they can take whatever position they want, but that often gets overtaken by events. And so you saw Trump come out and say, “States should decide.” This is arguably an instance of states deciding, although the Supreme Court upholding a law from when no one was currently alive, was part of that, the law was implemented when women couldn’t vote, when Arizona wasn’t even a state yet. So whether this is an example of “will of the people,” that can be debated. But this is an example of “leave it to states.” And then Trump was asked about the Arizona decision, whether it went too far, and he said “Yes, it did go too far.” So it’s like should states be allowed to decide or not?

Rovner: It’s like, “Leave it to states unless they go too far.”

Roubein: And who decides what too far is, because a lot of anti-abortion groups were very complimentary of the Arizona ruling and said it was the right thing to do. So depends who you ask.

Rovner: So this obviously scrambles politics beyond just the presidential race, although I think it’s pretty clear to say that it puts Arizona, which had been teetering as being sort of purple state-ish, right back in play, but it’s going to affect things down the ballot and in other states, right?

Ollstein: I mean just looking at Arizona, I mean abortion rights and Democrats have really been pushing ballot measures here, and, I think as Julie was alluding to, there’s a ballot measure effort in Arizona, and I believe the organizers have said that they have enough signatures to qualify, then there’s steps to actually qualifying. So that’s going to really put a spotlight on Arizona. But, we’ve seen ballot measures in other states, Florida. Democrats really want Florida to be in play now that there’s been a Florida state Supreme Court ruling and there’s a ballot measure there. The threshold’s higher, it’s 60%, but all around the country it’s going to be putting increasing emphasis on this ballot measure effort.

Rovner: So the Republicans now really have no place to hide. I saw there was a Senate candidate in Wisconsin who had been very completely anti-abortion, now seems to be a lot less anti-abortion. I mean Republicans have spent a lot of time putting Democrats on the spot about not wanting to be specific on their abortion position, and that’s what leads to the, “You support abortion up until the ninth month,” which isn’t a thing. But now I feel like it’s a chance for Democrats to turn this on Republicans saying, “Now you have to say exactly what your position is rather than just you are ‘anti-abortion’ or ‘100% pro-life,’ which for many, many elections was plenty and all the candidates needed to say.

Cohrs Zhang: Just as we talk about all of these different, how this is playing out, certainly I think the instance you brought up was an example of a position on the larger issue of what a candidate is going to support generally, but I think there are these kind of tangential local issues too that candidates are going to have to take positions on. I think if we look back, like IVF, that’s something that candidates have never really had to weigh in on, and I think it is going to become local in a new way, which just seeing all these offshoot rulings and court decisions. And I think that it was an excellent catch, and, certainly, it’ll be interesting to see how candidates move across the spectrum as we see some more and more extreme local cases coming up even beyond the national standard.

Rovner: And as Alice points out, this is more than just political. This affects health care on the ground. Doctors either not wanting to train in states that have strict bans or doctors in some cases picking up and leaving states, not wanting to be threatened with jail or loss of license. So that affects what other kinds of women’s health care is available. Alice, you wanted to add something?

Ollstein: Yeah, I’ve been seeing a lot of people saying, both with the Florida ruling and with the Arizona ruling, so in both of these instances, a very sweeping abortion ban is expected to go into effect, but then there’s going to be a ballot referendum in the fall where voters will have the opportunity to get rid of those bans. And so you’re seeing a lot of people saying, “OK, well this is only temporary. Voters will be so outraged over this that they’ll vote to support these ballot measures to overturn it.” But I think it’s important to remember that a lot of the impacts will linger for a long time if these clinics can’t hang on even a few months under a near-total ban and shut their doors. You can’t just flip a switch and turn that back on. It’s incredibly hard to open a new abortion clinic.

Rovner: Or even to reopen one that you’ve closed down “temporarily.”

Ollstein: Exactly. And like you said, medical students and residents and doctors are making decisions about where to live and where to practice that could have impacts that last for years and years. And so people saying, “Oh, well, it’s not that important if these bans go into effect now because in November voters will have their say.” Even a few months can have a very long effect in a state.

Rovner: Yeah. I just want to continue to reiterate this is about more than politics. This is actually about health care on the ground.

Well, in other abortion news, a three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled last week that the state cannot enforce its abortion ban against a group of plaintiffs who are non-Christians and charge that the ban violates their freedom of religion because some religions, notably Judaism but others too, include tenets that prioritize the life and health of the pregnant woman over that of the fetus. This is obviously not the last word on this case. It could still go to the Indiana Supreme Court or even the U.S. Supreme Court, but it does seem significant. I think it’s the first decision we’ve seen on one of these cases, and it was unanimous. And interestingly, it turns a lot of the recent decisions protecting religious freedom for Christians right back on those who would ban abortion. Alice, there are more of these … awaiting hearing, right?

Ollstein: Yes. There’s ones going on really around the country that are testing these legal theories, and part of it is that state-level religious freedom laws are often more expansive and protective than federal religious freedom laws. And so they’re leaning on that. And yeah, it’s a really fascinating test case of, were these religious freedom laws intended to only protect one particular religion that has hegemonic power in the United States right now or were they designed to protect every one of every religion? And I think Judeo-Christian values is a term that’s thrown out a lot, and this really shows that there are very different beliefs when it comes to pregnancy and abortion and which life to prioritize between the mother and the child. And when it even counts as an abortion, when it even counts as life beginning, that is a lot more muddled.

And look, in this case it was led by Jewish plaintiffs challenging, but I’ve been tracking cases that draw from many different religions, and these protections even apply to avowed atheists in some instances. And so I think this is definitely something to keep an eye on. In addition to Indiana, the other case I’ve been following most closely is in Missouri, so it’ll be really fascinating to see what happens.

Rovner: There was one in Kentucky, too. Did anything ever happen with that one? I think that was the first one we talked about.

Ollstein: They’re still waiting.

Rovner: Like two years ago.

Ollstein: Yeah. The wheels of justice turn slowly.

Rovner: Indeed, they do. Well, finally, Tennessee is on the verge of enacting a bill that would require students to be shown a three-minute video on fetal development and strongly recommends one made by the anti-abortion group Live Action. Not surprisingly, medical experts say the video is inaccurate and manipulative. I will post a link to it so you can watch it and judge for yourself. What jumped out to me in this story is that one Tennessee lawmaker, himself a physician, said, and I quote, “Whether all of the exact details are correct, I don’t think that is important.” Is that where we have come with this debate these days, that facts are no longer important?

Cohrs Zhang: I mean, I thought it was interesting that there was an amendment rejected that would’ve allowed parents to opt out of it. And I just feel like there’s so many permission slips in schools these days for any book or movie that something like this would be mandated is just kind of like an interesting twist on that. So again, we’ll be interested to see if it actually takes effect, but …

Rovner: I mean, it’s a pretty benign video. It’s basically purporting to show fetal development from the moment of fertilization up to birth. The big complaint about it is it’s misleading on the timing because it’s counting from a different place than doctors count from. It’s counting from the moment of fertilization. Doctors generally count pregnancy from the last missed period because it’s hard to tell. You don’t know when the moment of fertilization was. But when we talk about first trimester or however many weeks, medically you’re talking about weeks since last missed period. So this makes everything look like it happened earlier than it actually does in common parlance. Have I explained that right, Alice?

Ollstein: Yes. And we are seeing efforts on this front both to make these educational mandates for students, but we’re also seeing them mandated for doctors’ education in some states as well. Part of this is to address what everyone on all sides acknowledges is a problem, which is that doctors don’t understand when the exemptions to these abortion bans apply in terms of life and health of the parent coming into play. Oftentimes these bans are written with nonmedical language talking about serious threats. What’s serious? Talking about harm to a major bodily function. What’s major? So, you are seeing doctors holding off from providing abortions even in cases that they think should be exempt, these emergency situations, and so anti-abortion groups are pushing these bills mandating certain curricula for doctors to try to address this confusion. The medical groups I’ve spoken to don’t think this is a solution, but it’s interesting as an attempt.

Rovner: In some states, it has to be an affirmative defense. So as you, a doctor, consider an emergency, you perform the abortion and then instead of not getting charged, you get charged and you have to go hire a lawyer and go to court and say, “I decided that this was an emergency.” And that’s not something that’s very attractive to doctors either. And Rachel, you wanted to add …

Roubein: Oh yeah, I was just going to say I think one of the things that stuck out to me about this particular video, one of my colleagues, Dan Rosen, so I [inaudible 00:16: 52] in February, and he said that this is Live Action, which is the group that came under the spotlight in 2011 for releasing undercover videos seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood, but Live Action had been playing the Baby Olivia to legislative audiences, including at an influential conservative group, American Legislative Exchange Council. So just kind of looking at who’s kind of seeking to get this video into classrooms.

Rovner: All right, well now it is time for our weekly dive into why health care costs so darn much. We begin with a fascinating and infuriating investigation from The New York Times about another one of those third-party contractors most of us had never heard of, kind of like Change Healthcare before it got hacked. This one is called MultiPlan, and its job is to recommend how much insurers and/or employers, in self-insured plans, should pay providers. Except it turns out that MultiPlan has an incentive to pay providers less than they charge. It pockets part of the “savings.” And in most of the cases, these out-of-network charges are not covered by the surprise-billing law. I think because patients know they are going out-of-network, that part is not entirely clear to me. And of course, often patients have no other available providers, so they have no choice but to go out-of-network.

Sometimes indeed providers do overcharge outrageously. We’ve talked about that a lot. But in this case, it seems that a lot of these recommendations are to underpay outrageously. The firm told one therapist that her fair payment should be half of what Medicaid pays. Medicaid, traditionally the lowest payer of everyone. I feel like this story’s going to have legs, as they say. Apparently, the American Hospital Association has already asked the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate MultiPlan. Why do I feel like we’re all pawns in this huge competition between health care providers and insurers about who can pay who less or more and pocket the differences?

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think we first heard about MultiPlan, kind of in the conversation around surprise billing, because that was just a different category of these out-of-network bills where patients were getting stuck in the middle. And I think over time we’ve seen more stories come out about loopholes in those protections. And this is another example where MultiPlan is … they have to fix their business model. And the arbitration process for these surprise bills is so backed up, in these certain cases, which are more emergency care, I think, and if patients don’t necessarily have control or knowledge of their provider being out-of-network.

But certainly, people, if you’re looking for a certain specialist or want to go to a certain place to have a procedure done, then you may just elect an out-of-network provider. And I think the part I found really interesting about this reporting, that I think we’ve seen reflected in larger trends on business reporting, is really understanding these business models better and the incentives. And I love the graphics, I think, where you’re showing that if MultiPlan can lowball these providers and manage to squeeze a little bit more of a discount for payers, then they’re taking a cut of that discount, and patients can be left on the hook for these too.

So I think, as with anything, these surprise-billing protections are going to be an iterative process. And certainly I think there’s more to be done in so many different individual cases to protect patients from some of these games that providers and insurers are engaged in and the firms that kind of specialize in brokering these negotiations.

Rovner: It feels very whack-a-mole, every time they sort of put a band-aid on one problem, another one pops up, that it’s just sort of this is what happens when a fifth of your economy goes to health care is that everybody says, “Oh, I can make money doing X.” And then, there’s an awful lot of people making money doing X, which is not necessarily having anything to do with providing or receiving medical care.

Cohrs Zhang: Absolutely. And correct me if I’m wrong, I think MultiPlan, it may be publicly traded as well. So if you look at some of these incentives here to kind of meet those quarterly targets and how that aligns with patients, I think that’s also just something we keep in mind.

Rovner: And there was private equity involved on both sides, too, which I didn’t even want to try to explain. You should really read the story, which is really very complicated and very well explained. Because this is how it works: They make it complicated so you can’t figure out what’s going on.

Well, meanwhile, in a sad payment story of the week, a new study has found that paying off people’s medical debt doesn’t actually fix their financial problems. According to a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, paying off debts that have already gone to collection did not improve the financial status of the people who owed the money, nor their mental health, nor did it make it more likely that they would be able to pay future medical bills. One thing it did do was help their credit ratings. The researchers said that they hope maybe paying off debt before it reaches the collection status might be more helpful, but that would also be more expensive. What makes it easy to pay off medical debt after it’s gone to collections is they sell it for pennies on the dollar. And of course, the U.S. is already moving towards taking medical debt off of people’s credit report. So obviously we’re talking about patients getting stuck with these huge bills and they end up with this medical debt and now we can’t seem to figure out how to fix the medical debt problem either.

Cohrs Zhang: When I first saw the study, obviously I trust that Sarah Kliff edited her studies, but I scrolled right down to the conflict-of-interest section to see who funded this. And yeah, it was a very depressing study. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that a failure to pay medical debt is a symptom of larger economic problems. Certainly there may be cases where medical debt is the only outstanding debt somebody has or is a shocking surprise or is a lien on their home, something like that that might have just these massive consequences.

But I think one of the points that was brought up in the story was that when you have medical debt, sure, you have collections calls, you have bad impact on your credit, but you’re not getting evicted from your home. And we’ve heard about cases where providers have held outstanding balances against patients, but I don’t think that’s a general practice. You’re supposed to be seen if you go in for medical care. So I think just like the day-to-day challenges of poverty, of debt, are so overwhelming that it is a little discouraging to hear that these individual payments may not have changed someone’s life. But I think there may be anecdotal cases that would be different from that larger trend, but it was not an encouraging study.

Rovner: No. And speaking of conflict of interest, there was the opposite of conflict of interest. It was conducted in part by the group RIP Medical Debt, which was created to help pay off people’s medical debt. And they did say, obviously there are cases in this does make huge differences in individual people’s lives. It was just that, overall, apparently the model by which they are paying off people’s debt is not helping them as much as I guess they had hoped to. So they have to look on to other things.

Moving on to this week in health data security, or lack thereof, it seems that another cyberattack group is trying to get Change Healthcare to pay ransom. This is after the company reportedly paid $22 million. So it seems that after paying, the company didn’t get all of its stolen records back. Meanwhile, it seems that even though we’re not hearing as much about this as we were, there are still lots of providers that aren’t getting paid. I mean, Rachel, this thing as we predicted, has a really long tail.

Roubein: Absolutely does. Yeah, I think we’re seeing these multiple ransomware groups trying to extort money out of UnitedHealthcare. I mean, they have deep pockets. It’s such a mess. I think, who’s to say what’s true about what data they have as well. So it’s kind of hard to report on these kind of things. And I think only UnitedHealthcare has the answers to those questions. But I think we are going to see some more congressional oversight on this issue. I know providers, hospitals, and physician groups were absolutely using these arguments on Capitol Hill during the appropriations negotiations. They’re saying, “We’re in such financial distress.” Going to their lawmakers talking about how it wouldn’t be a good idea to cut provider payments or implement site-neutral payments for hospitals, all these long-term things that lawmakers have been thinking about. There were other political problems, too, but I think it’s definitely seeped into Washington how difficult this has been, how cumbersome some of the workarounds are for providers, large and small, I think who are trying to work around this fiasco.

Rovner: Yeah, I read one story, I mean it really does feel like a spy movie that they’re assuming that maybe the company that got the ransom that was supposed to split it with the company that actually did the hacking didn’t and made off with the money. And now the company that actually did the hacking is trying to get its own ransom and oh my goodness. I mean, again, this is what happens when a fifth of the economy goes through the health care system. But I mean, I want to keep on this story because this story really does keep on impacting the back-room goings-on, which keep the health care system functioning in some ways.

And while we are on the subject of health care data breaches, USA Today has now a searchable tool for you to find out if you’re one of the 144 million Americans whose medical information was stolen or exposed in the last year. Yay? I think? I suppose this is a necessary evil. It’s hard for me to imagine 10 years ago. It’s like, “Wow, you can take some time and find out if your medical information’s been exposed.”

Roubein: It’s better than not knowing because you can change your passwords, you can do some credit monitoring, you could protect your information in some ways. But it’s not the same as better protections for the breaches happening in the first place.

Rovner: I know Congress is talking about a privacy bill, but apparently it is in truly embryonic stages at this point because I don’t think Congress really knows what to do about this either. They just know that they probably should do something.

All right, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my bill of the month interview with Molly [Castle] Work. Then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my colleague Molly Work, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Molly, thanks for joining us.

Molly Castle Work: Thanks so much, Julie.

Rovner: So this month’s bill, like last month’s bill, is for an air-ambulance ride, a bill that should have been prevented by the federal No Surprises Act. But we’ll get to that in a minute. First, who is our patient this month?

Work: So our patient is Amari Vaca. He was a 3-month-old baby at the time from Salinas, California.

Rovner: And what happened to him?

Work: When Amari was a 3-month-old baby, he had issues with his breathing. His mother took him to a local ER and pretty quickly his team of doctors decided that he needed more specialized care at a larger hospital in San Francisco. So they organized an emergency transport.

Rovner: Via helicopter, yes?

Work: It was actually by air ambulance. So like a small airplane.

Rovner: Ah. OK. And before we get too far, he’s OK now, right?

Work: Yes, he is OK. Unfortunately, he was transported to the hospital. He was there for three weeks. They diagnosed him with RSV, but he’s fortunately doing well, now.

Rovner: Well, and then as we say, the bill came. And how much was it?

Work: It was $97,599.

Rovner: Of which the insurance paid how much?

Work: Zero.

Rovner: Now, as I mentioned at the top, the federal surprise-billing law should have prevented the patient from getting a big bill like this, except it didn’t in this case. So why not?

Work: Yeah, so this was really interesting. Cigna, which was Amari’s health plan at the time, decided that the care was not medically necessary. Their argument was that he could have taken a ground ambulance. There was nothing to prove that he had to take this emergency airplane. And so, because of this, Cigna was able to avoid No Surprises Act and they didn’t pay for any of the bill.

Rovner: And, therefore, the patient was left on the hook.

Work: Yes. Amari and his family were left on the hook for the entire bill.

Rovner: So this feels like something that should have been taken care of with a phone call. The insurer calls the doctor and says, “Hey, why’d you order an air ambulance when the hospital’s only 100 miles away?” And the doctor says, “Because it was an infant on a ventilator.” But that would’ve been too easy, right?

Work: Yeah, exactly. There’s a lot of issues with this. First off, one of the best things about No Surprises Act is it’s supposed to take patients out of this. It’s supposed to make it so health plans and providers deal with all these negotiations before it even goes to a patient. But because of how this was handled, instead, Amari’s family is having to do all these negotiations. They’re the ones who are writing letters, using his medical records, to Cigna, and doing multiple appeals.

Rovner: And so far, has there been any progress or is the bill still outstanding?

Work: It’s still outstanding. His mother, Sara, has done two internal appeals. So that means she applied to have the bill changed within Cigna. They denied her both times. Right now she’s working on an external appeal, where an outside provider helps evaluate, and she’s still waiting to hear back on that.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? I mean, obviously you take your critically ill child to a hospital, and they say he has to go, he needs a higher level of care, and recommends an air ambulance. Are you supposed to say, “Wait, I have to call my insurer first to make sure they’re not going to deem this medically unnecessary?”

Work: Yeah, that’s what’s so frustrating because obviously if any of us were in that situation, we would’ve done the same thing. If our baby was sick, we would do the emergency air ambulance, or what we would do what the doctors told us to do. I think what I’ve been hearing from people is that, first off, hospitals should become better acquainted with what plans cover. Of course, we can only hope. But the hospital, for example, should have checked which air-ambulance providers are covered by Cigna before they made the call, because the one they did call was out-of-network for Amari’s family. As patients, what you can really do is you just need to advocate for yourself. It’s easy to be intimidated, but there are lots of times that hospitals just get the medical bill wrong or insurance companies. So do what Sara is doing and appeal. If internal appeals don’t work, go push for that external appeal as well.

Rovner: Yes, these days it helps to know your rights and to try to exercise them when you have them. Molly Work, thank you so much.

Work: Thank you so much, Julie.

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, Rachel Zhang. Why don’t you go first this week? Yep. We have both Rachels.

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. Confusing. So I chose a story in KFF Health News actually, and the headline is “Ten Doctors on FDA Panel Reviewing Abbott Heart Device Had Financial Ties With Company.” And I think this was just a really illuminating explanation of some of the loopholes in conflict-of-interest disclosures with FDA advisory committees. There’s a lot of controversy over what role these committees should play, when they should meet. But we’re seeing them play some very high-profile roles in drug approvals as well. But we have a medical device reporter on our team, and we just think it’s such an important coverage area as we’re looking at the money that the medical device industry spends. And I mean, you’re looking at some of these advisory board members who’ve received, on Open Payments, $200,000 from this company, and they’re not disclosing it because it’s not directly related to this individual device.

And I think it’s fair to say that some of them argued, “It was for a clinical study. The university got the money. I wasn’t spending it on a fancy car or something.” But nonetheless, I think there’s a good argument in this piece for some more stringent requirements for conflict of interest, especially if this data is publicly available.

Rovner: Yes, I was kind of taken this week about how very many good stories there were about investigations into conflicts of interest. Speaking of which, Rachel, other Rachel, why don’t you go next?

Roubein: My extra credit this week is titled “As Obesity Rises, Big Food and Dietitians Push ‘Anti-Diet’ Advice” and it’s a joint investigation by The Washington Post and The Examination, which is a new nonprofit newsroom that’s specializing in global health. And I thought it was a really fascinating window into the food industry and its practices at a time when the FDA and its commissioner wants to crack down, make front-of-package labeling more prevalent. And so basically the story dives into this anti-diet movement, which began as an effort to combat weight stigma and unhealthy obsession with thinness. And the movement has now become kind of a behemoth on social media, and basically food marketers are kind of trying to cash in here. The story kind of focused on one company in particular, General Mills, and its cereal, and the investigation found that the company launched a multipronged campaign to capitalize on the anti-diet movement and giveaways to registered dietitians who promote the cereals online. And I just thought it was kind of a fascinating exploration of all of these dynamics.

Rovner: Yes. Good journalism at work. Alice.

Ollstein: Yeah, I have a story from the Texas Tribune [“How Texas Teens Lost the One Program That Allowed Birth Control Without Parental Consent“] by Eleanor Klibanoff about the impact of the court ruling that said that Title X federal family planning clinics that all across the country have a policy of dispensing contraception, prescribing contraception to teens, whether or not they have parental consent, and doing that in a … advancing privacy and protecting them in that way. There was just a recent court ruling that said, just in Texas, the state’s parental consent laws override that. And they found that at a lot of these clinics, instances of teens coming in and seeking contraception have really fallen off. These are teens, the story documents, who don’t feel comfortable going to their parents. There’s instances of parents even getting violent with their kids when they find out about this. And so it really shows the effect of this, and this is something we should be continuing to track because it went to the 5th Circuit and it could go to the Supreme Court. We don’t know yet.

Rovner: Yeah, we talked about this case a couple of weeks ago. It was another of those cases that was very much aimed at a particular judge that they were confident would rule in their favor, who indeed did rule in their favor.

All right, well, my extra credit this week is not an investigation, it’s just a story I really liked from Stat News from Rachel’s colleague Sarah Owermohle, and it’s called “Your Dog Is Probably on Prozac. Experts Say That Says More About the American Mental Health Crisis Than Pets.” And full disclosure, that is one of my dogs in the background messing with a bone. My dogs are not on Prozac, but I am, and we are all three the better for it. It’s a serious story, though, about how our mental health impacts that of our pets, not just vice versa, and about how so few new medicines there are for anxiety and depression. And as an officer of a dog training club, I will say that it’s more than humans’ projections. We are definitely seeing more dogs with behavioral issues than at any time that I can remember, and I’ve owned dogs all my life.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. You can still find me mostly at X. Alice, where are you these days?

Ollstein: I’m at @AliceOllstein on X, and @alicemiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: Rachel Zhang?

Cohrs Zhang: I’m at @rachelcohrs on X and also spending more time on LinkedIn these days. 

Rovner: Rachel Roubein?

Roubein: @rachel_roubein on X.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

MODESTO, Calif. — When American Advanced Management made a bid for the bankrupt Madera Community Hospital last year, many local officials and others involved in trying to reopen the facility didn’t take the company seriously.

The 11-year-old firm, based in Modesto, was already running a handful of small, rural hospitals, but Madera had far larger and more prestigious suitors, including Trinity Health and then Adventist Health.

After those two entities had backed out, the bankruptcy judge tentatively greenlighted the AAM proposal. But a nonprofit community group later objected in a court filing, citing concerns about AAM’s commitment to fully reopen the hospital and airing allegations of “dishonesty, fraud, perjury, and maladministration.”

The Madera Coalition for Community Justice and other critics of the AAM deal hoped that Adventist and the University of California-San Francisco, which made a last-minute joint proposal in February to take over the hospital, might get another look.

But Gov. Gavin Newsom all but ended the drama on April 8 by announcing the state had approved the AAM plan and would provide a $57 million loan from a fund for distressed hospitals to help reopen and operate the Madera facility.

The same day, AAM, along with the Madera hospital and its creditors, asked the court to strike MCCJ’s objection from the record and requested an April 11 hearing for the judge to consider the motion. MCCJ pushed back with its own filing objecting to the request.

The closure of the hospital in January 2023 left Madera County, home to 160,000 people, largely Hispanic agricultural workers, without a general acute care facility. Like many rural hospitals in California and around the country, the Madera hospital had suffered financial and demographic challenges, including a large proportion of patients on low-paying government insurance programs, low patient volumes, and difficulty attracting talent, in addition to pandemic-related pressures.

AAM has committed to pay up to $30 million to creditors and reopen the hospital as soon as late summer. The company has a portfolio of nine hospitals, many of them in underserved regions of California.

“American Advanced Management has a proven track record of reopening closed hospitals in California and saving others from the brink of closure,” said Matthew Beehler, the company’s chief strategy officer.

It remains uncertain whether AAM can make the Madera hospital financially viable. Reopening alone will cost millions, and many of the same constraints that led to the bankruptcy remain. In its final two years of operations, the Madera hospital lost $14 million.

Beehler said AAM would aim for “operational efficiency” through centralized administration and “elevate the quality of care” to attract more patients. “These strategic investments and improvements are designed to stabilize the hospital’s financial footing and ensure its sustainability in the long term,” he said.

According to a recent study by the Pittsburgh-based Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, 30% of California’s 56 rural hospitals and the same percentage of rural hospitals nationwide are at risk of closing.

“The economics of small hospitals is such that it is unlikely they are going to be highly profitable,” said Harold Miller, the center’s CEO.

The group objecting to AAM, along with many members of the community, are particularly worried that the company won’t reopen the Madera hospital’s labor and delivery department, where over 700 babies were born in 2022.

Labor and delivery at many rural hospitals are among the first services new owners cut because they tend to lose money, said Ge Bai, professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Beehler said a reopened Madera would provide “many of the ancillary services” related to pregnancy and that AAM would “regularly evaluate” whether it makes financial and clinical sense to have a labor and delivery unit at the hospital.

‘Someone Has to Take a Stand’

AAM is the brainchild of Gurpreet Singh Randhawa, who says he is its sole owner.

Singh, a gastroenterologist-turned-entrepreneur, has amassed hospitals and other health care-related companies, as well as numerous real estate holdings. Public records show dozens of businesses that are or have been associated with Singh.

After graduating from medical school in India in 2000, Singh completed further training in New York and New Jersey before moving to California in 2008. In an interview, Singh said he was inspired to open his first hospital after seeing a friend drive three hours round trip to the Sacramento area every day to visit his father in a long-term acute care hospital because Modesto didn’t have one of its own.

Singh said he thought “‘someone has to take a stand,’ so I took that stand.” He said he spent $36 million to open Central Valley Specialty Hospital at the site of a shuttered facility in Modesto. It opened in mid-2013, marking the beginning of AAM.

Since then, AAM has acquired numerous hospitals and clinics in Northern California and the Central Valley, including Colusa Medical Center and Glenn Medical Center in 2017, Sonoma Specialty Hospital in 2019, and Coalinga Regional Medical Center in 2020.

In 2023, the firm took over management of the troubled Orchard Hospital in Gridley, California. Last September, AAM announced it had taken over operations of Kentfield Specialty Hospital, with locations in San Francisco and Marin County. It also owns a rehabilitation hospital in Amarillo, Texas.

AAM lost a combined $22.3 million in 2021 and 2022, state data shows. But Beehler said the company returned to profitability in 2023 and expects profit margins in the high single digits this year. He estimated that AAM’s total operating revenue will jump to approximately $400 million in 2024 from $290 million in 2023, mainly due to the addition of three hospitals.

The source of the funds to finance the company’s growth is not entirely clear. Singh cited family wealth and real estate, but he declined to discuss his family’s money. The firm’s agreement with the Madera hospital says AAM will have “immediately available funds in cash” to meet its obligations. The $57 million approved by the state this week will be a key source of funding.

Beehler said another source of cash to finance growth is AAM’s earnings on longer-term care. Central Valley Specialty Hospital has been profitable since its first full year of operations in 2014, posting cumulative earnings of over $66 million through 2022, according to data from the state’s Department of Health Care Access and Information. Coalinga Regional Medical Center has a 99-bed skilled nursing facility in addition to its acute care beds, and Sonoma Specialty Hospital recently added 21 beds, according to Beehler.

Acute vs. Long-Term Care

Critics fear AAM might take the Madera hospital in the direction of long-term care, depriving the community of a viable acute care facility. Cece Gallegos, who recently lost her bid for a seat on the Madera County Board of Supervisors, said in a campaign mailer that the firm would turn Madera into “a glorified nursing home.”

Beehler rebuffed that notion, saying the company couldn’t do that even if it wanted to. He said the conditions imposed by the state attorney general “require an acute care hospital with fully functional ER and ancillary services.” The attorney general’s conditions, however, require AAM only to make “commercially reasonable efforts” to provide those services.

Singh and his health care businesses have hit plenty of bumps as they’ve grown.

In 2018, AAM took over management of Sonoma West Medical Center, a publicly owned hospital in the city of Sebastopol that had declared bankruptcy. In 2019, AAM acquired it outright and changed its name to Sonoma Specialty Hospital. Later that year, a bankruptcy trustee sued Singh, AAM, and the hospital for allegedly taking money that belonged to its predecessor, and the parties settled for $1.15 million. Beehler said AAM did not retain any of the money but used it for hospital operations and became “an unintended victim.” The company chose to settle, he said, “to bring finality to this complex issue.”

In 2021, the state fined AAM’s Pacific Gardens Medical Center $276,000 for four situations that put patients in “immediate jeopardy,” including one in which inadequate training caused an intravenous dose of fentanyl to drip into a patient nearly seven times as rapidly as the doctor had ordered.

AAM had reopened the hospital in January 2021, about three years after buying it out of bankruptcy. Its license was suspended less than five months later, according to the California Department of Public Health. Beehler said the hospital had reopened as a pandemic surge hospital with support, including the provision of nurses and physicians, from the state’s Emergency Medical Services Authority. “By its nature, a surge facility opening is temporary,” he said.

The accelerated timeline for getting it open contributed to the patient-jeopardy situations, he said.

In 2022, the California Department of Health Care Services sued Sonoma Specialty Hospital, Singh, and AAM, accusing them of illegitimately seeking, and accepting, $270,000 from a program that provides federal financing for certain public hospitals.

DHCS said it had told AAM that it wasn’t eligible for the money, because it was now a for-profit facility, but that the company refused to pay it back. In February, a Sonoma County judge sided with DHCS. DHCS spokesperson Leah Myers said in an emailed statement that the state does not typically have to sue to recover money. Beehler said AAM “disputes that there is any liability” and is appealing the decision.

Another Singh venture was Advanced College, a private vocational school for health care professionals with three locations in central and Southern California. After receiving numerous complaints, state regulators ordered the school to cease operations in December 2022, alleging it had falsified records and test results, and “failed to provide documentation of sufficient financial resources.”

Joshua Maruca, the school’s custodian of records, said Advanced College disagreed with the state’s allegations but had already been planning to shut down for other reasons, so it did not contest them.

Bank of the West also sued Singh and several of his businesses for repeated defaults on over $4.7 million in loans, mostly related to the college. The lawsuit was settled, but one of the bank’s lawyers, Wayne Terry, said he could not discuss the settlement. Beehler said the loans were not part of AAM’s financials. The bank was “paid fully,” he said.

The company’s critics say the state didn’t sufficiently scrutinize AAM before approving the loan and the operating plan this week.

“The state agencies and the Attorney General, all tasked here with protecting the public interest, have utterly failed to do the basic due diligence that would ensure Madera Community Hospital is resurrected as a viable going concern, under the stewardship of a reliable, trustworthy, and capable operator,” the MCCJ said in the court filing opposing the challenge to its objection.

AAM said in a statement that it was “grateful” to Newsom and the state for approving the deal, and “honored to serve the Madera community.” The bankruptcy court is likely to give its final blessing next week.

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).

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Sixth-grade boys were lining up to be measured in the Mann Arts and Science Magnet Middle School library. As they took off their shoes and emptied their pockets, they joked about being the tallest.

“It’s an advantage,” said one. “You can play basketball,” said another. “A taller dude can get more girls!” a third student offered.

Everyone laughed. What they didn’t joke about was their weight.

Anndrea Veasley, the school’s registered nurse, had them stand one by one. One boy, Christopher, slumped as she measured his height. “Chin up slightly,” she said. Then Veasley asked him to stand backward on a scale so he didn’t see the numbers. She silently noted his height as just shy of 4 feet, 7 inches, and his weight as 115.6 pounds.

His parents later would be among thousands to receive a letter beginning, “Many children in Arkansas have health problems caused by their weight.” The letter includes each student’s measurements as well as their calculated body mass index, an indicator of body fat. The BMI number categorizes each child as “underweight,” “normal,” “overweight,” or “obese.” Christopher’s BMI of 25.1 put him in the range of obesity.

In 2003, Arkansas became the first state to send home BMI reports about all students as part of a broader anti-obesity initiative. But in the 20 years since, the state’s childhood obesity rates have risen to nearly 24% from 21%, reflecting a similar, albeit higher, trajectory than national rates. During the pandemic, the state obesity rate hit a high of more than 26%.

Still, at least 23 states followed Arkansas’ lead and required height and weight assessments of students. Some have since scaled back their efforts after parents raised concerns.

One school district in Wyoming used to include a child’s BMI score in report cards, a practice it has since stopped. Ohio allows districts to opt in, and last year just two of 611 school districts reported BMI information to the state. And Massachusetts stopped sending letters home. Even Arkansas changed its rules to allow parents to opt out.

Multiple studies have shown that these reports, or “fat letters” as they’re sometimes mockingly called, have had no effect on weight loss. And some nutritionists, psychologists, and parents have criticized the letters, saying they can lead to weight stigma and eating disorders.

BMI as a tool has come under scrutiny, too, because it does not consider differences across racial and ethnic groups, sex, gender, and age. In 2023, the American Medical Association called the BMI “imperfect” and suggested it be used alongside other tools such as visceral fat measurements, body composition, and genetic factors.

All that highlights a question: What purpose do BMI school measurements and letters serve? Nearly 20% of American children were classified as obese just before the pandemic — up from only 5% some 50 years ago — and lockdowns made the problem worse. It’s unclear what sorts of interventions might reverse the trend.

Joe Thompson, a pediatrician who helped create Arkansas’ program and now leads the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement, said BMI letters are meant to be a screening tool, not a diagnostic test, to make parents aware if their child is at risk of developing serious health issues, such as heart disease, diabetes, and respiratory problems.

Sharing this information with them is critical, he said, given that many don’t see it as a problem because obesity is so prevalent. Arkansas is also a rural state, so many families don’t have easy access to pediatricians, he said.

Thompson said he’s heard from many parents who have acted on the letters. “To this day, they are still our strongest advocates,” he said.

The program also led to new efforts to reduce obesity. Some school districts in Arkansas have instituted “movement breaks,” while others have added vegetable gardens, cooking classes, and walking trails. One district sought funding for bicycles. The state does not study whether these efforts are working.

Researchers say the BMI data also serves an important purpose in illuminating population-level trends, even if it isn’t helpful to individuals.

Parents are generally supportive of weighing children in school, and the letters have helped increase their awareness of obesity, research shows. At the same time, few parents followed up with a health care provider or made changes to their child’s diet or physical activity after getting a BMI letter, several other studies have found.

In what is considered the gold-standard study of BMI letters, published in 2020, researchers in California found that the letters home had no effect on students’ weight. Hannah Thompson, a University of California-Berkeley assistant professor who co-authored the study, said most parents didn’t even remember getting the letters. “It’s such a tiny-touch behavioral intervention,” she said.

Arkansas now measures all public school students in even grades annually — except for 12th graders because by that stage, the pediatrician Joe Thompson said, the students are “beyond the opportunities for schools to have an impact.” The change also came after many boys in one school wore leg weights under their jeans as a prank, he said.

Kimberly Collins, 50, remembers being confused by the BMI letters sent to her from the Little Rock School District stating that all her children were considered overweight, and that one daughter was classified as obese.

“It offended me as a mama,” she said. “It made me feel like I wasn’t doing my job.”

She didn’t think her children looked overweight and the family pediatrician had never brought it up as a concern.

Hannah Thompson, the researcher from California, said that’s the biggest problem with BMI letters: Parents don’t know what to do with the information. Without support to help change behavior, she said, the letters don’t do much.

“You find out your child is asthmatic, and you can get an inhaler, right?” she said. “You find out that your child is overweight and where do you even go from there? What do you do?”

Kevin Gee, a professor at the University of California-Davis, who has studied BMI letters, said the mailings miss cultural nuances. In some communities, for example, people prefer their children to be heavier, associating it with comfort and happiness. Or some eat foods that they know aren’t very nutritious but are an important way of expressing love and traditions.

“There’s a lot of rich contextual pieces that we know influences rates of obesity,” Gee said. “And so how do we balance that information?”

Collins’ daughter, now 15, said that as she’s grown older she increasingly feels uncomfortable about her weight. People stare at her and sometimes make comments. (Collins’ mother asked that her daughter’s name not be published because of her age and the sensitive nature of the subject.)

“On my birthday, I went to get my allergy shots and one of the nurses told me, ‘You are getting chubbier,’” she said. “That didn’t make me feel the best.”

Collins said it pains her to see her soft-spoken daughter cover herself with her arms as if she’s trying to hide. The teenager has also begun sneaking food and avoids the mirror by refusing to turn on the bathroom light, Collins said. The girl signed up for tennis but stopped after other children made fun of her, her mother said.

Looking back, Collins said, while she wishes she had paid more attention to the BMI letters, she also would have liked practical suggestions on what to do. Collins said she had already been following the short list of recommended healthy practices, including feeding her children fruits and vegetables and limiting screen time. She isn’t sure what else she could have done.

Now everyone has an opinion on her daughter’s weight, Collins said. One person told her to put a lock on the fridge. Another told her to buy vegan snacks. Her mother bought them a scale.

“It’s a total uphill climb,” Collins said with a sigh.

This article was produced as a part of a project for the Spencer Education Journalism Fellowship.

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).

New Mandatory Model Proposed to Improve Health Outcomes Post-Surgery and Advance Climate Resiliency

This is a news release regarding an OASH visit to Region 6.

Covering the American health care system means we tell some scary stories. This episode of “An Arm and a Leg” sounds like a real horror movie. 

It uses one of Hollywood’s favorite tropes: machines taking over. And the machines belong to the private health insurance company UnitedHealth Group. 

Host Dan Weissmann talks to Stat News reporter Bob Herman about his investigation into Medicare Advantage plans that use an algorithm to make decisions about patient care. The algorithm is owned by a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.

Herman tells Weissmann that some of UnitedHealth’s own employees say the algorithm creates a “moral crisis” in which care is unfairly denied.

Scary stuff! Such reporting even has caught the eye of powerful people in government, putting Medicare Advantage plans under scrutiny.

Dan Weissmann @danweissmann Host and producer of "An Arm and a Leg." Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago's WBEZ. His work also appears on All Things Considered, Marketplace, the BBC, 99 Percent Invisible, and Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting. Credits Emily Pisacreta Producer Adam Raymonda Audio Wizard Ellen Weiss Editor Click to open the Transcript Transcript: Son of Medicare: Attack of the Machines

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there–

So this is kind of a horror story. But it’s not quite the kind of story it might sound like at first.

Because at first, it might sound like a horror story about machines taking over, making all the decisions– and making terrible, horrifying choices. Very age-of-Artificial Intelligence.

But this is really a story about decisions made by people. For money.

It’s also kind of a twofer sequel– like those movies that pit two characters from earlier stories against each other. Like Godzilla vs King Kong, or Alien vs Predator.

Although in this case, I’ve gotta admit, the two monsters are not necessarily fighting each other.

Let’s get reacquainted with them. 

On one side, coming back from our very last episode, we’ve got Medicare Advantage: This is the version of Medicare that’s run by private insurance companies. 

It’s got a bright and appealing side, compared to the traditional Medicare program run by the federal government, because: It can cost a lot less, month to month — saving people money on premiums. And it often comes with extra benefits, like dental coverage, which traditional Medicare doesn’t offer. [I know.]

But Medicare Advantage can have a dark side, which is basically: Well, you end up dealing with private insurance companies for the rest of your life. You need something — a test, a procedure, whatever — they might decide not to cover it.

Which can be scary. 

Our other returning monster — am I really calling them a monster? — well, last time we talked about them, in 2023, we had an expert calling them a behemoth. That’s United HealthGroup. You might remember, they’re not only one of the biggest insurance companies 

— and maybe not-coincidentally the very biggest provider of Medicare Advantage plans —

they’ve also got a whole other business– under the umbrella name Optum. And Optum has spent the last bunch of years buying up a gazillion other health care companies of every kind. 

That includes medical practices — they employ more doctors than anyone else, by a huge margin. It includes surgery centers, and home-health companies, and every kind of middleman company you can imagine that works behind the scenes — and have their hands in a huge percentage of doctor bills and pharmacy visits. 

A few years ago, United bought a company called NaviHealth, which provides services to insurance companies that run Medicare Advantage plans. 

NaviHealth’s job is to decide how long someone needs to stay in a nursing home, like if you’re discharged from a hospital after surgery, but you’re not ready to go home yet.

And the horror story– the stories, as dug up by reporters — starts after United bought NaviHealth.

And according to their reports, it involves people getting kicked out of those nursing homes who aren’t ready to go home. 

People getting sent home who can’t walk up the stairs in their house. Who can’t walk at all. Who are on feeding tubes. People who NaviHealth’s own employees are saying, “Wait. This person isn’t ready to go home.”

But their new bosses have told them: You’re not really making these decisions anymore. 

This is where machines do enter the picture.

NaviHealth’s distinctive offering has always been its proprietary algorithm– an algorithm that makes predictions about how long any given patient might need to stay. 

Before United bought the company, that algorithm was used as a guide, a first-guess. Humans weighed in with their own judgment about what patients needed.

After United bought the company, people inside have told reporters, that changed: The new owners basically told their employees, If the algorithm says someone can go home after x days, that’s when we’re cutting them off.

 Like pretty much any horror movie, this story’s got people running around trying to tell everyone: HEY, WATCH OUT! THERE’S SOMETHING BIG AND DANGEROUS HAPPENING HERE.

And in this case, they’ve actually gotten the attention of some people who might have the power to do something about it. Now, what those people will do? We don’t know yet. 

And, by the way: Yes, I said at the end of our last episode that we’d be talking about Medicaid this time around. That’s coming! But for now, strap in for this one. 

This is An Arm and a Leg, a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So our job on this show is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life, and bring you something entertaining, empowering, and useful.

So. I said that, like every horror movie, this one has people who are seeing what’s going on and are trying to warn everybody?

Like those movies, we’re gonna follow one of those people, watch them discover the problem, see how deep it goes, and start ringing alarm bells. Let’s meet our guy.

Bob Herman: My name is Bob Herman. I’m a reporter at STAT News

Dan: Stat is an amazing medical news publication. Bob covers the business of medicine there. Bob started working on this story in November 2022, after talking to a source who runs nursing homes. Bob’s source was complaining about Medicare Advantage. 

Bob Herman: There were a lot of payment denials. They just weren’t able to get paid. And just offhandedly, the source mentioned like, um, you know, and they’re attributing everything to this algorithm. This algorithm said, You know, only 17 days for our patients and then time’s up and I went running to Casey Ross 

Dan: Casey is a reporter at Stat who focuses on tech and AI in healthcare. Bob said, hey, what do you think of this? Wanna team up?

Bob Herman: And he was hooked.

Dan: They started talking to people who worked at nursing homes, talking to experts, and talking to families. And it was clear: They were onto something. 

Bob Herman: It took so many families by surprise to be like, what do you mean we’re going home? The, you know, my husband, my wife, my grandma, my grandpa, they can’t go to the bathroom on their own. Like, what do you? It was just, it was so confusing to people. It seemed like such a, a cold calculation,​

Dan: One person they ended up talking with was Gloria Bent. Her husband Gary was sent to a nursing home for rehab after brain surgery for cancer. He was weak. He couldn’t walk. And he had something called “left neglect”: His brain didn’t register that there was a left side of his body. Here’s Gloria testifying before a Senate committee about how — when Gary arrived at the nursing home — the first thing he got was a discharge date. That is…

Gloria Bent: Before the staff of the facility could even evaluate my husband or develop a plan of care, I was contacted by someone who identified themselves as my Navi Health Care Coordinator

Dan: Gloria says when she told the nursing home staff she’d heard from NaviHealth, they groaned. And told her what to expect. 

Gloria Bent: I was told that I had just entered a battlefield, that I could expect a series of notices of denial of Medicare payment accompanied by a discharge date that would be two days after I got that notice.

Dan: Yeah, they said she’d get two days notice. Gloria says the nursing home staff told her she’d have 24 hours to appeal each of those, but even if she won, the denials would keep coming. In fact, they said,

Gloria Bent: If we won a couple of appeals, then we could expect that the frequency with which these denials were going to come would increase.

Dan: All of which happened. NaviHealth started issuing denials July 15, 2022, after Gary had been at the home for a month.

Gloria appealed. She told senators what the doctor who evaluated the appeal found: Gary couldn’t  walk. He couldn’t even move — like from bed to a chair — without help from two people.. That reviewer took Gloria’s side.

Her husband’s next denial came a week after the first. Gloria won that appeal too. She says the reviewer noted that Gary needed maximum assistance with activities of daily living. 

The third denial came four days later, and this time Gloria lost. 

Gary came home in an ambulance: As Gloria testified, he couldn’t get into or out of a car without assistance from someone with special training. 

And when he got into the ambulance, he had a fever. The next morning, he wound up in another ambulance — headed to a hospital with meningitis. He lost a lot of the functioning he’d picked up at the nursing home. 

He died at home a few months later. When Gloria testified in the Senate, all of it was still fresh. She told them that as awful as Gary’s illness and decline had been, the fights with insurance were an added trauma.

Gloria Bent: This should not be happening to families and patients. It’s cruel. Our family continues to struggle with the question that I hear you asking today. Why are people who are looking at patients only on paper or through the lens of an algorithm

making decisions that deny the services judged necessary by health care providers who know their patients.

Dan: Bob Herman calls Gloria’s story heartbreaking, like so many others he’s seen. 

And his attention goes to one part of Gloria’s story beyond denial-by-algorithm. 

Because: It’s not just one denial. It’s that series of denials. You can appeal, but as Gloria testified, the denials speed up. And you have to win every single time. The company only has to win once. 

I mean, unless you’re ready to get a lawyer and take your chances in court– which, in addition to being a major undertaking, also means racking up nursing home bills and legal bills you may never get reimbursed for, while the court process plays out. 

Bob Herman: This appeal system is designed in such a way that people will give up. If you have a job, you know, even if you don’t, and you’re, and you’re also trying to take care of a family member, um, it’s a rigorous monotonous process that will chew people up and spit them out and then the people are inevitably going to give up. And I think in some ways insurers know that.

Dan: Going out on a limb to say: I think so too. So Bob and Casey’s first story on NaviHealth came out in March of 2023. They were the characters in the movie who go, “HEY, I THINK THERE’S SOMETHING REALLY BAD HAPPENING HERE.”

And people started paying attention. Like the U.S. Senate. which held that hearing where Gloria Bent told her story. 

And like the federal agency that runs Medicare — the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. 

CMS finalized a rule that told insurers: You can’t deny care to people just from using an algorithm. 

And something else happened too: Bob and Casey started suddenly getting a lot MORE information. 

Bob Herman: We received so many responses from people and it just opened the floodgates for former employees, just patients and family members, just everyone across the board.

Dan: And not just former employees. Current employees. And what they learned was: There was absolutely a strategy at work in how this algorithm was being used. It was strategy some people on the inside didn’t feel good about. 

And this strategy got developed after United HealthGroup — and its subsidiary, Optum– bought NaviHealth in 2020. And here’s what NaviHealth employees started telling Casey and Bob about that strategy.

Bob Herman: For some of us, it’s creating this moral crisis. Like we know that we are having to listen to an algorithm to essentially kick someone out of a nursing home, even though we know that they can barely walk 20 feet.

Dan: What Bob and Casey learned from insiders– and how it connects to United’s role as a health care behemoth– that’s next.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a nonprofit newsroom covering healthcare in America. Their reporters do amazing work, and I’m honored to work with them. We’ll have a little more about KFF Health News at the end of this episode.

So, NaviHealth — the company with the algorithm — got started in 2015.. And the idea behind it was to use data to get people home faster from nursing homes if they didn’t actually need to be there. 

Because there was a lot of evidence that some people were being kept longer than they needed. 

Bob Herman: There is some validity to the idea that there’s, there’s wasteful care in Medicare, like, you know, there’s been cases in the past proving that people stay in a nursing home for way longer than is necessary. And obviously there’s financial incentives for nursing homes to keep people as long as possible. 

Dan: Traditional Medicare does have limits on nursing home care — but if you need “post-acute care” — help getting back on your feet after leaving a hospital traditional Medicare pays in full for 20 days– pretty much no questions asked. One of the selling points of Medicare Advantage — like selling points to policy nerds and politicians — was that it could cut waste, by asking those kinds of questions. NaviHealth and its algorithm were designed to help Medicare Advantage plans ask those questions in a smart way. 

Bob Herman: There were… a lot of believers within NaviHealth that were like, okay, I think we’re doing the right thing. We’re trying to make sure people get home sooner because who doesn’t want to be at home.  

Dan: And as those employees told Bob and Casey: Before United and Optum came in, the algorithm had been there as a guide — a kind of first guess — but not the final word. 

NaviHealth has staff people who interact directly with patients. And back in the day, the pre-United day, Bob and Casey learned that those staff could make their own judgments. 

Which made sense, because the algorithm doesn’t know everything about any individual case. It’s just making predictions based on the data it has.

Bob Herman: And there was just, just this noticeable change after United and OptiMentor that it felt more rigid. There’s no more variation. 

Dan: If the algorithm says you go, you are pretty much going.

Bob Herman: United has said, no, that’s not the case, but obviously these documents and other communications that we’ve gotten kind of say otherwise.

Dan: Because these employees weren’t just talking. They were sharing. Internal memos. Emails. Training materials. All making clear: The company wanted people shipped out on the algorithm’s timetable. 

Bob Herman: Documents came in showing that like this was a pretty explicit strategy. You know, UnitedHealth was telling its employees. Listen, we have this algorithm. We think it’s really good. So when it tells you how many, how many days someone should be in a nursing home, stick to it.

Dan: Stick to it or maybe be fired. Bob and Casey got documents — employee performance goals– saying: How close you stick to the algorithm’s recommendations? That’s part of how we’re evaluating your job performance. 

Bob Herman: It’s okay. Algorithm said 17 days, you better not really go outside of that because your job is on the line. 

Dan: Here’s how closely people were expected to stick to it. In 2022, employee performance goals shared with STAT showed that workers were expected to keep actual time in nursing homes to within three percent of what the algorithm said it should be. Across the board.

So, say you had 10 patients, and the algorithm said they each should get 10 days. That’s 100 days. Your job was to make sure that the total actual days for those patients didn’t go past 103 days.

Then, in 2023, the expectations got more stringent: Stay within one percent of the algorithm’s predictions. 10 patients, the algorithm says 100 days total? Don’t let it get past a hundred and one. 

Bob Herman: Like that is, almost nothing. Like what, what, your hands are tied. If you’re that employee, what are you going to do? Are you going to get fired? Are you going to do what you’re told?

Dan: And one person who ended up talking, to did get fired. 

Bob Herman: Correct. Yes. Uh, Amber Lynch did get fired And what she said was what we had also heard just more broadly was it, it created this internal conflict, like, Oh my God, what I’m doing doesn’t feel right. 

Dan: Amber Lynch was a case manager. She told Bob and Casey about onepatient who couldn’t climb the stairs in his home after knee surgery. But the algorithm said he was ready. Amber’s supervisor said, “Have you asked the nursing home staff if they’ve tried to teach him butt bumping?” Amber grit her teeth and made the suggestion to the rehab director.

Amber Lynch: And she looked at me like I had two heads. She’s like, he is 78 years old. He’s not going to do that. He’s not safe to climb the stairs yet. He’s not doing it. We’re not going to have it butt bump the stairs.

Dan: Amber told Bob and Casey that when she got fired, it was partly for failing to hit the one percent target and partly for being late with paperwork– which she told Bob and Casey she fell behind because her caseload was so heavy.

She wasn’t the only one with that complaint. 

Bob and Casey’s story shows another NaviHealth case manager– not named in the story because they’re still on the job — in their home office, struggling to keep up. 

That week, they were supposed to work with 27 patients and their families. Gather documents, hold meetings. Another week, shortly before, they’d had 40 patients. 

“Do you think I was able to process everything correctly and call everyone correctly the way I was supposed to?” the case manager asked. “No. It’s impossible. No one can be that fast and that effective and capture all of the information that’s needed.”

Bob and Casey watched this case manager fill out a digital form, feeding the algorithm the information it asked for on a man in his 80s with heart failure, kidney disease, diabetes and trouble swallowing, who was recovering from a broken shoulder. 

A few minutes later, the computer spat out a number: 17 days. 

The case manager didn’t have a lot of time or leeway to argue, but they were skeptical that the algorithm could get that number exactly right based on only the data it had. 

And what data is the algorithm working with? What’s it comparing the data on any given patient TO? Bob Herman says that’s a big question.

Bob Herman: It’s something that for sure, like Casey and I, it’s been bothering us. Like, what, how is this whole system? Like, what is it based on? And we were never really given straight answers on that. NaviHealth and Optum and United have said it’s based on millions of patient records over time. The sources of that, it’s, it’s a little unclear, where all that’s coming from. 

Dan: Bob and Casey talked with an expert named Ziad Obermeyer, a professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health, who is not anti-algorithm. He actually builds algorithmic tools for decision making in public health. 

AND he’s done research showing that some widely-used algorithms just scale up and automate things like racial bias.

He told Bob and Casey: Using an algorithm based on how long other, earlier patients have stayed in a nursing home — that’s not a great idea.

Because people get forced out of nursing homes, in his words, “because they can’t pay or because their insurance sucks.” He said, “So the algorightm is basically learning all the inequalities of our current system.”

And leaving aside that kind of bias, it seems unlikely to Bob that any algorithm could predict exactly what every single patient will need every single time. 

No matter how much data it’s got, it’s predicting from averages.

Bob Herman: It reminds me of, like, a basketball game where let’s say someone averages 27 points per game. They don’t have 27 points every single, the game they go out there. It just varies from time to time.

Dan: But the NaviHealth algorithm doesn’t have to be right every time for United to make money using it. 

Using it to make decisions can allow United to boost profits coming and going.

Bob Herman: United health and the other insurance companies that use Navi health. Are using this technology to more or less kick people out of nursing homes before they’re ready. And that is the claims denial side where it’s like, okay, let’s save as much money as we can instead of having to pay it to a nursing home.

Dan: And that’s just one side of it. The insurance side. Claims denial. But United isn’t just in the insurance business. 

United’s Optum side is in every other part of health care. 

Including — in the years since United took over NaviHealth — home health services. The kind of services you’re likely to need when you leave a nursing home.

In 2022, Optum bought one top home health company in what one trade publication called a “monster, jaw-dropping mega-deal” — more than 5 billion dollars. In 2023, Optum made a deal to buy a second mega-provider. 

Bob and Casey’s story says NaviHealth’s shortening nursing home stays is integral to United’s strategy for these acquisitions. It does seem to open up new opportunities.

Bob Herman: You’re out of the nursing home because our algorithm said so. Now we’re going to send you to a home health agency or we’re going to send some home health aides into your home. And by the way, we own them. 

Dan: Oh, right, because: If you’re in a Medicare Advantage plan, your insurer can tell you which providers are covered. 

Bob Herman: So the real question becomes, how much is United potentially paying itself?

Dan: That is: How much might United end up taking money out of one pocket — the health insurance side — and paying itself into another pocket, Optum’s home-health services?

We don’t know the answer to how much United is paying itself in this way, or hoping to. And United has said its insurance arm doesn’t favor its in-house businesses.

But it seems like a reasonable question to ask. Actually, it’s a question the feds seem to be asking.

Optum hasn’t wrapped up its purchase of that second home-health company yet, and in February 2024, the Wall Street Journal and other outlets reported that the U.S. Department of Justice had opened an anti-trust investigation. 

And you don’t have to be in a Medicare Advantage plan run by United to get kicked out of a nursing home on an algorithm’s say-so. 

Bob Herman says NaviHealth sells its algorithm-driven services to other big insurance companies 

He says, put together, the companies that use NaviHealth cover as many as  15 million people — about half of everybody in Medicare Advantage.

Bob Herman: Odds are, if you’re in a Medicare Advantage plan, there’s a, there’s a really good shot that your coverage policies, if you get really sick and need nursing home care, for example, or any kind of post acute care, an algorithm could be at play at some point.

Dan: This is the dark side of Medicare Advantage. 

Bob Herman: Everyone loves their Medicare Advantage plan when they first sign up, right? Because it’s offering all these bells and whistles. It’s, here’s a gym membership. It’s got dental and vision, which regular Medicare doesn’t have. And it’s also just, it’s, it’s cheaper. Like, if it’s just from a financial point of view, if, if you’re a low income senior, How do you turn it down? There’s, there’s so many plans that offer like free, there’s no monthly premiums in addition to all the bells and whistles. But Nobody understands the trade offs , When you’re signing up for Medicare and Medicare Advantage, you’re on the healthier side of, of being a senior, right?

Dan: And none of us can count on staying healthy forever. When you sign up for Medicare  you’re signing up your future self — whether that’s ten or twenty or more years out. That future you, might really need good medical care. 

And at that point, as we explained in our last episode, if Medicare Advantage isn’t working for you, you may not be able to get out of it.

Bob Herman: You could potentially not fully get the care that you need. We shouldn’t assume that, that this couldn’t happen to us because it can. 

Dan: So, yeah. Kind of a horror story. But: Unlike some horror movies, when Bob and Casey started publishing their stories, they started getting people’s attention.

We mentioned the new rules from the feds and the senate hearings after Bob and Casey’s first story in March 2023

Later in the year, when Bob and Casey published their story with documents and stories from inside NaviHealth, a class-action lawsuit got filed.

Since then, CMS has said it will step up audits under its new rules. 

Bob Herman: There was a memo that CMS sent out to Medicare advantage plans that said, Hey, listen, we’re telling you again, do not deny care solely on any AI or algorithms. Like just don’t do it. 

Dan: And in February 2024, the Senate held another hearing. 

Here’s Senator Elizabeth Warren at that hearing, saying these CMS rules aren’t enough. We need stronger guardrails.

Elizabeth Warren: Until CMS can verify that AI algorithms reliably adhere to Medicare coverage standards by law, then my view on this is CMS should prohibit insurance companies from using them in their MA plans for coverage decisions. They’ve got to prove they work before they put them in place.

Dan: So people — people with at least some power– are paying some attention. 

Bob Herman: I don’t think this is necessarily going to escape. Political scrutiny for a while. 

Dan: So, basically, the story isn’t over. 

This isn’t one of those horror movies where the monster’s been safely defeated at the end, and everybody just starts cleaning up the mess. And it’s not one where the monster is just on the loose, unleashing the apocalypse. 

Because it’s not a movie. There’s no ending. There’s just all of us trying to figure out what’s going on, and what we can maybe do about it.

One last thing: I got a lot of emails after our last episode, where we laid out a lot of information about Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Most of it was along the lines of, Thank you! That was really helpful! Which made me feel really good.

And we got a couple notes about things we could have done better. Especially this: We said Traditional Medicare leaves you on the hook for 20 percent of everything, without an out of pocket limit. 

Which is true — but only for Medicare Part B: Doctor visits, outpatient surgeries and tests. Which can add up, for sure.

Medicare Part A — if you’re actually hospitalized — covers most services at 100 percent, after you meet the deductible. In 2024 that’s one thousand, six hundred thirty-two dollars. 

Thanks to Clarke Lancina for pointing that out. 

There have been a bunch of other, amazing notes in my inbox recently, and I want to say: Please keep them coming. 

If you go to arm and a leg show dot com, slash, contact, whatever you type there goes straight to my inbox. You can attach stuff too: documents… voice memos. 

Please let me hear from you. That’s arm and a leg show dot com, slash contact.

I’ll catch you in a few weeks. 

Till then, take care of yourself.

This episode of an arm and a leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta, and edited by Ellen Weiss. 

Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and blue dot sessions. Extra music in this episode from Epidemic Sound.

Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. She edits the first aid kit newsletter. 

Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. Sarah Ballama is our operations manager. 

And Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in depth journalism about healthcare in America and a core program at KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. 

Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show. 

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN. org. 

Finally, thanks to everybody who supports this show financially– you can join in any time at arm and a leg show dot com, slash, support — and thanks for listening.

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to the newsletter. You can also follow the show on Facebook and the social platform X. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Nearly two hours into a Capitol Hill hearing focused on rural health, Rep. Brad Wenstrup emphatically told the committee’s five witnesses: “Hang with us.”

Federal lawmakers face a year-end deadline to solidify or scuttle an array of covid-era payment changes for telehealth services that include allowing people to stay in their homes to see a doctor or therapist.

During the hearing in early March, Wenstrup and other House members offered personal anecdotes on how telehealth, home visits, and remote monitoring helped their patients, relatives, and constituents. Wenstrup, a Republican from Ohio who is also a podiatric surgeon and a retired Army reservist, told the audience: “Patients are less anxious and heal better when they can be at home.”

Most of the proposals focus on how Medicare covers telehealth services. But the rules affect patients on all types of insurance plans because typically private insurers and some government programs follow Medicare’s example. Without congressional action, virtual health care services like audio-only calls or meeting online with specialty doctors — such as an occupational therapist — could end. The bills would also continue to allow rural health clinics and other health centers to offer telehealth services while waiving a requirement for in-person mental health visits.

Telehealth use ballooned in the early months of the covid-19 pandemic and grew into a household term. The practice has become a popular issue for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

In one U.S. Census Bureau survey conducted from April 2021 to August 2022, Medicare and Medicaid enrollees reported using telehealth visits the most — 26.8% and 28.3%, respectively. The survey of nearly 1.2 million adults also found that Black patients and those earning less than $25,000 reported high rates of telehealth use. Notably, people of color were more likely to use audio-only visits.

Ensuring access to telehealth services “is the best public policy,” said Debbie Curtis, a vice president of McDermott+Consulting, a Washington, D.C.-based health care lobbying firm. “It’s the best business outcome. It’s the best patient care outcome.”

But it’s a presidential election year and Congress is a “deadline-driven organization,” Curtis said. She expects that Congress will be “kicking the can” past the November election.

Kyle Zebley, senior vice president of public policy at the American Telemedicine Association who also lobbies on Capitol Hill, said Congress “might well be in that lame-duck period.” “This is no way to run a health care system on a popular bipartisan issue,” he said.

In January, lawmakers — including senators from Mississippi and South Dakota — sent a letter to the Biden administration urging the White House to work quickly with Congress to ensure payments continue for Medicare patients who use telehealth, “especially for rural and underserved communities.”

Maya Sandalow, a senior policy analyst for the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, said lawmakers and policymakers are likely to consider a temporary extension of the payments rather than permanent changes.

“Research is still coming out that covers more recent years than the acute effects of the pandemic,” Sandalow said. The center expects to release policy recommendations in the coming months.

Questions being considered include which kind of health care services are best for audio-only and video visits. Sandalow said researchers are also weighing how telehealth can “expand access to affordable, high-quality care while ensuring in-person options remain for patients.”

In North Dakota, Sanford Health’s David Newman said virtual care is often the only way some of his patients in the western part of the state can get sub-specialty care, such as with behavioral health.

Newman, an endocrinologist and Sanford’s medical officer of virtual care, said 10% to 20% of his patients are seen virtually during the summer, as compared with about 40% in the winter months because “the weather can be so bad” that roads are impassable.

In winters past, Newman would sit around “doing nothing for a day” because patients couldn’t visit him. Now, he has a full clinic using telehealth technology.

“I tell my patients that if you can make a restaurant reservation or if you can order a pizza online, you can do a virtual visit,” Newman said.

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).

DENVER — Pediatrician Patricia Braun and her team saw roughly 100 children at a community health clinic on a recent Monday. They gave flu shots and treatments for illnesses like ear infections. But Braun also did something most primary care doctors don’t. She peered inside mouths searching for cavities or she brushed fluoride varnish on their teeth.

“We’re seeing more oral disease than the general population. There is a bigger need,” Braun said of the patients she treats at Bernard F. Gipson Eastside Family Health Center, which is part of Denver Health, the largest safety-net hospital in Colorado, serving low-income, uninsured, and underinsured residents.

Braun is part of a trend across the United States to integrate oral health into medical checkups for children, pregnant women, and others who cannot afford or do not have easy access to dentists. With federal and private funding, these programs have expanded in the past 10 years, but they face socioeconomic barriers, workforce shortages, and the challenge of dealing with the needs of new immigrants.

With a five-year, $6 million federal grant, Braun and her colleagues have helped train 250 primary care providers in oral health in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona. Similar projects are wrapping up in Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, and New York, funded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Beyond assessment, education, and preventive care, primary care providers refer patients to on- or off-site dentists, or work with embedded dental hygienists as part of their practice.

“Federally qualified health centers have a long history of co-locating dental services within their systems,” Braun said. “We’re taking that next step where care is not just co-located, meaning, say, we’re upstairs and dental is downstairs, but we’re integrated so that it becomes part of the same visit for the patient.”

Having doctors, nurses, and physician assistants who assess oral health, make referrals, and apply fluoride at community health centers is critical for the many children who lack access to dental care, said Tara Callaghan, director of operations for the Montana Primary Care Association, which represents 14 federally qualified health centers and five Urban Indian organizations.

“Providing these services during medical visits increases the frequency of fluoride application,” Callaghan said, and “improves parents’ knowledge of caring for their child’s teeth.” But obstacles remain.

Because of Montana’s large geographic area and small population, recruiting dental professionals is difficult, Callaghan said. Fifty of the state’s 56 counties are designated dental shortage areas and some counties don’t have a single dentist who takes Medicaid, she added. Montana ranks near the bottom for residents having access to fluoridated water, which can prevent cavities and strengthen teeth.

Pediatric dental specialists, in particular, are scarce in rural areas, with families sometimes driving hours to neighboring counties for care, she said.

Embedding dental hygienists with medical doctors is one way to reach patients in a single medical visit.

Valerie Cuzella, a registered dental hygienist, works closely with Braun and others at Denver Health, which serves nearly half of the city’s children and has embedded hygienists in five of its clinics that see children.

State regulations vary on which services hygienists can provide without supervision from a dentist. In Colorado, Cuzella can, among other things, independently perform X-rays and apply silver diamine fluoride, a tool to harden teeth and slow decay. She does all this in a cozy corner office.

Braun and Cuzella work so closely that they often finish each other’s sentences. Throughout the day they text each other, taking advantage of brief lulls when Cuzella can pop into an exam room to check for gum disease or demonstrate good brushing habits. Braun herself takes similar opportunities to assess oral health during her exams, and both focus on educating parents.

Medical and dental care have traditionally been siloed. “Schools are getting better at interprofessional collaboration and education, but by and large we train separately, we practice separately,” said Katy Battani, a registered dental hygienist and assistant professor at Georgetown University.

Battani is trying to bridge the divide by helping community health centers in nine states — including California, Texas, and Maryland — integrate dental care into prenatal visits for pregnant women. Pregnancy creates opportunities to improve oral health because some women gain dental coverage with Medicaid and see providers at least once a month, Battani said.

In Denver, housing instability, language barriers, lack of transportation, and the “astronomical cost” of dentistry without insurance make dental care inaccessible for many children, the migrant community, and seniors, said Sung Cho, a dentist who oversees the dental program at STRIDE Community Health Center, serving the Denver metro area.

STRIDE tries to overcome these barriers by offering interpretation services and a sliding pay scale for those without insurance. That includes people like Celinda Ochoa, 35, of Wheat Ridge, who waited at STRIDE Community Health Center while her 15-year-old son, Alexander, had his teeth cleaned. He was flagged for dental care during a past medical checkup and now he and his three siblings regularly see a dentist and hygienist at STRIDE.

One of Ochoa’s children has Medicaid dental coverage, but her three others are uninsured, and they couldn’t otherwise afford dental care, said Ochoa. STRIDE offers an exam, X-rays, and cleaning for $60 for the uninsured.

In the past year, Cho has seen an influx of migrants and refugees who have never seen a dentist before and need extensive care. Medical exams for refugees at STRIDE increased to 1,700 in 2023 from 1,300 in 2022, said Ryn Moravec, STRIDE’s director of development. She estimates the program has seen 800 to 1,000 new immigrants in 2024.

Even with growing needs, Cho said the Medicaid “unwinding” — the process underway to reexamine post-pandemic eligibility for the government program that provides health coverage for people with low incomes and disabilities — has created financial uncertainty. He said he worries about meeting the upfront costs of new staff and of replacing aging dental equipment.

At STRIDE’s Wheat Ridge clinic, two hygienists float between dental and pediatrics as part of the medical-dental integration. Yet Cho said he needs more hygienists at other locations to keep up with demand. The pandemic created bottlenecks of need that are only now being slowly cleared, particularly because few dentists take Medicaid. If they do accept it, they often limit the number of Medicaid patients they’ll take, said Moravec. Ideally, STRIDE could hire two hygienists and three dental assistants, Moravec said.

In 2022, Colorado enacted a law to alleviate workforce shortages by allowing dental therapists — midlevel providers who do preventive and restorative care — to practice. But Colorado does not have any schools to train or accredit them.

Before age 3, children are scheduled to see a pediatrician for 12 well visits, a metric that medical and dental integration capitalizes on, particularly for at-risk children. As part of Braun’s program in the Rocky Mountain region, providers have applied more than 17,000 fluoride varnishes and increased the percentage of children 3 and younger who received preventive oral health care to 78% from 33% in its first 2½ years.

Callaghan, at the Montana Primary Care Association, witnesses that on the ground at community health centers in Montana. “It’s about leveraging the fact that kids see their medical provider for a well-child visit much more often and before they see their dental provider — if they have one.”

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).

DENVER.- Un lunes reciente, la pediatra Patricia Braun y su equipo atendieron a unos 100 niños en una clínica comunitaria. Administraron vacunas contra la gripe y trataron infecciones de oído. Pero Braun también hizo algo que la mayoría de los médicos de atención primaria no hacen. Revisó las bocas de los pacientes en busca de caries o cepilló sus dientes con barniz de flúor.

“Estamos viendo más enfermedades bucodentales que en el resto de la población. La necesidad es mayor”, dijo Braun sobre los pacientes que trata en el Centro de Salud Familiar Bernard F. Gipson Eastside, que forma parte de Denver Health, el mayor hospital de la red social de Colorado, que atiende a residentes con bajos ingresos, sin seguro de salud o con seguro insuficiente.

Braun forma parte de una tendencia en todo el país que consiste en integrar la salud dental en los chequeos médicos de niños, embarazadas y otras personas que no pueden permitirse o no tienen fácil acceso a los dentistas.

Con financiación federal y privada, estos programas se han ampliado en los últimos 10 años, pero se enfrentan a barreras socioeconómicas, escasez de personal calificado y el reto de atender las necesidades de los nuevos inmigrantes.

Con una subvención federal de cinco años y $6 millones, Braun y sus colegas han ayudado a formar a 250 proveedores de atención primaria en salud bucodental en Colorado, Montana, Wyoming y Arizona.

En Illinois, Michigan, Virginia y Nueva York se están ultimando proyectos similares, financiados por la Oficina de Salud Maternoinfantil (MCHB) de la Administración de Recursos y Servicios de Salud (HRSA).

Además de la evaluación, la educación y la atención preventiva, los proveedores de atención primaria envían a los pacientes a dentistas internos o externos, o trabajan con higienistas dentales integrados en sus consultas.

“Los centros de salud federales tienen un largo historial de servicios dentales integrados en sus sistemas”, afirmó Braun. “Nosotros estamos dando el siguiente paso, en el que la atención no sólo es compartida, es decir, nosotros estamos en el piso de arriba y los dentistas en el de abajo, sino que está integrada en la misma visita del paciente”.

Contar con médicos, enfermeras y auxiliares que evalúen la salud bucodental, hagan derivaciones y apliquen flúor en los centros de salud comunitarios es fundamental para muchos niños que no tienen acceso a la atención dental, dijo Tara Callaghan, directora de operaciones de la Asociación de Atención Primaria de Montana, que representa a 14 centros de salud calificados a nivel federal y a cinco organizaciones Urban Indian.

“Ofrecer estos servicios durante las visitas médicas aumenta la frecuencia de aplicación del flúor”, señaló Callaghan, y “mejora el conocimiento de los padres sobre el cuidado de los dientes de sus hijos”. Pero sigue habiendo obstáculos.

Según Callaghan, debido a la gran extensión geográfica y a la escasa población de Montana, la contratación de profesionales dentales es difícil. Cincuenta de los 56 condados del estado están designados como zonas de escasez dental y algunos no tienen ni un solo dentista que acepte Medicaid, añadió. Montana ocupa uno de los últimos puestos en cuanto al acceso de los residentes al agua fluorada, que puede prevenir las caries y fortalecer los dientes.

Callaghan indicó que, concretamente, los especialistas en odontología pediátrica escasean en las zonas rurales, y las familias a veces tienen que conducir horas hasta los condados vecinos para recibir atención.

Tener higienistas dentales con los médicos es una forma de llegar a los pacientes en una sola visita.

La higienista dental Valerie Cuzella colabora estrechamente con Braun y otros profesionales de Denver Health, que atiende a casi la mitad de los niños de la ciudad y ha incorporado higienistas en cinco de sus clínicas infantiles.

Las normativas estatales varían en cuanto a los servicios que los higienistas pueden prestar sin la supervisión de un dentista. En Colorado, Cuzella puede, entre otras cosas, realizar radiografías de forma independiente y aplicar fluoruro de plata y diamina, una herramienta para endurecer los dientes y frenar la caries. Todo esto lo hace en un acogedor despacho situado en una esquina.

Braun y Cuzella trabajan tan estrechamente que a menudo una termina la frase de la otra. A lo largo del día se envían mensajes de texto, aprovechando las breves pausas en las que Cuzella puede asomarse a una sala de chequeos para detectar enfermedades de las encías o enseñar buenos hábitos de cepillado. También Braun aprovecha oportunidades similares para evaluar la salud bucodental durante sus exámenes, y ambas se centran en educar a los padres.

Tradicionalmente, la atención médica y la odontológica han estado separadas. “Las facultades están mejorando la colaboración y la formación interprofesional, pero en general nos formamos, y ejercemos, por separado”, afirmó Katy Battani, higienista dental y profesora de la Universidad Georgetown.

Battani trata de zanjar esta brecha ayudando a centros de salud comunitarios en nueve estados —entre ellos California, Texas y Maryland— a integrar la atención dental en las visitas prenatales. El embarazo crea oportunidades para mejorar la salud bucodental porque algunas mujeres obtienen cobertura dental con Medicaid y ven a los proveedores al menos una vez al mes, explicó Battani.

En Denver, la inestabilidad de la vivienda, las barreras del idioma, la falta de transporte y el “costo astronómico” de la odontología sin seguro hacen que la atención dental sea inaccesible para muchos niños, la comunidad inmigrante y las personas mayores, explicó Sung Cho, dentista que supervisa el programa dental del Centro de Salud Comunitario STRIDE, en el área metropolitana de Denver.

STRIDE intenta superar estas barreras ofreciendo servicios de interpretación y una escala móvil de pagos para quienes no tienen seguro.

Esto incluye a personas como Celinda Ochoa, de 35 años y residente en Wheat Ridge, que fue a STRIDE para que le hicieran una limpieza dental a su hijo Alexander, de 15 años. Alexander fue seleccionado para el cuidado dental durante un chequeo médico y ahora él y sus tres hermanos ven regularmente a un dentista e higienista en el centro.

Uno de los hijos de Ochoa tiene cobertura dental de Medicaid, pero los otros tres no tienen seguro, y nunca podrían permitirse la atención dental, dijo Ochoa. STRIDE ofrece un examen, radiografías y limpieza por $60 para los que no tienen seguro.

En el último año, Cho ha sido testigo del aumento de inmigrantes y refugiados que nunca habían visto a un dentista antes y necesitan una atención exhaustiva. Los exámenes médicos para los refugiados en STRIDE aumentaron de 1,300 en 2022 a 1,700 en 2023, dijo Ryn Moravec, director de desarrollo de STRIDE. Calcula que el programa ha atendido entre 800 y 1,000 nuevos inmigrantes en 2024.

Incluso con las crecientes necesidades, Cho señaló que el proceso de Medicaid en curso —que reexamina la elegibilidad post-pandemia para el programa gubernamental que proporciona cobertura de salud a las personas con bajos ingresos y discapacidades— ha creado incertidumbre económica. Dijo que le preocupa hacer frente a los costos iniciales de nuevo personal y de sustitución de equipos dentales obsoletos.

En la clínica de STRIDE en Wheat Ridge, dos higienistas trabajan entre odontología y pediatría como parte de la integración médico-dental. Sin embargo, Cho aseguró que necesita más higienistas en otros centros para satisfacer la demanda.

La pandemia creó cuellos de botella que sólo ahora se están resolviendo lentamente, sobre todo porque pocos dentistas aceptan Medicaid. Y, si lo aceptan, a menudo limitan el número de pacientes del programa, dijo Moravec. Idealmente, STRIDE podría contratar a dos higienistas y tres asistentes dentales, añadió.

En 2022, Colorado promulgó una ley para aliviar la escasez de personal que permite incorporar terapeutas dentales: proveedores de nivel medio que proporcionan atención preventiva y restauradora. Pero Colorado no tiene ninguna escuela para formarlos o acreditarlos.

Antes de los 3 años, los niños deben ir al pediatra para 12 visitas de control, una métrica que aprovecha la integración médica y dental, sobre todo para los niños en situación de riesgo. Como parte del programa de Braun en la región de las Montañas Rocosas, se han aplicado más de 17,000 barnices de flúor y ha aumentado el porcentaje de niños de 3 años o menos que recibieron atención bucodental preventiva al 78%, del 33% en los primeros 2 años y medio.

Callaghan, de la Asociación de Atención Primaria de Montana, es testigo de ello en los mismos centros de salud comunitarios del estado. “Se trata de aprovechar el hecho de que los niños ven a su proveedor médico para una visita rutinaria mucho más a menudo, antes de ver a su proveedor dental, si es que lo tienen”.

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).

Latest policy makes clear HRSA-funded Health Centers can provide health care services prior to release from incarceration

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra is racking up frequent-flier miles as he hopscotches the country to highlight health issues the White House hopes will become pivotal for voters this year — none more so than reproductive rights. 

“No woman today should fear [not having] access to the care that she needs. President Biden has made that clear,” Becerra said last Tuesday in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

It was a timely visit. The day before, the state’s Supreme Court greenlit an abortion rights ballot measure that Democrats hope will drive turnout in November, while also upholding the six-week abortion ban signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) last year. The ban takes effect May 1.

Becerra called the law “medical apartheid” in remarks following a field hearing House Democrats held in Fort Lauderdale on reproductive health care. The Democrats sought to highlight the GOP’s role in abortion bans that most Americans oppose.  

He drew a line connecting the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade to recent state efforts to restrict fertility treatment and access to contraception.

“At the end of the day, Roe was about all of us and our care,” he said. “It was not simply about abortion.”

It wasn’t the first time this year that the secretary has arrived somewhere at an opportune moment. He traveled to Alabama in February in the wake of that state’s Supreme Court ruling declaring that embryos created through in vitro fertilization are children. He held a roundtable with IVF patients and framed the court’s decision as an assault on reproductive freedom. 

The week before he visited Florida, Becerra was in South Carolina, one of 14 states with severe abortion restrictions and among those with the highest maternal mortality rates.

Two days later, Becerra appeared in Michigan, one of the most competitive states in the upcoming presidential election, where he boasted about the Biden administration’s efforts to lower prescription drug prices and joined Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) for another roundtable on reproductive rights.

Becerra, a former California attorney general and House member, is a fluent Spanish speaker whose travels include a “National Latino Health Tour” — a key demographic for Biden’s reelection hopes. Becerra’s remarks often cover other Biden health priorities, including lowering drug prices, increasing mental health access, boosting funding for cancer research, and improving health insurance coverage and health equity.

“From Colorado, I head over to New Mexico,” Becerra said as he left the Florida event. “We’re going to go everywhere we need to go.”

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).

In Matthew Roach’s two years as vital statistics manager for the Arizona Department of Health Services, and 10 years previously in its epidemiology program, he has witnessed a trend in mortality rates that has rural health experts worried.

As Roach tracked the health of Arizona residents, the gap between mortality rates of people living in rural areas and those of their urban peers was widening.

The health disparities between rural and urban Americans have long been documented, but a recent report from the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service found the chasm has grown in recent decades. In their examination, USDA researchers found rural Americans from the ages of 25 to 54 die from natural causes, like chronic diseases and cancer, at wildly higher rates than the same age group living in urban areas. The analysis did not include external causes of death, such as suicide or accidental overdose.

The research analyzed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention death data from two three-year periods — 1999 through 2001 and 2017 through 2019. In 1999, the natural-cause mortality rate for people ages 25 to 54 in rural areas was only 6% higher than for city dwellers in the same age bracket. By 2019, the gap widened to 43%.

The researchers found the expanding gap was driven by rapid growth in the number of women living in rural places who succumb young to treatable or preventable diseases. In the most rural places, counties without an urban core population of 10,000 or more, women in this age group saw an 18% increase in natural-cause mortality rates during the study period, while their male peers experienced a 3% increase.

Within the prime working-age group, cancer and heart disease were the leading natural causes of death for both men and women in both rural and urban areas. Among women, the incidence of lung disease in remote parts of the nation grew the most when compared with rates in urban areas, followed by hepatitis. Pregnancy-related deaths also played a role, accounting for the highest rate of natural-cause mortality growth for women ages 25 to 54 in rural areas.

The negative trends for rural non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native people were especially pronounced. The analysis shows Native Americans 25 to 54 years old had a 46% natural-cause mortality rate increase over those two decades. Native women had an even greater mortality rate jump, 55%, between the two studied time periods, while the rate for non-Hispanic White women went up 23%.

The rural-urban gap grew in all regions across the nation but was widest in the South.

The increased mortality rates are an indicator of worsening population health, the study authors noted, which can harm local economies and employment.

As access to and quality of health services in rural areas continue to erode, rural health experts said, the USDA findings should spur stronger policies focused on rural health.

Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association, said he found the report “shocking,” though, “unfortunately, not surprising.”

The disparity warrants greater attention from state and national leaders, Morgan said.

The study does not address causes for the increase in mortality rates, but the authors note that differences in health care resources could compromise the accessibility, quality, and affordability of care in rural areas. Hospitals in small and remote communities have long struggled, and continued closures or conversions limit health care services in many places. The authors note that persistently higher rates of poverty, disability, and chronic disease in rural areas, compounded by fewer physicians per capita and the closure of hospitals, affect community health.

Roach said his past job as an epidemiologist included working with social vulnerability indexes, which factor in income, race, education, and access to resources like housing to get a sense of a community’s resilience against adverse health outcomes. A map of Arizona shows that rural counties and reservations have some of the highest vulnerability rankings.

Janice C. Probst, a retired professor at the University of South Carolina whose work focused on rural health, said many current rural health efforts are focused on sustaining hospitals, which she noted are essential sources of health care. But she said that may not be the best way to address the inequities.

“We may have to take a community approach,” said Probst, who reviewed the report before its release. “Not how do we keep the hospital in the community, but how do we keep the community alive at all?”

The disparities among demographics stood out to Probst, along with something else. She said the states with the highest rates of natural-cause mortality in rural areas included South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and others that have not expanded Medicaid, the joint federal and state health insurance program for low-income people, though there are efforts to expand it in some states, particularly Mississippi.

It’s an observation the USDA researchers make as well.

“Regionally, differences in State implementation of Medicaid expansion under the 2010 Affordable Care Act could have increased implications for uninsured rural residents in States without expansions by potentially influencing the frequency of medical care for those at risk,” they wrote.

Wesley James, founding executive director of the Center for Community Research and Evaluation, at the University of Memphis, said state lawmakers could address part of the problem by advocating for Medicaid expansion in their states, which would increase access to health care in rural areas. A large group of people want it, but politicians aren’t listening to their needs, he said. James also reviewed the report before it was published.

According to KFF polling, two-thirds of people living in nonexpansion states want their state to expand the health insurance program.

Morgan added the study focused on deaths that occurred prior to the covid-19 pandemic, which had a devastating effect in rural areas.

“Covid really changed the nature of public health in rural America,” he said. “I hope that this prompts Congress to direct the CDC to look at rural-urban life expectancies during covid and since covid to get a handle on what we’re actually seeing nationwide.”

In Arizona, the leading cause of death for people 45 to 64 in 2021 in both rural and urban areas was covid, according to Roach.

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).