KHN’s ‘What the Health?’: Delta Changes the Covid Conversation

With covid cases on the upswing again around the country, partisan division remains over how to address the pandemic. Meanwhile, the Biden administration proposes bigger penalties for hospitals that fail to make their prices public as required. Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico and Tami Luhby of CNN join KHN’s Julie Rovner to discuss these issues and more. Also, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest their favorite stories of the week they think you should read, too.

Can’t see the audio player? Click here to listen on SoundCloud. You can also listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

The resurgence of covid cases in the U.S. — largely attributable to the much more contagious delta variant — has given policymakers the jitters. The Biden administration is redoubling efforts to get people vaccinated, and even some Republicans who had been silent or skeptical of the vaccines are encouraging the unvaccinated to change their status.

Meanwhile, it’s not just covid that’s shortening U.S. life expectancy. Nearly 100,000 people died of drug overdoses in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This week a multibillion-dollar settlement among states, drugmakers and distributors could funnel funding to fight the opioid scourge.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico and Tami Luhby of CNN.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • If lawmakers fail to craft a bipartisan deal on Capitol Hill on traditional infrastructure spending, Democrats’ plans for a second bill that incorporates significant health care programs may need to be scaled back. That’s because the Democrats have pledged to fund major improvements in infrastructure and they would need to add that to the second bill, which is being moved through a special procedure that keeps it from being stalled in the Senate by a Republican filibuster. Some Democrats are nervous about making that second bill too broad.
  • The momentum toward vaccinating the public has stalled abruptly in the past month or so, and reports of rising cases is causing concern among conservatives. Some high-profile Republicans — including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Rep. Steve Scalise (La.) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — have been out during the past week touting the vaccines’ successes.
  • The agreement reached this week between state officials and companies that made or distributed opioids will send billions of dollars to the states to fund prevention and treatment programs for people with addiction problems. Some advocates worry, however, that the funding — much like the landmark tobacco settlement of past years — will instead be absorbed by cash-strapped states for other uses.
  • The Biden administration proposed significantly increasing the fines for hospitals that do not make their prices easily seen online and understood for patients. Despite the widespread eagerness to establish transparency, there is little indication consumers are using such tools.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “The Life Cycle of a COVID-19 Vaccine Lie,” by Geoff Brumfiel

Stephanie Armour: The Washington Post’s “Biden Administration, Workers Grapple With Health Threats Posed by Climate Change and Heat,” by Eli Rosenberg and Abha Bhattarai

Tami Luhby: The Los Angeles Times’ “Same Hospitals but Worse Outcomes for Black Patients Than White Ones,” by Emily Alpert Reyes

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The 19th’s “Courts Block Laws Targeting Transgender Children in Arkansas and West Virginia,” by Orion Rummler

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

How ERs Fail Patients With Addiction: One Patient’s Tragic Death

Two intractable failings of the U.S. health care system — addiction treatment and medical costs — come to a head in the ER, where patients desperate for addiction treatment arrive, only to find the facility may not be equipped to deal with substance use or, if they are, treatment is prohibitively expensive.

Jameson Rybak tried to quit using opioids nearly a dozen times within five years. Each time, he’d wait out the vomiting, sweating and chills from withdrawal in his bedroom.

It was difficult to watch, said his mother, Suzanne Rybak, but she admired his persistence.

On March 11, 2020, though, Suzanne grew worried. Jameson, 30 at the time, was slipping in and out of consciousness and saying he couldn’t move his hands.

By 11 p.m., she decided to take him to the emergency room at McLeod Regional Medical Center in Florence, South Carolina. The staff there gave Jameson fluids through an IV to rehydrate, medication to decrease his nausea and potassium supplements to stop his muscle spasms, according to Suzanne and a letter the hospital’s administrator later sent her.

But when they recommended admitting him to monitor and manage the withdrawal symptoms, Jameson said no. He’d lost his job the previous month and, with it, his health insurance.

“He kept saying, ‘I can’t afford this,’” Suzanne recalled, and “not one person [at the hospital] indicated that my son would have had some financial options.”

Suzanne doesn’t remember any mention of the hospital’s financial assistance policy or payment plans, she said. Nor does she remember any discussions of providing Jameson medication to treat opioid use disorder or connecting him to addiction-specialty providers, she said.

“No referrals, no phone numbers, no follow-up information,” she later wrote in a complaint letter to the hospital.

Instead, ER staff provided a form saying Jameson was leaving against medical advice. He signed and Suzanne witnessed.

Three months later, Jameson Rybak died of an overdose in his childhood bedroom.

Missed Opportunities

That March night in the emergency room, Jameson Rybak had fallen victim to two huge gaps in the U.S. health care system: a paucity of addiction treatment and high medical costs. The two issues — distinct but often intertwined — can come to a head in the ER, where patients and families desperate for addiction treatment often arrive, only to find the facility may not be equipped to deal with substance use. Or, even if they are, the treatment is prohibitively expensive.

Academic and medical experts say patients like Jameson represent a series of missed opportunities — both medical and financial.

“The emergency department is like a door, a really important door patients are walking through for identification of those who might need help,” said Marla Oros, a registered nurse and president of the Mosaic Group, a Maryland-based consulting firm that has worked with more than 50 hospitals nationwide to increase addiction treatment services. “We’re losing so many patients that could be identified and helped,” she said, speaking generally.

A spokesperson for McLeod Regional Medical Center, where Jameson went for care, said they would not comment on an individual’s case and declined to answer a detailed list of questions about the hospital’s ER and financial assistance policies. But in a statement, the hospital’s parent company, McLeod Health, noted that the hospital adhered to federal laws requiring that hospital ERs provide “immediate stabilizing care” for all patients, regardless of their ability to pay.

“Our hospitals attempt to manage the acute symptoms, but we do not treat chronic, underlying addiction,” the statement added.

Suzanne said her son needed more than stabilization. He needed immediate help breaking the cycle of addiction.

Jameson had been in and out of treatment for five years, ever since a friend suggested he try opioids to manage his anxiety and insomnia. He had insurance through his jobs in the hotel industry and later as an electrical technician, Suzanne said. But the high-deductible plans often left him paying out-of-pocket: $3,000 for a seven-day rehab stay, $400 for a brief counseling session and a prescription of Suboxone, a medication to treat opioid use disorder.

After he lost his job in February 2020, Jameson tried again to detox at home, Suzanne said. That’s what led to the ER trip.

Treating Addiction in the ER

Hospital ERs across the nation have become ground zero for patients struggling with addiction.

A seminal study published in 2015 by researchers at Yale School of Medicine found that giving patients medication to treat opioid use disorder in the ER doubled their chances of being in treatment a month later, compared with those who were given only referrals to addiction treatment.

Yet providing that medication is still not standard practice. A 2017 survey found just 5% of emergency medicine physicians said their department provided medications for opioid use disorder. Instead, many ERs continue to discharge these patients, often with a list of phone numbers for addiction clinics.

Jameson didn’t even get that, Suzanne said. At McLeod Regional, he was not seen by a psychiatrist or addiction specialist and did not get a prescription for Suboxone or even a referral, she said.

After Jameson’s death, Suzanne wrote to the hospital: “Can you explain to me, especially with the drug crisis in this country, how the ER was not equipped with personnel and/or any follow-up for treatment?”

Hospital administrator Will McLeod responded to Suzanne, in a letter she shared with KHN, that per Jameson’s medical record he’d been evaluated appropriately and that his withdrawal symptoms had been treated. Jameson declined to be admitted to the hospital, the letter said, and could not be involuntarily committed, as he “was not an imminent danger to himself or others.”

“Had he been admitted to our hospital that day, he would have been assigned to social workers and case managers who could have assisted with referrals, support, and follow-up treatment,” McLeod wrote.

Nationwide, hospitals are working to ramp up the availability of addiction services in the ER. In South Carolina, a state-funded program through the Medical University of South Carolina and the consulting firm Mosaic Group aims to help hospitals create a standardized system to screen patients for addiction, employ individuals who are in recovery to work with those patients and offer medication for opioid use disorder in the ER.

The initiative had worked with seven ERs as of June. It was in discussions to work with McLeod Regional hospital too, program staffers said. However, the hospital backed out.

The hospital declined to comment on its decision.

ER staffs around the country often lack the personnel to launch initiatives or learn about initiating addiction treatment. Sometimes affordable referral options are limited in the area. Even when the initial prescribing does occur, cost can be a problem, since Suboxone and its generic equivalent range in price from $50 to over $500 per prescription, without insurance.

In South Carolina, which has not expanded Medicaid, nearly 11% of the population is uninsured. Among patients in the state’s program who have been started on medications for opioid use disorder in ERs, about 75% are uninsured, said Dr. Lindsey Jennings, an emergency medicine physician at MUSC who works on the statewide initiative.

Other parts of the country face similar concerns, said Dr. Alister Martin, an emergency medicine physician who heads a national campaign to encourage the use of these medications in the ER. In Texas, for example, hundreds of doctors have gotten certified to provide the medications, he said, but many patients are uninsured and can’t pay for their prescriptions.

“You can’t make it effective if people can’t afford it,” Martin said.

Too Late for Charity Care

Throughout the night at McLeod Regional hospital’s ER, Jameson worried about cost, Suzanne said.

She wanted to help, but Jameson’s father and younger brother had recently lost their jobs, and the household was running on her salary as a public school librarian.

Suzanne didn’t know that nonprofit hospitals, like McLeod, are required by the federal government to have financial assistance policies, which lower or eliminate bills for people without the resources to pay. Often called charity care, this assistance is a condition for nonprofit hospitals to maintain their tax-exempt status.

But “nonprofits are actually doing less charity care than for-profits,” said Ge Bai, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University who published a study this year on the level of charity care provided by different hospitals.

That’s in part because they have wide leeway to determine who qualifies and often don’t tell patients they may be eligible, despite federal requirements that nonprofit hospitals “widely publicize” their financial assistance policies, including on billing statements and in “conspicuous public displays” in the hospital. One study found that only 50% of hospitals regularly notified patients about eligibility for charity care before initiating debt collection.

McLeod Regional’s most recent publicly available tax return states that “uninsured patients are screened at the time of registration” and if they’re unable to pay and ineligible for governmental insurance, they’re given an application.

Suzanne said she doesn’t remember Jameson or herself receiving an application. The hospital declined to comment on the Rybaks’ case and whether it provides “conspicuous public displays” of financial assistance.

“Not once did anybody tell us, ‘Let’s get a financial person down here,’ or ‘There are grant programs,’” Suzanne said.

Mark Rukavina, with the nonprofit health advocacy group Community Catalyst, said most hospitals comply with the letter of the law in publicizing their assistance policy. But “how effective some of that messaging is may be a question,” he said. Some hospitals may bury the policy in a dense packet of other information or use signs with vague language.

A KHN investigation in 2019 found that, nationwide, 45% of nonprofit hospital organizations were routinely sending medical bills to patients whose incomes were low enough to qualify for charity care. McLeod Regional hospital reported $1.77 million of debt from sending bills to such patients, which ended up going unpaid, for the fiscal year ending in 2019.

Believing they couldn’t afford in-patient admission, the Rybaks left the hospital that night.

After the ER

Afterward, Jameson’s withdrawal symptoms passed, Suzanne said. He spent time golfing with his younger brother. Although his application for unemployment benefits was denied, he managed to defer payments on his car and school loans, she said.

But, inside, he must have been struggling, Suzanne now realizes.

Throughout the pandemic, many people with substance use disorder reported feeling isolated and relapsing. Overdose deaths rose nationwide.

On the morning of June 9, 2020, Suzanne opened the door to Jameson’s room and found him on the floor. The coroner determined he had died of an overdose. The family later scattered his ashes on Myrtle Beach — Jameson’s favorite place, Suzanne said.

In the months following Jameson’s death, hospital bills for his night in the ER arrived at the house. He owed $4,928, they said. Suzanne wrote to the hospital that her son was dead but received yet another bill addressed to him after that.

She shredded it and mailed the pieces to the hospital, along with a copy of Jameson’s death certificate.

Twelve days later, the health system wrote to her that the bill had been resolved under its charity care program.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KHN and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us? Tell us about it!

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’: 100 Days of Health Policy

It’s 100 days into Joe Biden’s presidency and a surprisingly large number of health policies have been announced. But health is notably absent from the administration’s $1.8 trillion spending plan for American families, making it unclear how much more will get done this year. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention loosens its mask-wearing recommendations for those who have been vaccinated, but the new rules are confusing. Joanne Kenen of Politico, Mary Ellen McIntire of CQ Roll Call and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet join KHN’s Julie Rovner to discuss these issues and more. Plus, Rovner interviews KHN’s Julie Appleby, who reported the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” episode.

Can’t see the audio player? Click here to listen on SoundCloud.

It’s been a busy 100 days for the Biden administration on health policy. The promise Joe Biden made as president-elect to get 100 million covid vaccinations in arms was doubled, healthcare.gov reopened to those without insurance, and steps were taken to undo a raft of health policies implemented by President Donald Trump. The covid relief bill passed by Congress in March also boosted subsidies for those who buy their own coverage and provided incentives for the 12 states that have yet to expand their Medicaid programs under the ACA.

But those actions may prove the high point for health policy this year. Administration officials initially promised that health would be a major part of the president’s $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, but major changes, particularly those addressing prescription drug costs, were nowhere to be seen when the plan was unveiled Wednesday.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Joanne Kenen of Politico, Mary Ellen McIntire of CQ Roll Call and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet

Here are some takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • Among the Trump administration health policies the Biden administration has moved to reverse are those on women’s reproductive health and Medicaid work requirements. Some experts suggest that Democratic officials pushed forward on this with good speed because the past administration’s health policies were easier to disentangle than its rules on environment, where Biden also wants to make changes.
  • Democratic lawmakers had seemed eager to use Biden’s family plan to expand Medicare or drive down prescription drug prices. It likely signals that while health care is a key issue for Democrats on Capitol Hill, it is not as big a priority in the White House. Biden, who did mention those policies favored by progressive lawmakers in his speech to Congress on Wednesday, seems to be putting his emphasis on strengthening the Affordable Care Act.
  • Right now, the pharmaceutical industry is scoring high with voters and politicians because of the successes of the covid vaccines. So, getting Senate approval of a bill to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices is likely to be difficult. Those odds get even tougher without pressure from the White House.
  • Biden may also have shied away from the drug pricing initiative in his formal plan for helping families because he was concerned that it could divide the Democratic caucus and imperil the overall initiative.
  • The administration is gearing up to provide India with help to fight the pandemic. Public health officials point out that although the vaccination effort in the U.S. is going well, it is imperative to tamp down the virus in other countries so variants that could evade the vaccines don’t develop. However, there is already a debate about how much U.S. vaccine to ship abroad before authorities determine how to vaccinate children here.
  • Federal health officials have lifted the pause on using the Johnson & Johnson covid vaccine, but that decision has been controversial and some scientists question whether there was enough study or it was the right move.
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention loosened its mask-wearing recommendations for people who have been vaccinated, but the new rules are confusing and even sparked some jokes among late-night TV comedians.
  • As the vaccination efforts in the U.S. gain steam, interest is growing among people with long-term cases of covid-19. A hearing on Capitol Hill this week looked at some of the issues, such as what sorts of disabilities these patients face and what workplace accommodations are necessary.
  • The National Institutes of Health is beginning major studies of “long covid” and its myriad symptoms. Although health officials do not yet have a clear definition of long covid, they are generally not dismissing patients’ complaints about the disorder. That differs from some mysterious ailments in the past.
  • The Biden administration has loosened the rules governing who can prescribe the drug buprenorphine, a controversial but effective treatment for opioid addiction. The policy eliminates a training requirement and seeks to allow medical professionals other than doctors to prescribe the drug. But hurdles to its use remain, leading some to question how much more widely the drug will be used as a result of the new policy.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KHN’s Julie Appleby, who reported the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature — about the intersection between car insurance and health insurance. If you have an outrageous medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do it here.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read too:

Julie Rovner: This American Life’s “The Herd,” by Ira Glass, Anna Maria Barry-Jester and David Kestenbaum. Also, KHN’s “We’re Coming for You’: For Public Health Officials, a Year of Threats and Menace,” by Anna Maria Barry-Jester.

Joanne Kenen: The New Yorker’s “How Vaccine Hesitancy Is Driving Breakthrough Infections in Nursing Homes,” by Masha Gessen.

Mary Ellen McIntire: CQ Roll Call’s “FEMA’s Tasks Pit COVID-19 Vaccinations Against Hurricane Prep,” by Emily Kopp.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Pink Sheet’s “Conflicts Galore: Upcoming Accelerated Approval Cancer Panel Includes Many Industry Relationships,” by Sarah Karlin-Smith.

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcherGoogle PlaySpotify, or Pocket Casts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Readers And Tweeters Dive Into Debate Over ‘Medicare For All’

Kaiser Health News gives readers a chance to comment on a recent batch of stories.

Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.


Savings For All?

Your criticism about former Vice President Joe Biden’s “Medicare for All” cost estimates is spot-on but leaves out important savings (“KHN & PolitiFact HealthCheck: Would ‘Medicare For All’ Cost More Than U.S. Budget? Biden Says So. Math Says No,” Feb. 14). Under Biden’s plan, private insurance stays intact, meaning there are premiums and point-of-service costs that do not appear as taxes but are added to the nation’s health care expense. Medicare for All, on the other hand, is zero at the point of service, meaning Americans would have no financial qualms seeking comprehensive care. Public options add bureaucratic costs, are subject to personal income fluctuations and have deductibles and copays. We depend on organizations like yours to present the full picture. Here’s hoping you will, in the public’s interest.

― Dr. Donald Green, Pennington, New Jersey


— Manuel Freire, Fort Lauderdale, Florida


For Alzheimer’s Patients Like Me, Knowing Is Half The Battle

I want to thank Judith Graham for her piece discussing the uncertainty and fear patients feel when faced with the potential onset of Alzheimer’s disease or dementia (“Stalked By The Fear That Dementia Is Stalking You,” Feb. 21).

As an Alzheimer’s patient with a confirmed diagnosis, I know all too well how unsettling it can be to suffer from cognitive decline without knowing the nature of your condition. For me, it started with little things like forgetting a name or misplacing a set of house keys. Still, it wasn’t until I applied to participate in an Alzheimer’s clinical trial and received a PET scan identifying amyloid protein buildup in my brain did I definitively know I had the disease.

Like many of the patients discussed in the article, dealing with these early warning signs can be an enormous source of anxiety — especially when it’s unclear whether or not the cause is Alzheimer’s or another cognitive issue. That’s why getting a precise diagnosis was such a critical step for myself and my husband, Jim.

As mentioned in the article, amyloid PET scans are not fully covered by Medicare, a critically important detail, which I believe must be remedied. As the prevalence of Alzheimer’s continues to grow as our population ages, expanding access to diagnostic tools that can identify this disease will become ever more critical. I remain optimistic that our representatives in Washington can come together and address this issue ― so more patients like me don’t have to live under a cloud of uncertainty.

— Geri Taylor, New York City


An Infusion Of Debt

Glad you are pointing this out (“Patients Stuck With Bills After Insurers Don’t Pay As Promised,” Feb. 7). It’s happening again, post-Affordable Care Act. For us, it’s my husband’s battle with multiple sclerosis, but more the battle with his insurer. It approved his treatment cost for a new drug, sent a letter saying everything was covered. Then, lo and behold, we get a bill for $4,000 that it said we had to pay. No reason or rationale given. So now we are on a payment plan with the hospital that gave him his infusion. Not sure why we even bother with paying our premiums in the first place, considering the out-of-pocket expense and worthlessness of preapprovals; it doesn’t really matter. Please keep writing these articles ― it helps.

― Margaret Paez, Los Angeles


When Choice Of Hospitals Is A Life-Or-Death Choice

Thanks so much for your coverage of death-with-dignity situations (“Terminally Ill, He Wanted Aid-In-Dying. His Catholic Hospital Said No,” Jan. 29). We all need to know as much as possible about the institutions and structures that may prevent patients from choosing a dignified death. Please consider linking to the Catholic ethics rules so readers can read them for themselves. Please make us a map of Colorado showing the hospitals that are abiding by these rules. Please explain that emergency services in rural areas may have no choice but to take patients to the nearest (possibly non-law-abiding) hospital. Rewired has written about Eastern hospitals where serious pregnancy issues were poorly treated by Catholic hospitals.

Many of us do not understand that hospital choice may become a life choice and doctor choice may also become a life choice. And, please, also feature regularly and loudly all the practitioners and organizations being formed to protect patients’ legal right to die. Thanks so much for the good work that you do.

― Diane Curlette, Boulder, Colorado


Taking Pains Over Statistics

In stories about the opioid crisis (“No Quick Fix: Missouri Finds Managing Pain Without Opioids Isn’t Fast Or Easy,” Feb. 13), I always see total death statistics but never a breakdown of how many of the fatalities represent responsible legal users vs. illegal users.

A lot of us elderly folks have a very hard time getting our pain meds nowadays. Thirty used to last me five to seven months, and I took them only when I couldn’t get to sleep due to pain throughout my body. We have discussed it on our seniors’ webpage in our rural area and many of us used to get them. Overdoses and addiction aren’t the norm and aren’t even in the realm of our experiences. Why do we have to pay for others’ mistakes? They don’t outlaw cars even though many people die from wrecks caused by bad drivers!

― William Scriven, Valley Springs, California


— Nicolas Terry, Indianapolis


Collateral Damage From Insurers’ Dispute

When I read Brian Krans’ article about the Dignity-Cigna dispute (“Patients Caught In Crossfire Between Giant Hospital Chain, Large Insurer,” Feb. 6), I was reminded of my own situation: In California, Oscar dropped coverage for all UCLA care facilities in its Covered California (Affordable Care Act) plans, as of this year. I don’t know how many people use Oscar, but the UCLA system is a major health care provider here in West L.A. There’s no indication that there’s a dispute — this is represented as a final decision. UCLA is gone!

I figured I could get similar care from the Providence network, but my first choice for a primary care physician proved a bit odd: On our first visit, he presented at least four ideas that seem outside the medical mainstream. With some embarrassment, I asked for a different PCP. That physician ordered lab work but said no one in the building was authorized by Oscar to do blood draws, so I was sent to a facility in another city … which turned out to be out of business. I was finally referred to a third facility, which turned out to be more convenient than the last ― but the inconvenient run-around for something as simple as a blood draw and the penny-pinching by my insurance company do not bode well for the future of American medicine.

This is the second disruption I’ve had in insurance providers since the ACA began, and another indication that our current health care system is still very broken.

— Gary Davis, Los Angeles


— Scott Gordon, Fennimore, Wisconsin


Raising A Red Flag On Animal Rights Group

As a registered dietitian, I do not promote the keto diet. Mentioned in the article “As VA Tests Keto Diet To Help Diabetic Patients, Skeptics Raise Red Flags” (Feb. 3) is the group Physicians for Responsible Medicine, which is an extreme animal rights group with ties to PETA. About 3% of its members are physicians. Attending a seminar on nutrition for cardiovascular disease, I was dismayed to see the speaker had ties to Physicians for Responsible Medicine. After hearing about all the terrible effects of eating animal products, when the speaker could no longer contain himself and shouted out, “You don’t eat dead animals, do you?” I walked out and called my professional association to complain. Please do not give credibility to this organization.

― Mary Lucius, Beavercreek, Ohio


— Nancy Coney, South Bend, Indiana


Price-Gouging At Its Core

I read your most recent story on surprise medical billing (“When Your Doctor Is Also A Lobbyist: Inside The War Over Surprise Medical Bills,” Feb. 12) and found it to be largely one-sided against physicians and, somewhat, hospitals. Although private equity certainly is an influence in the conversation, very little to any time was spent discussing the efforts of insurance companies to continually drive down reimbursements. Furthermore, when we look at Medicare rates, which insurance companies rates are based on, the actual reimbursement has not significantly increased over the past few decades when you account for inflation or the consumer price index. So to paint the picture that physicians are trying to gouge patients does not seem very fair. While there are always a few bad apples and opportunists, the majority of physicians simply want to be paid fairly. Remember: Over the past few years, insurance companies have reported record profits — billions per fiscal quarter. Why are we not talking about why more of our premiums are not going to the provision of health care and instead to shareholders? I think the article fails to paint the entire picture for a lay audience. Nowhere does it report the amount of money spent on lobbying by the insurance industry.

― Dr. Shamie Das, Atlanta


— Gene Christian, Memphis, Tennessee


Health Care’s High-Cost Formula Goes Beyond Drug Prices

What patients care about more than drug prices is how much they have to pay out-of-pocket for their critical medications (“Watch: Let’s Talk About Trump’s Health Care Policies,” Feb. 4). Because of high-deductible health plans and tiered formularies, what patients pay at the pharmacy counter often has less to do with the list price of the drugs they need and more to do with the design of their health benefits. It is especially troubling that high-value drugs for chronic conditions like diabetes are often subject to unaffordable cost sharing that hits disproportionately at the beginning of the benefit year. Employers and health plans need to exempt these drugs from high deductibles as now permitted by the IRS. The same goes for Medicare Part D, which hugely penalizes seriously ill patients at the start of each year when they have yet to reach the catastrophic threshold.

Clearly, the problem of high drug prices needs to be addressed, but this will require a systematic and comprehensive approach that is certain to be resisted by one vested interest or another. In the meantime, patients need immediate relief from unaffordable out-of-pocket costs. Some steps that should be taken immediately include exempting high-value care from plan deductibles and capping and smoothing out-of-pocket costs in Medicare Part D. Much, if not all, of the cost associated with these measures can be offset by not paying for low- and no-value care that costs billions per year.

― Daniel Klein, president & CEO of the Patient Access Network (PAN) Foundation, Washington, D.C.


Cause For Investigation

The example you give presents an illegal activity by the home health agency (“Why Home Health Care Is Suddenly Harder To Come By For Medicare Patients,” Feb. 3). At a minimum, that agency should have a complaint registered against them, if not investigated by the Office of the Inspector General. The agency lied about Medicare not covering the patient’s needs. And they should have had the patient sign an ABN/NOMNC (Advance Beneficiary Notice/Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage) and explained it to the patient as required, so he could choose to appeal with the Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) for coverage of medically necessary care.

Kaiser Health News needs to provide education for the elderly and families to make sure they don’t fall prey to this type of behavior. If the agency simply says “I don’t have the staff to cover you,” they are responsible to assist the patient in finding another agency. But they cannot elect to just stop providing a medically necessary service, just as they cannot keep seeing someone when it is not medically necessary. Key here is to get people to know their rights as a Medicare beneficiary.

― Edward Dieringer, Salt Lake City


— Tom Cassels, Arlington, Virginia


— Peg Graham, Washington, D.C.


Privacy Concern: I Lack Seamless Access To My Own Records

I work in a medical center and have taken HIPAA training repeatedly over the years. I have also noted the staggering amount of money spent on medical electronic records. Yet in four attempts over a 20-year period, I have yet to get my medical records sent from one doctor or practice to another. I could not get records of my husband’s hospital stay sent to his primary physician, dental records sent from one dentist to another and, this fall, the pertinent records when my rheumatologist changed practices. My insurance paid for blood tests four times a year and X-rays over a five-year period. I have contacted the facilities and submitted a complaint to HHS Office for Civil Rights, which appears to be the correct office.

I find it unacceptable that, with all the talk about how expensive medical care is, tests over time are not easily available to patients when requested. I read Kaiser Health News regularly and at least I feel informed about what can go wrong. Thank you.

— Susan Klimley, New York City


— Dr. Sarah Nguyen, Los Angeles

Listen: Missouri Efforts Show How Hard It Is To Treat Pain Without Opioids

KHN Midwest correspondent Lauren Weber was interviewed by KBIA’s Sebastián Martínez Valdivia to discuss the challenges Missouri faces in managing patients’ pain amid the opioid epidemic.

KHN Midwest correspondent Lauren Weber speaks with KBIA’s Sebastián Martínez Valdivia about the challenges Missouri faces in trying to treat chronic pain without opioids. Weber had reported that only about 500 of Missouri’s roughly 330,000 adult Medicaid beneficiaries used a new, alternative pain management plan to stem opioid overprescribing in the program’s first nine months. Meanwhile, 109,610 Missouri Medicaid patients received opioid prescriptions last year.

You can listen to the conversation on the KBIA website.