Californians with medical debt will no longer have to worry about unpaid medical bills showing up on their credit reports under legislation signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom, adding the nation’s most populous state to a growing effort to protect consumers squeezed by unaffordable medical bills.

The bill, by Sen. Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) and backed by Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta, will block health care providers, as well as any contracted collection agency, from sharing a patient’s medical debt with credit reporting agencies. At least eight states have banned medical bills from consumer credit reports in the past two years. In June, the Biden administration proposed similar federal protections, but it’s unclear when the rules will be enacted — or, if former President Donald Trump is elected again, if they will be at all.

“Nobody chooses to get sick, and then your credit gets ruined,” said Chi Chi Wu, a senior attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. “That’s why we encourage states to keep adopting laws. In case something goes wrong at the federal level, the states could protect their own consumers.”

When California’s new law goes into effect in January, it will extend these protections to credit reports used for employment and tenant screening, Wu said. This is in addition to the proposed federal ban on reporting to credit agencies that inform credit card companies and mortgage lenders.

California lawmakers noted that medical debt — unlike other kinds of debt — isn’t an accurate reflection of credit risk, and its inclusion can depress credit scores and make it hard for people to get a job, rent an apartment, or secure a car loan.

But California lawmakers have left a glaring loophole. Patients who pay hospital bills using medical credit cards or medical specialty loans — which can come with interest rates as high as 36% — won’t get that debt taken off their credit report, as residents of Colorado, Minnesota, and New York do. It’s a concession the financial industry won through late-in-the-game “hostile” amendments, which “influential entities opposed to the measure prevailed” in including, Limón said. In a 2022 KFF poll on medical debt, 15% of adults said they had used a medical credit card.

Kelly Parsons-O’Brien, legislative chair of the California Association of Collectors, which represents collection agencies, said the exemptions were essential because medical credit card holders can buy nonmedical items and medical loans can be refinanced with nonmedical debt, making it “impossible” for creditors to know what’s actually a medical charge.

“More consumers will get into situations where they cannot afford to pay, and lenders will be operating in the dark,” Parsons-O’Brien said.

The three largest U.S. credit agencies — Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion — said they would stop listing some medical debt, including paid-off debts and those less than $500, but millions of patients were left with bigger medical bills on their credit reports. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reported in April that 15 million Americans still had medical bills on their credit reports.

About 4 in 10 Californians report carrying some type of medical debt, which disproportionately affects low-income, Black, and Latino patients, according to the California Health Care Foundation.

Dozens of states have enacted legislation to protect consumers from surprise billing and medical debt, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Newsom, a Democrat, also signed legislation on Tuesday banning hospitals from using liens on all real property owned by Californians who typically earn less than 400% of the federal poverty level. It expands current state law that protects a patient’s home from debt collectors.

A KFF Health News analysis found that credit reporting is the most common collection tactic used by hospitals to get patients to pay their bills. A credit score ban might make it more difficult for hospitals to collect.

When Sacramento resident Sonia Hayden and her boyfriend applied for a home loan last year, she discovered her credit score had dropped about a hundred points. It had been downgraded because of an approximately $200 emergency room charge after a car accident years ago.

The 44-year-old said her insurance covered tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills but that the hospital miscoded the $200 charge and she never received a bill for it. That, she said, should also have been charged to insurance.

Hayden tried unsuccessfully for over a year to resolve the issue with her health insurer. It’s still on her credit report. She was eventually able to get a home loan, but her interest rates were higher because of her credit score.

“Medical bills, they’re not on purpose, you know?” said Hayden, who testified in support of the legislation. “It was already a super traumatic accident. I almost died. And then to have this super stressful medical bill — nobody’s asking for that. It shouldn’t affect your credit.”

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).

HHS Announces Mpox Vaccine Donations, Boosting Domestic and International Supply

Georgia is one of dozens of states that require health-care facilities to ask for permission to build or expand by obtaining “certificates of need.” Basically, state regulators get to decide whether a town needs a new hospital or long-term care center. If the need is deemed real, they’re granted a “CON.”

The intent of the decades-old system is to reduce duplicating medical services in an area, which, supporters argue, drives up health-care spending and reduces quality — an idea generally supported by the hospital industry, especially nonprofits.

But some researchers are skeptical.

“The evidence is pretty darn overwhelming that CON laws don’t achieve the initially stated goals of increasing access, lowering costs and improving quality,” said Matthew Mitchell, a senior research fellow at West Virginia University.

Some researchers argue the rules, which allow health-care organizations to file petitions to block competitors’ projects, are weaponized by powerful health-care interests to assert market dominance. That’s led a swath of states to roll them back in recent years.

In Georgia, lawmakers felt the need to put special exemptions in a certificate of need reform bill earlier this year to make sure the rules weren’t impediments to efforts to revive two recently closed hospitals.

The first exemption involves a shuttered hospital in rural Cuthbert, Ga. The carve-out could help an effort to reopen the facility as a “rural emergency hospital,” which means it would receive more federal money but offer only emergency and outpatient care.

“It’s much needed. People are hoping and praying we get it back,” said Brenda Clark, a local resident.

The second exemption concerns filling the gap left by the recently closed Atlanta Medical Center, one of the city’s two Level 1 trauma centers. That carve-out clears the way for a potential new hospital that would partner with Morehouse School of Medicine, one of the country’s few historically Black medical schools.

“You’ve got a community that is struggling to find care in the wake of the Atlanta Medical Center closure,” said Josh Berlin, CEO of rule of three, an Atlanta-based health-care consulting firm.

Elsewhere in the state, an effort to build a hospital in another rural county showed just how intense debates over CON rules can get, especially when politicians, the health-care industry and communities have conflicting priorities.

This drama involves the state’s powerful lieutenant governor and his wealthy father, who wants to build a hospital in their home county, which both feel is needed.

It calls to mind discussions over certificates of need in recent years in other Southern states, such as Tennessee, South Carolina and Florida, where hospital regulations were eased as lawmakers looked to stoke competition.

“This kind of a regulation is often there because powerful businesses want them,” Mitchell said, “not because they protect consumers.”

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).

HHS announced nearly $75 million to support health care services in rural America.

Donald Trump could have destroyed the Affordable Care Act, but “he chose to build upon [it].”

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on “Meet the Press,” Sept. 15

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on Sept. 15 told viewers of NBC’s “Meet the Press” that former President Donald Trump built up the Affordable Care Act, even though Trump could have chosen to do the opposite.

“Donald Trump had two choices,” Vance, Trump’s running mate, said. “He could have destroyed the program, or he could actually build upon it and make it better so that Americans didn’t lose a lot of health care. He chose to build upon a plan, even though it came from his Democratic predecessor.”

The remarks follow statements the former president made during his Sept. 10 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris in Philadelphia. Trump said of the ACA, “I saved it.”

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, has grown more popular as Americans have increasingly used it to gain health coverage. More than 20 million people enrolled this year in plans sold through the marketplaces it created. That makes the law a tricky political issue for Republicans, who have largely retreated from their attempts over the past decade to repeal it.

Both Vance’s and Trump’s statements are false. We contacted Vance’s campaign; it provided no additional information. But here’s a review of policies related to Obamacare that Trump pursued as president.

So What Did Trump Do With the ACA?

Most of the Trump administration’s ACA-related actions involved cutting the program, including reducing by millions of dollars funding for marketing and enrollment assistance and backing the many failed efforts in Congress and the courts to overturn the law. In June 2020, for example, the administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn the law in a case brought by more than a dozen GOP states. The high court eventually rejected the case.

“The fact the ACA survived the Trump administration is a testament to the strength of the underlying statutory framework, and that the public rallied around it,” said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

Most ACA provisions took effect in 2014, during Barack Obama’s presidential administration.

Average premium costs, already rising when Trump took office, jumped for some plans in 2018, before beginning a modest decline for the rest of his term, according to statistics from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Some of those increases were tied to a 2017 Trump administration decision to stop making payments to insurers, which was intended to reduce deductibles and copayments for people with low to moderate incomes. By law, though, insurers still had to offer the plans.

Two months earlier, the Congressional Budget Office warned that stopping the payments could cause some insurers to leave the ACA marketplace — and that premiums would rise by 20% in the first year.

Most states, however, let insurers make up for the lost payments by increasing monthly premiums. That had the unintended effect of boosting federal subsidies for people who buy Obamacare plans, because the subsidies are tied to the cost of premiums.

“By accident, that gave people cheaper access to better coverage in the exchange plans,” said Joe Antos, a senior fellow emeritus with the American Enterprise Institute.

Some Republicans think Trump deserves credit for this inadvertent improvement.

But Larry Levitt, KFF’s executive vice president for health policy, said that wasn’t the Trump administration’s intention.

“The one time when Trump improved the ACA, it was an unintended consequence of an attempt to weaken it,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration expanded access to some kinds of less expensive health coverage that aren’t compliant with ACA rules, including short-term plans that generally have more restrictions on care and can leave consumers with surprise medical bills. Democrats call the plans “junk insurance.”

Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative health research group, said broader access to cheaper, less comprehensive plans helped more people get coverage. The plans’ critics say that if they had attracted too many healthy people from ACA-compliant insurance, increases could have spiked for people who remained.

Trump also supported congressional repeal-and-replace efforts, all of which failed — including on the memorable night when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) helped kill the effort with a thumbs-down vote. The Trump administration never issued its own replacement plan, despite the former president’s many promises that he would.

Trump, during the debate with Harris, said that he has “concepts of a plan” to replace Obamacare and that “you’ll be hearing about it in the not-too-distant future.”

On “Meet the Press,” host Kristen Welker asked Vance when Trump’s plan would be ready. He didn’t answer directly but said it would involve “deregulating the insurance market.”

Critics say that’s code for letting insurers do business as they did pre-ACA, when sick people could be denied coverage or charged exorbitant premiums based on preexisting conditions.

Our Ruling

Vance’s assertion that Trump as president took steps to build upon the ACA and protect the health coverage of 20 million Americans is simply not supported by the record.

Trump administration policies, for example, didn’t buttress the ACA but often undermined enrollment outreach efforts or were advanced to sabotage the insurance marketplace. Also, Trump vocally supported congressional efforts to overturn the law and legal challenges to it.

By the numbers, Affordable Care Act enrollment declined by more than 2 million people during Trump’s presidency, and the number of uninsured Americans rose by 2.3 million, including 726,000 children, from 2016 to 2019, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That includes nearly three years of Trump’s presidency.

We rate Vance’s statement False.

SOURCES:

“Meet the Press” interview with Sen. JD Vance, Sept. 15, 2024.

Brookings Institution, “Six Ways Trump Has Sabotaged the Affordable Care Act,” Oct. 9, 2020.

Vox, “Trump Is Slashing Obamacare’s Advertising Budget by 90%,” Aug. 31, 2017.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Trump Administration Has Cut Navigator Funding by Over 80 Percent Since 2016,” Sept. 13, 2018.

The New York Times, ‘Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Strike Down Affordable Care Act,” June 26, 2020.

Constitutional Accountability Center, Texas v. United States, accessed Sept. 16, 2024.

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, “Quantifying Health Coverage Losses Under Trump,” Nov. 3, 2020.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Uninsured Rate Rose Again In 2019, Further Eroding Earlier Progress,” Sept. 15, 2020.

U.S. Census Bureau, Health Insurance Historical Tables, revised Aug. 22, 2024.

KFF, Marketplace Average Benchmark Premiums, accessed Sept. 16, 2024.

Brookings Institution, “The Case for Replacing ‘Silver Loading,’” May 20, 2021.

KFF Health News, “Trump Administration Loosens Restrictions on Short-Term Health Plans,” Aug. 1, 2018.

The New York Times, “Biden Administration Finalizes Rule Curbing Use of Short-Term Health Plans,” March 28, 2024.

Telephone interview, Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Reforms at Georgetown University, Sept. 16, 2024.

Telephone interview, Joe Antos, senior fellow emeritus, American Enterprise Institute, Sept. 16, 2024.

Email correspondence, Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute, Sept. 16, 2024.

Email correspondence, Larry Levitt, KFF executive vice president for health policy, Sept. 18, 2024.

Congressional Budget Office, “The Effects of Terminating Payments for Cost-Sharing Reductions,” Aug. 15, 2017.

USA Today, “Trump To End Cost-Sharing Subsidies to Insurance Companies,” Oct. 12, 2017.

New York magazine, “Vance: Trump’s Health-Care Plan Is To Let Insurers Charge More for Preexisting Conditions,” Sept. 17, 2024.

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).

First Federal Homelessness Prevention Framework

Every year more than 10,000 taxpayer-supported public housing units are lost to disrepair. But federal lawmakers routinely ignore the full amount, around $115 billion, needed to keep the units in “decent, safe and sanitary” condition.

One-time funds for public housing repairs were cut from the final version of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to appeal to centrist Senate Democrats who cited the cost.

The results have been disastrous for the more than 1 million people who rely on public housing — mostly low-income, Black and Hispanic tenants — especially as rental prices and eviction rates soar.

It’s not just a matter of housing affordability; it’s also a public health imperative. Research shows that living in derelict housing contributes to higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, asthma, violence and other life-threatening risks.

Exposure to mold, cockroach, mouse and dust mite allergens are major contributors to childhood asthma. Deteriorating conditions can send people to the ER with falls and injuries. And toxic pollutants contribute to cardiovascular health problems.

Earlier this year, my colleague Fred Clasen-Kelly and I traveled to Yamacraw Village, a public housing complex in downtown Savannah, Ga. We spoke with residents who told us about the mold, rats and roaches that make them sick, and gunshots that disrupt their sleep. One former resident said he takes an allergy pill daily, years after leaving, because of mold exposure in his Yamacraw unit.

Last year, a consultants’ report found a host of problems in Yamacraw, including water leaks and faulty wiring. They estimated the “remaining useful life” of the property was 0 years.

In a city where the average two-bedroom apartment rents for more than $1,600 monthly and the housing assistance waitlist has more than 3,000 families on it, records show most of the 315 apartments in Yamacraw sit empty because so many units are uninhabitable.

The local housing authority argues that without more federal funds, there isn’t much it can do.

Starting with the Nixon administration, lawmakers slowed investing in new public housing as more Black families and other people of color became tenants. And during the Clinton administration a moratorium passed that effectively prohibits the construction of additional public housing units, because lawmakers soured on public housing after years of their own disinvestment.

Now a handful of Democratic lawmakers are calling for Congress to take another look at public housing.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and others recently introduced a bill that would create a new social housing authority to support construction of more affordable housing. It would also lift a 25-year-old moratorium on public housing construction and commit extra funds for public housing repairs.

But many Republicans oppose federally supported public housing, as do centrist Democrats. It’s unclear whether either a Trump or Harris administration would prioritize additional public housing funds.

That’s no surprise to Detraya Gilliard, whose 15-year-old daughter Desaray was shot and killed when they lived at Yamacraw Village. Gilliard is suing the Housing Authority of Savannah, alleging the agency failed to take added security measures in its public housing complexes.

Gilliard left Yamacraw and returns only to maintain a memorial for her daughter. “Nothing has changed before, since or after” her daughter’s death, she said.

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).

ORANGEBURG, S.C. — Amari Marsh had just finished her junior year at South Carolina State University in May 2023 when she received a text message from a law enforcement officer.

“Sorry it has taken this long for paperwork to come back,” the officer wrote. “But I finally have the final report, and wanted to see if you and your boyfriend could meet me Wednesday afternoon for a follow up?”

Marsh understood that the report was related to a pregnancy loss she’d experienced that March, she said. During her second trimester, Marsh said, she unexpectedly gave birth in the middle of the night while on a toilet in her off-campus apartment. She remembered screaming and panicking and said the bathroom was covered in blood.

“I couldn’t breathe,” said Marsh, now 23.

The next day, when Marsh woke up in the hospital, she said, a law enforcement officer asked her questions. Then, a few weeks later, she said, she received a call saying she could collect her daughter’s ashes.

At that point, she said, she didn’t know she was being criminally investigated. Yet three months after her loss, Marsh was charged with murder/homicide by child abuse, law enforcement records show. She spent 22 days at the Orangeburg-Calhoun Regional Detention Center, where she was initially held without bond, facing 20 years to life in prison.

This August, 13 months after she was released from jail to house arrest with an ankle monitor, Marsh was cleared by a grand jury. Her case will not proceed to trial.

Her story raises questions about the state of reproductive rights in this country, disparities in health care, and pregnancy criminalization, especially for Black women like Marsh. More than two years after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which allowed states to outlaw abortion, the climate around these topics remains highly charged.

Marsh’s case also highlights what’s at stake in November. Sixty-one percent of voters want Congress to pass a federal law restoring a nationwide right to abortion, according to a recent poll by KFF, the health policy research, polling, and news organization that includes KFF Health News. These issues could shape who wins the White House and controls Congress, and will come to a head for voters in the 10 states where ballot initiatives about abortion will be decided.

This case shows how pregnancy loss is being criminalized around the country, said U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, a Democrat and graduate of South Carolina State University whose congressional district includes Orangeburg.

“This is not a slogan when we talk about this being an ‘election about the restoration of our freedoms,’” Clyburn said.

‘I Was Scared’

When Marsh took an at-home pregnancy test in November 2022, the positive result scared her. “I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t want to let my parents down,” she said. “I was in a state of shock.”

She didn’t seek prenatal care, she said, because she kept having her period. She thought the pregnancy test might have been wrong.

An incident report filed by the Orangeburg County Sheriff’s Office on the day she lost the pregnancy stated that in January 2023 Marsh made an appointment at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia to “take the Plan-C pill which would possibly cause an abortion to occur.” The report doesn’t specify whether she took — or even obtained — the drug.

During an interview at her parents’ house, Marsh denied going to Planned Parenthood or taking medicine to induce abortion.

“I’ve never been in trouble. I’ve never been pulled over. I’ve never been arrested,” Marsh said. “I never even got written up in school.”

She played clarinet as section leader in the marching band and once performed at Carnegie Hall. In college, she was majoring in biology and planned to become a doctor.

South Carolina state Rep. Seth Rose, a Democrat in Columbia and one of Marsh’s attorneys, called it a “really tragic” case. “It’s our position that she lost a child through natural causes,” he said.

On Feb. 28, 2023, Marsh said, she experienced abdominal pain that was “way worse” than regular menstrual cramps. She went to the emergency room, investigation records show, but left after several hours without being treated. Back at home, she said, the pain grew worse. She returned to the hospital, this time by ambulance.

Hospital staffers crowded around her, she said, and none of them explained what was happening to her. Bright lights shone in her face. “I was scared,” she said.

According to the sheriff’s department report, hospital staffers told Marsh that she was pregnant and that a fetal heartbeat could be detected. Freaked out and confused, she chose to leave the hospital a second time, she said, and her pain had subsided.

In the middle of the night, she said, the pain started again. She woke up, she recalled, feeling an intense urge to use the bathroom. “And when I did, the child came,” she said. “I screamed because I was scared, because I didn’t know what was going on.”

Her boyfriend at the time called 911. The emergency dispatcher “kept telling me to take the baby out” of the toilet, she recalled. “I couldn’t because I couldn’t even keep myself together.”

First medical responders detected signs of life and tried to perform lifesaving measures as they headed to Regional Medical Center in Orangeburg, the incident report said. But at the hospital, Marsh learned that her infant, a girl, had not survived.

“I kept asking to see the baby,” she said. “They wouldn’t let me.”

The following day, a sheriff’s deputy told Marsh in her hospital room that the incident was under investigation but said that Marsh “was currently not in any trouble,” according to the report. Marsh responded that “she did not feel as though she did anything wrong.”

More than 10 weeks later, nothing about the text messages she received from an officer in mid-May implied that the follow-up meeting about the final report was urgent.

“Oh it doesn’t have to be Wednesday, it can be next week or another week,” the officer wrote in an exchange that Marsh shared with KFF Health News. “I just have to meet with y’all in person before I can close the case out. I am so sorry”

“No problem I understand,” Marsh wrote back.

She didn’t tell her parents or consider hiring a lawyer. “I didn’t think I needed one,” she said.

Marsh arranged to meet the officer on June 2, 2023. During that meeting, she was arrested. Her boyfriend was not charged.

Her father, Herman Marsh, the band director at a local public school in Orangeburg, thought it was a bad joke until reality set in. “I told my wife, I said, ‘We need to get an attorney now.’”

Pregnancy Criminalization

When Marsh lost her pregnancy on March 1, 2023, women in South Carolina could still obtain an abortion until 20 weeks beyond fertilization, or the gestational age of 22 weeks.

Later that spring, South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a ban that prohibits providers from performing abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, with some exceptions made for cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. That law does not allow criminal penalties for women who seek or obtain abortions.

Solicitor David Pascoe, a Democrat elected to South Carolina’s 1st Judicial Circuit whose office handled Marsh’s prosecution, said the issues of abortion and reproductive rights weren’t relevant to this case.

“It had nothing to do with that,” he told KFF Health News.

The arrest warrant alleges that not moving the infant from the toilet at the urging of the dispatcher was ultimately “a proximate cause of her daughter’s death.” The warrant also cites as the cause of death “respiratory complications” due to a premature delivery stemming from a maternal chlamydia infection. Marsh said she was unaware of the infection until after the pregnancy loss.

Pascoe said the question raised by investigators was whether Marsh failed to render aid to the infant before emergency responders arrived at the apartment, he said. Ultimately, the grand jury decided there wasn’t probable cause to proceed with a criminal trial, he said. “I respect the grand jury’s opinion.”

Marsh’s case is a “prime example of how pregnancy loss can become a criminal investigation very quickly,” said Dana Sussman, senior vice president of Pregnancy Justice, a nonprofit that tracks such cases. While similar cases predate the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, she said, they seem to be increasing.

“The Dobbs decision unleashed and empowered prosecutors to look at pregnant people as a suspect class and at pregnancy loss as a suspicious event,” she said.

Local and national anti-abortion groups seized on Marsh’s story when her name and mug shot were published online by The Times and Democrat of Orangeburg. Holly Gatling, executive director of South Carolina Citizens for Life, wrote a blog post about Marsh titled, in part, “Orangeburg Newborn Dies in Toilet” that was published by National Right to Life. Gatling and National Right to Life did not respond to interview requests.

Marsh said she made the mistake of googling herself when she was released from jail.

“It was heartbreaking to see all those things,” she said. “I cried so many times.”

Some physicians are also afraid of being painted as criminals. The nonprofit Physicians for Human Rights published a report on Sept. 17 about Florida’s six-week abortion ban that included input from two dozen doctors, many of whom expressed fear about the criminal penalties imposed by the law.

“The health care systems are afraid,” said Michele Heisler, medical director for the nonprofit. “There’s all these gray areas. So everyone is just trying to be extra careful. Unfortunately, as a result, patients are suffering.”

Chelsea Daniels, a family medicine doctor who works for Planned Parenthood in Miami and performs abortions, said that in early September she saw a patient who had a miscarriage during the first trimester of her pregnancy. The patient had been to four hospitals and brought in the ultrasound scans performed at each facility.

“No one would touch her,” Daniels said. “Each ultrasound scan she brought in represents, on the other side, a really terrified doctor who is doing their best to interpret the really murky legal language around abortion care and miscarriage management, which are the same things, essentially.”

Florida is one of the 10 states with a ballot measure related to abortion in November, although it is the only Southern state with one. Others are Montana, Missouri, and Maryland.

‘I Found My Strength’

Zipporah Sumpter, one of Marsh’s lawyers, said the law enforcement system treated her client as a criminal instead of a grieving mother. “This is not a criminal matter,” Sumpter said.

It was not just the fraught climate around pregnancy that caused Marsh to suffer; “race definitely played a factor,” said Sumpter, who does not believe Marsh received compassionate care when she went to the hospital the first or second time.

The management of Regional Medical Center, where Marsh was treated, changed shortly after her hospitalization. The hospital is now managed by the Medical University of South Carolina, and its spokesperson declined to comment on Marsh’s case.

Historically, birth outcomes for Black women in Orangeburg County, where Marsh lost her pregnancy, have ranked among the worst in South Carolina. From 2020 through 2022, the average mortality rate for Black infants born in Orangeburg County was more than three times as high as the average rate for white infants statewide.

Today, Marsh is still trying to process all that happened. She moved back in with her parents and is seeing a therapist. She is taking classes at a local community college and hopes to reenroll at South Carolina State University to earn a four-year degree. She still wants to become a doctor. She keeps her daughter’s ashes on a bookshelf in her bedroom.

“Through all of this, I found my strength. I found my voice. I want to help other young women that are in my position now and will be in the future,” she said. “I always had faith that God was going to be on my side, but I didn’t know how it was going to go with the justice system we have today.”

KFF Health News Florida 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).

In what has become a pattern of spreading vaccine misinformation, the Florida health department is telling older Floridians and others at highest risk from covid-19 to avoid most booster shots, saying they are potentially dangerous.

Clinicians and scientists denounced the message as politically fueled scaremongering that also weakens efforts to protect against diseases like measles and whooping cough.

A prominent Florida doctor expressed dismay that medical leaders in the state, leery of angering Gov. Ron DeSantis, have been slow to counter anti-vaccine messages from Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, including the latest covid bulletin. Ladapo is a DeSantis appointee and the top official at the state health department.

The bulletin makes a number of false or unproven claims about the efficacy and safety of mRNA-based covid vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna, including that they could threaten “the integrity of the human genome.” Florida’s guidance generally regurgitates ideas from anti-vaccine websites, said John Moore, a professor of microbiology at Weill Cornell Medicine.

Ladapo did not respond to a request for comment. DeSantis referred questions to the health department, which said the surgeon general’s guidance and citations “speak for themselves” and pointed to a post he made on the social platform X accusing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FDA of “gaslighting Americans.”

DeSantis has styled himself and his administration as a bulwark against vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and other restrictive public health protections adopted during the pandemic to curb infections and save lives. Covid vaccination has become a partisan issue, with surveys by KFF, the health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, finding that Republicans have far less confidence in the safety and efficacy of the shots than Democrats.

But vaccine historians consulted for this article could not recall any previous state health leader urging residents to shun an FDA-approved and CDC-recommended vaccination. “It’s unprecedented,” said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Florida medical leaders should speak out more forcefully against Ladapo’s attacks on public health, said Jeffrey Goldhagen, a pediatrician and professor at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville. Ladapo urged people under 65 to avoid covid shots last year and has rejected public health protocols for fighting measles outbreaks.

“What you see is a pattern of fear and neglect of professional responsibilities across the state, in part because of the fear of this governor and the vindictiveness of this governor,” said Goldhagen, a former health department director in Jacksonville.

He specifically criticized the Florida Medical Association, a trade group for physicians, noting that Ladapo is a nonvoting member of the group’s board of governors. The association did not respond to emails requesting comment.

The Florida Health Care Association, whose members run more than 600 long-term care facilities, declined to comment on Ladapo’s bulletin. One nursing home chain, LeadingAge Southeast, said it was aware of both federal and state recommendations on covid boosters and encouraged providers to “engage with their residents, families, and healthcare professionals to make informed decisions.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Cherie Duvall-Jones, said the agency “strongly disagrees with the State Surgeon General of Florida’s characterization of the safety and effectiveness of the updated mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.” The vaccines met the FDA’s “rigorous, scientific standards,” she said, and she urged people to get boosters since the population’s covid immunity has waned.

Among its incorrect claims, the Florida bulletin says the new mRNA boosters wrongly target a viral variant, omicron, that is no longer circulating widely. This is false, since all major variants of covid in the past two years evolved from omicron and subsequent mutations.

“You start off with that and then you go into head-exploding-emoji territory,” Moore said. “It’s a litany of lies out of the anti-vaxxer playbook.”

Other claims in Ladapo’s bulletin include:

• Covid boosters don’t undergo clinical trials. It’s true that covid booster shots, whose mRNA sequences are changed slightly from previous shots, aren’t tested in large trials. Neither are annual influenza vaccines. By the time such tests would be completed, flu season would be over. But the original mRNA shots underwent clinical trials, and as with flu shots, “a lot of evidence has been collected in support of the ongoing use of the vaccines,” said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health.
• The shots pose a risk of infections, autoimmune disease, and other conditions. “I don’t know where these claims come from, but they aren’t accepted by the general medical community,” said William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University School of Medicine infectious disease specialist. Serious side effects do occur, rarely, as with any medication. U.S. authorities were among the first to detect rare occurrences of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart tissue, in young adults who got the covid vaccine. Most patients recovered quickly. Myocarditis is more commonly caused by covid infection itself.
• The shots could cause elevated levels of spike protein and foreign genetic material in the blood. These concerns, which circulate on social media, have been disproved or have not panned out. For example, the billionths-of-a-gram quantities of bacterial DNA alleged to be contaminating covid shots are dwarfed by our other exposures, Offit said. “You encounter foreign DNA all the time, assuming you live on the planet and eat anything made from animals or vegetables,” he said. “I don’t know Dr. Ladapo, but I assume he does.”
• Americans face “unknown risk” from too many booster shots. Scientists look at the possibility of “overvaccination” every time they study boosters. So far, no safety risks have been associated with multiple immunizations, Schaffner said.
• Floridians should get exercise and eat vegetables and “healthy fats.” “These things will benefit your general health, but none of them will prevent covid,” Schaffner said.

The bulletin urges all Floridians, including older residents, to avoid mRNA vaccines and find alternatives. But it comes off as “not in good faith” because it doesn’t specifically mention the only non-mRNA vaccine available, from Novavax, Dean said.

Several critics of Ladapo’s bulletin said it read like a tryout for a job in a Trump administration advised by longtime anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has said Trump wants him to help vet senior health officials. Trump has said children receive too many vaccines and suggested that vaccines cause autism, a myth debunked by years of scientific research.

Ironically, although his administration oversaw the triumphantly rapid creation of the first covid vaccines, Trump declined to receive his shots in public, as presidents have done during past epidemics.

Ladapo’s vaccine statement “aligns with Project 2025,” Offit said, referring to the conservative Heritage Foundation policy blueprint. While the plan’s authors include officials from Trump’s first term, he has said it doesn’t reflect his views.

The document calls the CDC “perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government.”

Organized resistance to vaccines has existed as long as vaccination itself. Within six months of the release of the mRNA vaccines in December 2020, about 70% of American adults were vaccinated. Those who refused put themselves at greater risk of hospitalization or death if they contracted covid, studies have shown.

Cheryl Holder, an internist who practices in Miami, said Ladapo’s statements had dampened interest in vaccination overall. People who are blasé about covid “also don’t want to take the tetanus vaccine, and they don’t want to take the pneumococcal vaccine, or the flu vaccine,” she said.

“We’re in the disinformation age,” Offit said. “It’s certainly a lucrative business, more lucrative than the information business. But what really bothers me is when you have people who are credentialed stand up and say these ridiculous things.”

Ladapo, he noted, has medical and doctoral degrees from Harvard.

Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by Civic News Company and KFF Health News. Sign up for its newsletters here.

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).

On March 30, 2019, a swerving car upended Tom Burke’s life.

Severely injured after the crash, Burke was airlifted from the Fort Liberty U.S. Army base in North Carolina to UNC Medical Center, in Chapel Hill, where doctors performed surgeries to rebuild his leg.

Medicaid covered most of the cost, but Burke was still left with more than $10,000 in bills. He was confined to a wheelchair for two years after the accident, unable to work his car sales job. As a result, he said, he couldn’t pay the outstanding hospital bill and his account was turned over to a collection agency.

Since then, he and his wife repeatedly tried to buy a house. But because of damage to his credit score, mortgage companies repeatedly turned them down.

“We were forced into homelessness for a time,” said Burke, whose family moved from North Carolina to Missouri in 2020. “For everything we need credit for, we’re screwed.”

Burke is among millions of people burdened by medical debt, a nationwide problem that surveys and data suggest is particularly acute in North Carolina.

Using credit bureau data, the nonprofit Urban Institute calculated that more than 8% of North Carolina consumers had an unpaid medical bill on their credit report in 2023, compared with 5% nationally.

In fact, only Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Carolina, and Texas had higher levels of medical debt on credit reports than North Carolina, researchers found.

Nationally, 41% of adults — or about 100 million people — have some kind of health care debt, according to a 2022 survey by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

The KFF survey was designed to capture not just bills patients couldn’t afford and that end up on credit reports, but also other debt patients incur to pay for health care, including from credit cards, payment plans, and loans from friends and family.

The KFF survey didn’t include state-specific findings, but if North Carolina’s debt burden precisely matched the national rate — meaning 41% of adults in the state had health care debt — then approximately 3.4 million North Carolinians would be in debt.

This is probably a low estimate, however, since the credit bureau data and other sources suggest that medical debt is higher in North Carolina than nationally.

The credit bureau data also indicates that medical debt is highest in Anson and Cleveland counties, along with a band of counties in the eastern part of the state.

Mecklenburg County’s rate is slightly higher than the state rate. And as is the case nearly everywhere, there are large racial disparities in medical debt, with debt burdens in the county more than twice as high in nonwhite communities as in white ones, the Urban Institute data shows.

Burke, who earns less than $1,000 a month from Social Security Disability Insurance, said his family is now forced to rent, which has dramatically increased their living expenses.

His family of five shares tight quarters — a 980-square-foot rental home with just two full-sized bedrooms. They moved to Missouri because the cost of living is lower there.

Hospitals, he said, need to change their priorities.

“They’re not for patient care,” he said. “They’re for patient profit.”

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).

North Carolina officials had been quietly laboring for months on an ambitious plan to tackle the state’s mammoth medical debt problem when Gov. Roy Cooper stepped before cameras in July to announce the initiative.

But as Cooper stood by the stairs of the executive mansion and called for “freeing people from medical debt,” the future of his administration’s work hung in the balance.

Negotiations were fraying between the state and the powerful hospital industry over the plan to make hospitals relieve patient debt or lose billions of dollars of public funding tied to the state’s Medicaid expansion. The federal government hadn’t signed off on North Carolina’s plan, putting funding at risk. And not a single hospital official stood with the governor that day.

Less than six weeks later, the gamble paid off. The state received a federal blessing. And every one of North Carolina’s 99 hospitals agreed to the state’s demands.

In exchange for federal money, hospitals would wipe out billions of dollars of patient debt and adopt new standards to shield patients from crippling bills.

“It’s a model that the rest of the country could adopt,” said Jared Walker, founder of Dollar For, a national nonprofit that helps patients get financial aid from hospitals. “This is what we’ve been fighting for.”

But it was no sure thing. The behind-the-scenes story of North Carolina’s effort — based on hundreds of pages of public records and interviews with state officials and others involved — reveals a months-long struggle as the state went toe-to-toe with its hospitals.

Multibillion-dollar health systems and the industry’s powerful trade group vigorously fought the medical debt plan, records show. They sowed fears of collapsing rural health care. They warned of legal fights and a showdown with the legislature. And they maneuvered to get the federal government to kill the plan.

The Cooper administration had powerful allies in Washington, though. The Biden administration — and Vice President Kamala Harris specifically — had made reducing medical debt a priority. And in the end, the state held the highest card: money.

Building on Medicaid Expansion

North Carolina’s new path was paved by years of frustration.

The state has long had among the highest rates of medical debt in the nation. As many as 3 million adults likely carry such debt, KFF polling and credit bureau data suggest.

Debt is highest in nonwhite communities and in eastern North Carolina, credit bureau data analyzed by the nonprofit Urban Institute shows. And while some debts may be small, the KFF poll found that at least a quarter of people nationally with debt owe more than $5,000.

North Carolina hospitals also have been aggressive debt collectors, taking thousands of patients to court, placing liens on homes, and garnishing tax refunds.

The largest system, Atrium Health — part of Advocate Health, a multistate tax-exempt conglomerate that reported more than $31 billion in revenue and $2.2 billion in profit last year — sued almost 2,500 patients from 2017 to 2022, a report found.

On Thursday, Advocate Health announced that it will cancel the liens it placed on more than 11,000 homes.

Officials from Atrium and 14 other hospital systems declined to be interviewed about the debt plan.

Hospitals have beaten back efforts to restrict their aggressive billing. While an ambitious bill to expand patient protections attracted bipartisan support in the general assembly, it stalled last year in the face of industry opposition.

“Hospitals are good lobbyists,” the governor said in a recent interview. “They’re able to often stop legislation they don’t like.”

In 2023 the health care landscape in the state shifted. After years of resistance, GOP leadership in the legislature agreed to expand eligibility for Medicaid, the safety net insurance program.

The expansion promised to make coverage available to hundreds of thousands of previously uninsured low-income residents and to protect them from going into debt.

But as Cooper, a Democrat, and his top health official, Kody Kinsley, traveled the state to celebrate coverage gains, they saw a gap. The expansion didn’t help people who’d already racked up big bills. “They were still carrying the burden of that debt,” Kinsley said.

With one more year in office, Cooper and Kinsley, whose interest in medical debt was colored by being the child of working-class parents, resolved to take a final shot at the debt problem.

“It’s just a metastasized disease in the health system,” Kinsley said. “And going after it is just a tangle of thorns.”

Medicaid expansion offered a means, albeit untested, to do that, they believed.

The expansion would come with billions of dollars of new federal funding for hospitals through an arcane process known as a state-directed payment. This funding — which many states access to compensate hospitals for treating low-income patients — is criticized by some experts as excessive.

Rather than reject the money, however, Noth Carolina officials believed they could leverage it. Instead of giving it away with no strings attached, they asked, what if they made hospitals protect patients from medical debt in exchange for the funds? If hospitals wouldn’t, the state would dock their money.

“It was a clear tool that we now had on the table,” said Kinsley, who oversaw development of the debt plan and negotiations with hospitals and the federal government.

Many hospital systems in North Carolina stood to get nearly twice as much money by agreeing to participate in the debt relief plan, state figures show. Charlotte-based Atrium, for instance, would get about $1.7 billion next year, compared with roughly $900 million if it didn’t sign on.

But the added money would come with a catch.

Seeking Trusted Partners

Kinsley and his aides quickly settled on two things to demand from health systems.

Hospitals would have to eliminate outstanding debts of their low-income patients. This approach had been pioneered by New York-based nonprofit Undue Medical Debt, which buys old debt for pennies on the dollar and retires it.

Hospitals would also have to change their financial aid policies so more patients could get help with big bills and fewer would go into debt.

Most hospitals already offer discounts to low-income patients. But standards vary, and many hospitals make it difficult to apply for assistance. To address this, some states have imposed uniform standards on hospitals.

North Carolina state officials wanted the same. They knew, however, that threatening hospital money would stir opposition from the industry’s lobbying arm, the influential North Carolina Healthcare Association.

So Kinsley and his aides reached out directly to a handful of hospital systems, including UNC Health, the nonprofit system affiliated with the state’s public university system. “We were essentially road-testing what the actual policies could be and how they would work,” Kinsley said.

Through the first months of 2024, state officials took pains to keep the conversations confidential, emails obtained through a public records request show. When Kinsley’s aides provided drafts to hospital officials, they asked that the proposals be shared “with only a few select colleagues.”

State and hospital officials went back and forth over which patients should qualify for free or discounted care, how to relieve old patient debts, and how to better screen patients for aid.

The process convinced state officials that their plan would work. Some hospitals had already retired patients’ debts. Others had financial assistance policies that paralleled the standards the state was contemplating.

“We had sought out hospitals of different shapes and sizes,” Kinsley said. “We had gleaned from other states what the best practices were and what was really workable.”

‘A Total Explosion’

Then in late April, word of the negotiations between the state and the select group of hospitals leaked.

Kinsley said his cellphone lit up. “Everybody freaked out,” he recalled. “Every lobbyist was coming after me. It was just a total explosion.”

Among them was the North Carolina Healthcare Association and its veteran chief executive, Steve Lawler, who began peppering Kinsley’s office with sharply worded letters attacking the medical debt plan and predicting dire consequences.

Lawler warned that patients would face higher insurance costs. Moreover, he alleged it was illegal to use federal Medicaid dollars to force hospitals to provide widespread debt relief.

“Such a trade-off is not permissible,” Lawler wrote on May 2.

Days later, Kinsley fired back a long letter to Lawler, saying that the plan was a legally sound effort to address a crisis that was “harming our neighbors.”

But the damage had been done. The hospitals working with the state changed their tone, and the industry closed ranks.

Meanwhile the hospital association made plans to convene a meeting with health insurers and business leaders to discuss medical debt, an approach that threatened to slow the state effort to hold hospitals singularly accountable. The group met at Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Raleigh, a restaurant where a steak costs $60 and up.

In a recent interview, Lawler said the hospital group was just trying to build consensus for a different strategy for tackling medical debt. “This was a big enough issue that it just required a bigger-tent conversation,” he said.

To state officials, it looked like an industry play to derail the medical debt plan. “I didn’t know if it was going to fall apart,” Kinsley said.

Pressing Ahead

For lower-income residents, the stakes were high.

The state’s program was designed to erase around $4 billion in hospital debt for nearly 2 million people dating to 2014, according to state estimates.

If approved, the plan would also require hospitals to automatically qualify more patients for charity care, provide discounts to low- and middle-income patients, and stop reporting these patients to credit agencies if they couldn’t pay.

So despite the pushback, state officials kept up their dialogue with hospitals and made revisions to address some concerns, records show.

Among the concessions, the state proposed that hospitals offer debt relief to patients with incomes below 3½ times the federal poverty level, or $109,200 for a family of four. The state had initially sought to mandate aid for people making less than four times the poverty level.

State officials also secured a legal opinion from a Medicaid expert in Washington, D.C., who confirmed that the state’s approach wouldn’t run afoul of federal rules.

But time was running out. The state needed to submit its plan by the end of June or risk losing the federal money. And Cooper and Kinsley still wanted at least a few hospitals on board to build momentum.

“The win here would be hospitals and the department solving a problem that was real and meaningful for people, and we could walk out together and say this is what we got done,” Kinsley said in an interview later.

Email records indicate that some systems, such as Cone Health, considered joining Kinsley and the governor when they announced the plan July 1.

None did. And by the following week, the state was barraged by letters from hospitals across the state lambasting the medical debt plan.

Ken Haynes, a senior Atrium official, wrote that the proposal would set “a dangerous precedent” and warned that insurance companies would raise deductibles, knowing that hospitals would have to forgive bills for many patients.

Novant Health, a large nonprofit system with seven hospitals in and around Charlotte, argued that financial assistance should be limited to uninsured patients and those with Medicaid. “Policies should avoid broad debt relief approaches that divert scarce hospital resources,” wrote Alice Pope, the system’s chief financial officer.

In 2023, Novant posted $8.3 billion in revenue and more than $460 million in profit.

New Bern-based CarolinaEast Health System, insisted the plan would “cripple rural healthcare organizations.” Granville Health System, which runs a community hospital in the center of the state, contended that “hospitals are being used as pawns to achieve preferred political and policy objectives on questionable legal authority.”

In mid-July, Lawler at the North Carolina Healthcare Association wrote directly to the head of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, urging it to reject the state’s plan. Lawler said the plan “set a dangerous precedent” by linking Medicaid funding to medical debt policy.

Dominoes Fall

But North Carolina officials maintained close contact with the federal agency, giving them confidence they’d get the green light, despite hospital opposition.

On July 26, approval came through, a month and a day after North Carolina submitted the plan. Federal review of state plans can often take three or four times as long.

The state gave hospitals until 5 p.m. on Friday, Aug. 9, to accept the new medical debt standards or forfeit billions of dollars.

By Aug. 7, only 37 of the state’s 99 hospitals had signed on.

Then the tide shifted. By Friday evening, state officials had locked in all 99.

Implementing the plan promises to be complicated, with logistical challenges, wary Republicans in the legislature, and hospitals smarting over the showdown. And, as state leaders acknowledge, more action is needed to constrain high prices hospitals still command.

But with taxpayers pumping billions of dollars into health systems nationwide, North Carolina’s gambit offers a potential road map for leveraging public funds to confront a crisis that burdens some 100 million people in the U.S.

“North Carolina has been really strategic in using the lever of its Medicaid payments,” said Christopher Koller, president of the Milbank Memorial Fund, a health policy nonprofit. “The focus of health systems should be caring for patients, not bullying them for every last penny to run their business.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

KFF Health News senior correspondent Aneri Pattani discussed opioid settlements and the Supreme Court’s overturning of a bankruptcy deal involving Purdue Pharma on the “Front Porch Book Club” podcast on Sept. 17. Pattani, joined by journalist Ed Mahon, also discussed how much opioid settlement money Pennsylvania is receiving, who makes the spending decisions, and how members of the public can get involved on “City Cast Pittsburgh” on Sept. 18.

• Click here to hear Pattani on “Front Porch Book Club”
• Read Pattani’s reporting for the series “Payback: Tracking the Opioid Settlement Cash”
• Click here to hear Pattani and Mahon on “City Cast Pittsburgh”
• Read Pattani, Henry Larweh, and Mahon’s “Public Voices Often Ignored in States’ Opioid Settlement Money Decisions”

KFF Health News contributor Andy Miller discussed selecting a nursing home that fits one’s needs on WUGA’s “The Georgia Health Report” on Sept. 13.

• Click here to hear Miller on “The Georgia Health 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).

Almost $9 million in grant funding will help women

WILLIAMSTON, N.C. — On a mid-August morning, Christopher Harrison stood in front of the shuttered Martin General Hospital recalling the day a year earlier when he snapped pictures as workers covered the facility’s sign.

“Yes, sir. It was a sad day,” Harrison said of the financial collapse of the small rural hospital, where all four of his children were born.

Quorum Health operated the 49-bed facility in this rural eastern North Carolina town of about 5,000 residents until it closed. The hospital had been losing money for some time. The county’s population has slightly declined and is aging; it has experienced incremental economic downturns. Like many rural hospitals, those headwinds drove managers to discontinue labor and delivery services and halt intensive care during the past five years.

Prospects for reopening seemed dim.

But a new hospital designation by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that took effect last year offered hope. As of August, hospitals in 32 communities around the country have converted to the rural emergency hospital designation to prevent closure. The new program provides a federal financial boost for struggling hospitals that keep offering emergency and outpatient services but halt inpatient care.

The REH model “is not designed to replace existing, well-functioning rural hospitals,” said George Pink, a senior research fellow at the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, which has documented 149 rural hospitals that have either closed or no longer provide inpatient care since 2010. “It really is targeted at small rural communities that are at imminent risk of a hospital closing.”

The program hasn’t yet been used to reopen a closed hospital.

With guidance from health consultants, Martin County officials asked federal regulators to explore the possibility of adopting the REH model and were ultimately given the go-ahead.

If successful, Martin County could become one of the first in the nation to convert a shuttered hospital to this new model.

Ask members of a community that has lost its hospital what they miss most, Pink said, and it’s almost invariably emergency services. Count Harrison among them, especially after a medical crisis nearly killed him.

Harrison, who lives in a smaller crossroads community a few miles south of Williamston, began experiencing leg pain in February. Under normal circumstances, Harrison said, he would have gone to his primary care doctor if his leg began to hurt. This time he couldn’t, because the practice closed when the hospital folded months earlier.

Then, one morning he awoke to find his foot turning black. It took him 45 minutes to drive to the closest hospital, in the town of Washington. There, doctors found blood clots and he was flown by helicopter to East Carolina University Health Medical Center. A doctor there told him that he’d probably had the blood clots for close to a year and that he was lucky to be alive. The medical team was able to save his foot from amputation.

Harrison, like many other community members, now had firsthand experience with the consequences of a shuttered hospital.

The state legislature’s decision last year to expand Medicaid has meant fewer North Carolinians are uninsured, which means fewer hospital bills go unpaid. But health care is evolving: Many procedures that once required inpatient care are now performed as outpatient services. Dawn Carter, the founder and a senior partner of Ascendient, a health care consulting firm working with the county, said the inpatient census at Martin General in its last few years ranged from five or six a day to a dozen.

“So you’re talking about a lot of cost, a lot of infrastructure to support that,” she said.

With no emergency care within a half-hour radius, Martin County administrators believe a rural emergency hospital would be a good fit and a viable option. REH status allows a hospital to collect enhanced Medicare payments, an annual facility payment, and technical assistance.

Carter said the team will present to the state Department of Health and Human Services a set of drawings of the portion of the building they intend to use to see if it meets REH regulations.

“I’m hoping that process is happening in the next several weeks,” she said, “and that will give us a better idea of whether we have a handful of really quick and easy things to do or if it’s going to take a little more effort to reopen.”

Officials then will take proposals from companies interested in running the hospital.

Carter said the expectation is that, initially, the facility will be strictly the emergency room and imaging department, “and then I think the question is, over time, where do you build beyond that?”

And the rebuilding could prove a challenge from the start. Many former staff members have taken positions at nearby health care facilities or left the area. The effects of that exodus will be compounded by the widespread difficulty in recruiting health workers to rural areas.

It’s early yet, Pink said, to assess the success of the rural emergency hospital model. “All we have are armchair anecdotes.” It seems to be working well in some communities, while others “are struggling a little to make it work.”

Pink has a list of questions to assess how an emergency hospital is faring in the long run:

• Is it at least breaking even? And if not, do administrators foresee a solution?
• How is the community responding? If someone believes they have an issue that might require inpatient care, Pink suggested, perhaps they’ll bypass the REH for a hospital that can admit them. And to what extent does bypassing their doors carry over to all services?
• Are patients happy with the care they’re receiving? Are the clinical outcomes good?

The rate of rural hospital closures rose through 2020, then dropped considerably in 2021. Congress had passed the CARES Act, and the Provider Relief Fund offered a financial lifeline, Pink said. That money has now been distributed, and the concern is that “many rural hospitals are returning to pre-covid financial stresses and unprofitability.”

If the trend continues, he said, more rural hospitals may turn to the REH model.

Ben Eisner serves as Martin County’s attorney and interim manager. He acknowledges that the health and well-being of this community require a lot more than a hospital. He cites, for example, a new nonprofit with a mission to address the social determinants of health.

Advancing Community Health Together was created in response to the hospital closure. Composed of community members, its focus is addressing inadequate health care access and poor health outcomes as a consequence of generational poverty, said Vickey Manning, director of Martin-Tyrrell-Washington District Health.

“We can’t address rural health care in a vacuum,” Carter said. Her organization, Ascendient, is part of the Rural Healthcare Initiative, a nonprofit commissioned by the North Carolina General Assembly to study sustainable models of health care for rural communities.

Like most of rural eastern North Carolina, Martin County is in transition, Eisner said. Diminishing family farms, less industry. “And so the question becomes,” he said, “‘What happens for all these communities? What happens next?’ And it’s an answer that is not yet fully written.”

Harrison, still relying on crutches to get around, recently drove 45 minutes north on U.S. 13 to the town of Ahoskie to have a doctor examine his foot. He said a hospital that offers basic emergency care isn’t a perfect solution, but he’ll have some peace of mind once the cover is peeled from that sign and his local hospital reopens.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

A seemingly innocuous proposal to offer scholarships for mental health workers in California’s new court-ordered treatment program has sparked debate over whether the state should prioritize that program or tackle a wider labor shortage in behavioral health services.

Nine counties have begun rolling out the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Act, which Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law in 2022 to get people with untreated schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, many of them incarcerated or homeless, into treatment. But often those skilled clinicians have been pulled by counties from other understaffed behavioral health programs.

“There’s just so much change coming with a limited workforce, limited treatment resources, and high expectations for counties to solve things like homelessness,” said Scott Kennelly, director of the Butte County Behavioral Health Department. “It’s like I’m turning on a fire hose and saying, ‘Start drinking.’”

The bill by state Sen. Tom Umberg would create an annual scholarship fund for students who pursue a mental health profession provided they work for three years with CARE Court. Umberg had requested $10 million for the program, but it’s unclear how many students would receive the scholarship, said Jackie Koenig, a spokesperson for the senator. The bill sailed through the legislature without a single lawmaker voting against it.

Umberg, a Democrat from Orange County, said CARE Court deserves targeted funding because it’s a new program, and he noted other state scholarships are available for students pursuing a behavioral health degree. For instance, the state announced in March 2023 that it would issue $118 million in grants to support behavioral health providers at 134 nonprofit community-based organizations.

“CARE Court is new, and it is in a unique space that requires unique behavioral health skills, dealing with schizophrenics,” Umberg said. “So, we want to encourage folks to go into that space, because it is a challenge.”

But local behavioral health administrators say shifting experts into CARE Court may create shortages in other programs or thrust mental health specialists into multiple demanding programs.

The CARE Act allows patients or others, such as their relatives, behavioral health care providers, or roommates, to petition their county court for help. Individuals who agree to participate can receive up to 24 months of treatment, which can include outpatient substance use disorder treatment, stabilization medication, connection to social services, and housing. It is one of Newsom’s experimental initiatives intended to get some of the state’s 181,000 homeless people off the streets and into housing without resorting to mandatory conservatorships.

Only 7,000 to 12,000 Californians are estimated to be eligible for treatment, according to the Judicial Council, which helps oversee the program.

The state has allocated $251 million to staff and launch the CARE program through the current budget year, including $122 million in grants to counties, according to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office. At the same time, counties have been directed to implement a host of other behavioral health programs, such as mobile crisis teams, and boost mental health services for Medi-Cal patients. Last year, Newsom also signed legislation that broadened the number of Californians who could be involuntarily committed.

“As a high-profile mandate, counties are largely moving existing, skilled, experienced staff over to launch and staff the CARE Court teams,” said Michelle Cabrera, executive director of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, which supports the bill.

It’s why critics, including ACLU California Action, Mental Health America of California, and some counties, say a CARE Court scholarship should also support other county programs that treat individuals with serious mental illness and housing instability.

“Restricting workforce development initiatives solely to one of the many new behavioral health initiatives will not solve the issues of staffing across the continuum of behavioral health services,” said Alexandra Pierce, an assistant director at the Merced County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services Department.

County behavioral health departments are in the midst of a massive behavioral health workforce shortage — running 25% to 30% below full staff capacity, on average, according to an internal 2023 survey conducted by the county behavioral health director association and the University of California-San Francisco’s Healthforce Center, Cabrera said.

More than a dozen rural and urban county behavioral health directors told KFF Health News that hiring challenges are widespread and not unique to CARE Court, pointing to burnout since the start of the covid-19 pandemic and steep competition from schools, correctional facilities, and the private sector, which can offer skilled clinicians higher pay, work-from-home telehealth jobs, and generous vacation.

Michelle Funez, division director of Marin County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services, said a CARE Court scholarship could incentivize students to pursue county jobs that support vulnerable individuals in the community.

Finding the right clinician for CARE Court can be tricky because the job requires skilled individuals to work in homeless encampments and other nontraditional environments, Funez said.

“It can feel like we’re looking for the needle in the haystack,” Funez said, drawing from “an already smaller body of staff who have the requisite skills for this type of work, who are also up for the challenge.”

The nine counties that have launched the specialized courts have received more than 600 petitions in the first 10 months of the program, said Leah Myers, a spokesperson for the state Department of Health Care Services, which helps oversee the program. The remaining 49 counties are slated to launch their programs by Dec. 1.

There have been early successes with the program. A year in, San Diego County is already beginning to “graduate” patients, meaning they have received treatment and have made enough progress to transition out of the court system.

As more counties roll out CARE Courts, they will need more clinicians. A scholarship program, some counties said, could help. But the bill’s price tag could be its downfall. In June, Newsom signed a state budget closing an estimated $46.8 billion deficit, and last year he vetoed hundreds of bills, many of them over cost. Newsom spokesperson Elana Ross declined to comment on the measure.

Newsom has until the end of the month to sign or veto the bill.

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 Emmarie Huetteman KFF Health News @emmarieDC Emmarie Huetteman, senior editor, oversees a team of Washington reporters, as well as “Bill of the Month” and KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” She previously spent more than a decade reporting on the federal government, most recently covering surprise medical bills, drug pricing reform, and other health policy debates in Washington and on the campaign trail. 

Recent comments from former President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers preview potential health policy pursuits under a second Trump administration. Trump is yet again eyeing changes to the Affordable Care Act, while key lawmakers want to repeal Medicare drug price negotiations.

Also, this week brought news of the first publicly reported death attributed to delayed care under a state abortion ban. Vice President Kamala Harris said the death shows the consequences of Trump’s actions to block abortion access.

This week’s panelists are Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico and the Johns Hopkins University’s schools of nursing and public health, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Panelists Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico @JoanneKenen Read Joanne's articles. Tami Luhby CNN @Luhby Read Tami's stories. Shefali Luthra The 19th @shefalil Read Shefali's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), Trump’s running mate, says Trump is interested in loosening ACA rules to make cheaper policies available. While the campaign has said little about what Trump would do or how it would work, the changes could include eliminating protections against higher premiums for those with preexisting conditions. Republicans would also likely let enhanced subsidies for ACA premiums expire.
• Key Republican lawmakers said this week that they’re interested in repealing the Inflation Reduction Act’s provisions enabling Medicare drug pricing negotiations. Should Trump win, that stance could create intraparty tensions with the former president, who has vowed to “take on Big Pharma.”
• A state review board in Georgia ruled that the death in 2022 of a 28-year-old mother, after her doctors delayed performing a dilatation and curettage procedure, was preventable. Harris tied the death to Trump’s efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, which included appointing three Supreme Court justices who voted to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion.
• And in health tech news, the FDA has separately green-lighted two new Apple product functions: an Apple Watch feature that assesses the wearer’s risk of sleep apnea, and an AirPods feature that turns the earbuds into hearing aids.

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

Emmarie Huetteman: The Washington Post’s “What Warning Labels Could Look Like on Your Favorite Foods,” by Lauren Weber and Rachel Roubein. 

Shefali Luthra: KFF Health News’ “At Catholic Hospitals, a Mission of Charity Runs Up Against High Care Costs for Patients,” by Rachana Pradhan. 

Tami Luhby: Politico Magazine’s “Doctors Are Leaving Conservative States To Learn To Perform Abortions. We Followed One,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein. 

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “This Chatbot Pulls People Away From Conspiracy Theories,” by Teddy Rosenbluth, and The Atlantic’s “When Fact-Checks Backfire,” by Jerusalem Demsas. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

ProPublica’s “Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable,” by Kavitha Surana.

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Stephanie Stapleton 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).

Multiple vendors will support improving quality and patient safety, modernizing IT, bolstering communications with patients, and more

Awards Nearly $1.2 Million Addressing Alzheimer’s Disease

Last month, Planned Parenthood Great Plains opened its newest clinic in Pittsburg, Kan., a city of about 21,000 people mere minutes from the borders of both Missouri and Oklahoma.

It’s the second new clinic the regional affiliate has opened in Kansas in a little over two years, to accommodate the growing number of patients coming from Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas and even Louisiana.

For many people in the South, Kansas is now the nearest place to get a legal abortion.

Fourteen states have enacted abortion bans with few exceptions since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 left policies on abortion to the states. Many more have limited access.

And yet, the estimated number of abortions in the United States last year rose to over 1 million, the highest number in a decade, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a national nonprofit that supports abortion rights. That’s due in part to the efforts of groups such as Planned Parenthood Great Plains to fill the void left in the states with bans.

Over 170,000 people traveled out of their own state to receive abortion care in 2023, according to Guttmacher. That’s a big jump after Dobbs even though the share of out-of-state patients has been rising since at least 2011.

Not all of the increase in abortions comes from interstate travel, of course. Telehealth has made medication abortions easier to obtain without traveling. The number of self-managed abortions, including those involving the medication mifepristone, has risen.

And Guttmacher data scientist Isaac Maddow-Zimet said the majority of the overall abortion increase in recent years came from those in states without total bans. The increased attention on the issue since Dobbs and efforts to expand access for people in the states with bans bolstered access for people locally as well.

“That speaks, in a lot of ways, to the way in which abortion access really wasn’t perfect pre-Dobbs,” Maddow-Zimet said. “There were a lot of obstacles to getting care.”

Abortion opponents, meanwhile, hailed an estimated drop in the procedure in the 14 states with near-total bans.

“It’s encouraging that pro-life states continue to show massive declines in their in-state abortion totals, with a drop of over 200,000 abortions since Dobbs,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, wrote in a statement.

Organizations in states where abortion remains legal feel the ripples of every new ban almost instantly.

One Planned Parenthood affiliate with a clinic in southern Illinois, for example, reported a roughly 10 percent increase in call volume in the two weeks following the enactment of Florida’s six-week abortion ban in May. Both sides now await the next round of policy decisions on abortion, which voters will make in November. Ballot initiatives in 10 states could enshrine abortion rights.

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).

$240 million in funding will launch and expand behavioral health care services in 400 Community Health Centers