Médicos se apresuran a usar fallo de la Corte Suprema para liberarse de cargos por opioides

En una decisión de junio, el tribunal dijo que los fiscales no solo deben probar que una receta no estaba médicamente justificada sino también que el que la escribió sabía del riesgo de recetar opioides.

El doctor Nelson Onaro admitió el verano pasado que había escrito recetas ilegales, aunque dijo que solo pensaba en sus pacientes. Desde una pequeña clínica en Oklahoma, repartió cientos de pastillas de opioides y docenas de parches de fentanilo sin un propósito médico legítimo.

“Esos medicamentos fueron recetados para ayudar a mis pacientes, desde mi propio punto de vista”, dijo Onaro en la corte, mientras, a regañadientes, se declaraba culpable de seis cargos de tráfico de drogas. Al confesar, podría haber recibido una sentencia reducida de tres años o menos en prisión.

Pero Onaro cambió de opinión en julio. En los días previos a su sentencia, le pidió a un juez federal que desestimara su acuerdo de culpabilidad, enviando su caso a juicio. Para tener la oportunidad de ser exonerado, enfrentaría cuatro veces más cargos y la posibilidad de una sentencia más severa.

¿Por qué correr el riesgo? Un fallo de la Corte Suprema ha elevado el umbral para condenar en casos como el de Onaro. En una decisión de junio, el tribunal dijo que los fiscales no solo deben probar que una receta no estaba médicamente justificada sino también que el que la escribió sabía del riesgo.

De repente, el estado mental de Onaro tiene más peso en la corte. Los fiscales no se han opuesto a que el médico retire su declaración de culpabilidad de la mayoría de los cargos, admitiendo en una presentación judicial que enfrenta “un cálculo legal diferente” después de la decisión de la Corte Suprema.

El fallo unánime de la Corte complica los esfuerzos continuos del Departamento de Justicia para responsabilizar penalmente a los que recetan de manera irresponsable por alimentar la crisis de opioides.

Antes, los tribunales inferiores no habían considerado la intención del que recetaba. Hasta ahora, los médicos enjuiciados en gran medida no podían defenderse argumentando que estaban actuando de buena fe cuando emitían recetas incorrectas. Ahora pueden, aunque no es necesariamente una garantía para salir de la cárcel, dicen los abogados.

“Esencialmente, a los médicos se los esposaba”, dijo Zach Enlow, abogado de Onaro. “Ahora pueden quitarse las esposas. Pero eso no significa que van a ganar la pelea”.

La decisión de la Corte Suprema en Ruan vs. Estados Unidos, emitida el 27 de junio, fue eclipsada por la controversia nacional tres días antes, cuando el tribunal anuló los derechos federales del aborto.

Pero el fallo, menos conocido ahora, se está filtrando en silencio a través de los tribunales federales, fortaleciendo a los acusados ​​en los casos de abuso de recetas y puede tener un efecto escalofriante en futuros juicios a médicos bajo el Controlled Substance Act.

En los tres meses desde que se emitió, la decisión de Ruan se ha invocado en al menos 15 juicios en curso en 10 estados, según una revisión de KHN de los registros de la corte federal.

Los médicos citaron la decisión en las apelaciones posteriores a la condena, las mociones para absoluciones, nuevos juicios, reversiones de culpabilidad y un intento fallido de excluir el testimonio de un experto en prescripciones, argumentando que su opinión ahora era irrelevante. Otros acusados ​​han solicitado con éxito retrasar sus casos para que la decisión de Ruan pueda verse utilizarse en sus argumentos en los próximos juicios o audiencias de sentencia.

David Rivera, ex fiscal estadounidense de la era Obama, quien lideró juicios sobre abuso de prescripciones en Tennessee, dijo que cree que los médicos tienen una “gran oportunidad” de anular las condenas si se les prohibió discutir una defensa de buena fe o se instruyó a un jurado que ignorara este argumento.

Rivera dijo que los acusados ​​que movilizaban cientos de miles de pastillas aún serían condenados, incluso si finalmente se requiriera un segundo juicio. Pero la Corte Suprema ha extendido un “salvavidas” a un grupo pequeño de acusados ​​que “dispensaron con su corazón, no con su mente”, dijo.

“Lo que la Corte Suprema está tratando de hacer es dividir entre un médico malo y una persona que podría tener una licencia para practicar la medicina pero que no actúa como médico y es un traficante de drogas”, dijo Rivera. “Un médico que actúa bajo una creencia sinceramente sostenida de que está haciendo lo correcto, incluso si puede ser horrible en su trabajo y no se le deben confiar vidas, incluso eso no es criminal”.

La decisión de Ruan fue el resultado de las apelaciones de dos médicos, Xiulu Ruan y Shakeel Kahn, quienes fueron condenados por separado por recetar píldoras en Alabama y Wyoming, respectivamente, y sentenciados a 21 y 25 años de prisión. En ambos casos, los fiscales se basaron en una táctica común para mostrar que las recetas eran un delito: los testigos expertos revisaron las recetas de los acusados ​​y testificaron que estaban fuera de lugar con lo que un médico razonable haría.

Pero al escribir la opinión de la Corte Suprema, el entonces juez Stephen Breyer insistió en que la carga de la prueba no debería ser tan simple de superar, devolviendo ambas condenas a los tribunales inferiores para su reconsideración.

Debido a que a los médicos se les permite, y se espera, que distribuyan drogas, escribió Breyer, los fiscales no solo deben demostrar que escribieron recetas sin propósito médico, sino que también lo hicieron “a sabiendas o intencionalmente”. De lo contrario, los tribunales corren el riesgo de castigar “conductas que se encuentran cerca, pero en el lado permitido de la línea criminal”, escribió Breyer.

Para los abogados defensores, el fallo unánime envió un mensaje inequívoco.

“Este es un tiempo hiperpolarizado en Estados Unidos, y particularmente en la corte”, dijo Enlow. “Sin embargo, este fue un fallo de 9-0 que decía que el mens rea, o el estado mental del médico, es importante”.

Tal vez en ninguna parte la decisión de Ruan fue más apremiante que en el caso del doctor David Jankowski, un médico de Michigan que estaba en juicio.

Jankowski fue condenado por crímenes federales de drogas y fraude y enfrenta 20 años de prisión. En un anuncio del veredicto, el Departamento de Justicia dijo que el médico y su clínica suministraron a las personas “sin necesidad de drogas”, que se “vendían en las calles para alimentar las adicciones de los adictos a los opioides”.

La abogada defensora Anjali Prasad dijo que el fallo de Ruan llegٕó antes de las deliberaciones del jurado en el caso, pero después de que los fiscales pasaran semanas presentando el argumento de que el comportamiento de Jankowski no fue el de alguien que prescribe de manera razonable, un estándar legal que ya no es suficiente para convencer.

Prasad citó la decisión de Ruan en una moción para un nuevo juicio, que fue denegada, y dijo que tiene la intención de utilizar la decisión como base para una próxima apelación. La abogada también dijo que está discutiendo con otros dos clientes sobre apelar sus condenas en base a Ruan.

“Espero que los abogados de defensa penal como yo estén más fortalecidos para llevar sus casos a juicio y que sus clientes estén 100% listos para luchar contra los federales, lo cual no es una tarea fácil”, dijo Prasad.

Algunos acusados ​​lo están intentando. Hasta ahora, algunos han obtenido pequeñas victorias. Y al menos uno sufrió una derrota aplastante.

En Tennessee, la enfermera practicante Jeffrey Young, acusada de intercambiar opioides por sexo y notoriedad para ser parte de un piloto de un reality show, retrasó con éxito su juicio de mayo a noviembre para dar cuenta de la decisión de Ruan, argumentando que “alteraría drásticamente el paisaje de la guerra del gobierno contra los que hacen recetas”.

También en Tennessee, Samson Orusa, un médico y pastor que el año pasado fue condenado por entregar recetas de opioides sin examinar a los pacientes, presentó una moción para un nuevo juicio basado en la decisión de Ruan, luego persuadió a un juez reacio a retrasar su sentencia durante seis meses. para considerarlo.

Y en Ohio, el doctor Martin Escobar citó el fallo de Ruan en un argumento de 11 horas para evitar la prisión.

En enero, Escobar se declaró culpable de 54 cargos de distribución de sustancias controladas, incluidas las recetas que causaron la muerte de dos pacientes. Después de la decisión de Ruan, Escobar intentó retirar su petición, diciendo que habría ido a juicio si hubiera sabido que los fiscales tenían que demostrar intencionalidad.

Una semana después, el día en que Escobar fue sentenciado, un juez federal negó la moción.

Su declaración de culpabilidad permaneció.

Escobar fue condenado a 25 años.

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).

Doctors Rush to Use Supreme Court Ruling to Escape Opioid Charges

After a unanimous ruling from the high court, doctors who are accused of writing irresponsible prescriptions can go to trial with a new defense: It wasn’t on purpose.

Dr. Nelson Onaro conceded last summer that he’d written illegal prescriptions, although he said he was thinking only of his patients. From a tiny, brick clinic in Oklahoma, he doled out hundreds of opioid pills and dozens of fentanyl patches with no legitimate medical purpose.

“Those medications were prescribed to help my patients, from my own point of view,” Onaro said in court, as he reluctantly pleaded guilty to six counts of drug dealing. Because he confessed, the doctor was likely to get a reduced sentence of three years or less in prison.

But Onaro changed his mind in July. In the days before his sentencing, he asked a federal judge to throw out his plea deal, sending his case toward a trial. For a chance at exoneration, he’d face four times the charges and the possibility of a harsher sentence.

Why take the risk? A Supreme Court ruling has raised the bar to convict in a case like Onaro’s. In a June decision, the court said prosecutors must not only prove a prescription was not medically justified ― possibly because it was too large or dangerous, or simply unnecessary ― but also that the prescriber knew as much.

Suddenly, Onaro’s state of mind carries more weight in court. Prosecutors have not opposed the doctor withdrawing his plea to most of his charges, conceding in a court filing that he faces “a different legal calculus” after the Supreme Court decision.

The court’s unanimous ruling complicates the Department of Justice’s ongoing efforts to hold irresponsible prescribers criminally liable for fueling the opioid crisis. Previously, lower courts had not considered a prescriber’s intention. Until now, doctors on trial largely could not defend themselves by arguing they were acting in good faith when they wrote bad prescriptions. Now they can, attorneys say, although it is not necessarily a get-out-of-jail-free card.

“Essentially, the doctors were handcuffed,” said Zach Enlow, Onaro’s attorney. “Now they can take off their handcuffs. But it doesn’t mean they are going to win the fight.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ruan v. United States, issued June 27, was overshadowed by the nation-shaking controversy ignited three days earlier, when the court erased federal abortion rights. But the lesser-known ruling is now quietly percolating through federal courthouses, where it has emboldened defendants in overprescribing cases and may have a chilling effect on future prosecutions of doctors under the Controlled Substances Act.

In the three months since it was issued, the Ruan decision has been invoked in at least 15 ongoing prosecutions across 10 states, according to a KHN review of federal court records. Doctors cited the decision in post-conviction appeals, motions for acquittals, new trials, plea reversals, and a failed attempt to exclude the testimony of a prescribing expert, arguing their opinion was now irrelevant. Other defendants have successfully petitioned to delay their cases so the Ruan decision could be folded into their arguments at upcoming trials or sentencing hearings.

David Rivera, a former Obama-era U.S. attorney who once led overprescribing prosecutions in Middle Tennessee, said he believes doctors have a “great chance” of overturning convictions if they were prohibited from arguing a good faith defense or a jury was instructed to ignore one.

Rivera said defendants who ran true pill mills would still be convicted, even if a second trial was ultimately required. But the Supreme Court has extended a “lifeline” to a narrow group of defendants who “dispensed with their heart, not their mind,” he said.

“What the Supreme Court is trying to do is divide between a bad doctor and a person who might have a license to practice medicine but is not acting as a doctor at all and is a drug dealer,” Rivera said. “A doctor who is acting under a sincerely held belief that he is doing the right thing, even if he may be horrible at his job and should not be trusted with human lives ― that’s still not criminal.”

The Ruan decision resulted from the appeals of two doctors, Xiulu Ruan and Shakeel Kahn, who were separately convicted of running pill mills in Alabama and Wyoming, respectively, then sentenced to 21 and 25 years in prison. In both cases, prosecutors relied on a common tactic to show the prescriptions were a crime: Expert witnesses reviewed the defendants’ prescriptions and testified that they were far out of line with what a reasonable doctor would do.

But in writing the opinion of the Supreme Court, then-Justice Stephen Breyer insisted the burden of proof should not be so simple to overcome, remanding both convictions back to the lower courts for reconsideration.

Because doctors are allowed and expected to distribute drugs, Breyer wrote, prosecutors must not only prove they wrote prescriptions with no medical purpose but also that they did so “knowingly or intentionally.” Otherwise, the courts risk punishing “conduct that lies close to, but on the permissible side of, the criminal line,” Breyer wrote.

To defense attorneys, the unanimous ruling sent an unambiguous message.

“This is a hyperpolarized time in America, and particularly on the court,” Enlow said. “And yet this was a 9-0 ruling saying that the mens rea ― or the mental state of the doctor ― it matters.”

Maybe nowhere was the Ruan decision more pressing than in the case of Dr. David Jankowski, a Michigan physician who was on trial when the burden of proof shifted beneath his feet.

Jankowski was convicted of federal drug and fraud crimes and faces 20 years in prison. In an announcement of the verdict, the DOJ said the doctor and his clinic supplied people with “no need for the drugs,” which were “sold on the streets to feed the addictions of opioid addicts.”

Defense attorney Anjali Prasad said the Ruan ruling dropped before jury deliberations in the case but after prosecutors spent weeks presenting the argument that Jankowski’s behavior was not that of a reasonable prescriber — a legal standard that on its own is no longer enough to convict.

Prasad cited the Ruan decision in a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and said she intends to use the decision as a basis for a forthcoming appeal. The attorney also said she is in discussion with two other clients about appealing their convictions with Ruan.

“My hope is that criminal defense attorneys like myself are more emboldened to take their cases to trial and that their clients are 100% ready to fight the feds, which is no easy task,” Prasad said. “We just duke it out in the courtroom. We can prevail that way.”

Some defendants are trying. So far, a few have scored small wins. And at least one suffered a crushing defeat.

In Tennessee, nurse practitioner Jeffrey Young, accused of trading opioids for sex and notoriety for a reality show pilot, successfully delayed his trial from May to November to account for the Ruan decision, arguing it would “drastically alter the landscape of the Government’s war on prescribers.”

Also in Tennessee, Samson Orusa, a doctor and pastor who last year was convicted of handing out opioid prescriptions without examining patients, filed a motion for a new trial based on the Ruan decision, then persuaded a reluctant judge to delay his sentencing for six months to consider it.

And in Ohio, Dr. Martin Escobar cited the Ruan ruling in an eleventh-hour effort to avoid prison.

Escobar in January pleaded guilty to 54 counts of distributing a controlled substance, including prescriptions that caused the deaths of two patients. After the Ruan decision, Escobar tried to withdraw his plea, saying he’d have gone to trial if he’d known prosecutors had to prove his intent.

One week later, on the day Escobar was set to be sentenced, a federal judge denied the motion.

His guilty plea remained.

Escobar got 25 years.

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).

Never-Ending Costs: When Resolved Medical Bills Keep Popping Up

A bill one family considered paid wrongfully resurfaced, resurrecting painful memories. It’s a scenario that’s not uncommon but grievously unsettling.

Every now and then, Suzanne Rybak and her husband, Jim, receive pieces of mail addressed to their deceased son, Jameson. Typically, it’s junk mail that requires little thought, Suzanne said.

But on March 5, an envelope for Jameson came from McLeod Health.

Jim saw it first. He turned to his wife and asked, “Have you taken your blood pressure medication today?”

He knew showing her the envelope would resurface the pain and anger their family had experienced since taking Jameson to McLeod Regional Medical Center two years ago.

As KHN previously reported, Jameson was experiencing withdrawal symptoms from quitting opioids. Suzanne feared for her son’s life and took him to the emergency room near their home in Florence, South Carolina, on March 11, 2020.

There, they encountered a paucity of addiction treatment and the potential for high medical costs — two problems that plague many families affected by the opioid crisis and often lead to missed opportunities to save lives.

Jameson was not offered medications to treat opioid use disorder in the ER, nor was he given referrals to other treatment facilities, Suzanne said. The hospital wanted to admit him, but, being uninsured, Jameson feared a high bill. The hospital didn’t inform him of its financial assistance policy, Suzanne said. And he decided to leave.

Three months later, Jameson, 30, died of an overdose in his childhood bedroom.

In the following months, the Rybaks received bills from the McLeod Health system addressed to Jameson. He owed $4,928, it said. Suzanne called and wrote to hospital administrators until September 2020, when the bill was resolved under the system’s financial assistance program.

That was the last they had heard from McLeod Health until the new envelope arrived March 5 — one week before the two-year anniversary of his ER visit. That visit was what Suzanne calls “the beginning of the end for my son.”

When the Rybaks opened the envelope, they found a strikingly familiar bill for $4,928.

“I can’t even describe my anger and sadness,” Suzanne said. “It’s always present, but when we received that statement, we were just stunned.”

There’s no national data to indicate how often patients or their families receive medical bills that were previously paid or forgiven, but hospital billing experts say they frequently see it happen. Patients receive bills for claims their insurers already paid. A reminder statement arrives even after a patient submitted payment.

Unlike “surprise bills,” which often result from policy gaps when a provider is out of network, these are bills that were resolved but continue to pop up anyway. They can carry financial consequences — patients wind up paying for something they don’t truly owe or bills get passed on to debt collection agencies, triggering more phones calls and red tape. But often it’s the emotional toll that wears on patients most, spending hours on the phone with customer service each time the bill resurfaces or reliving the situations that led to the bill in the first place. For families like the Rybaks, the cost can feel never-ending.

Suzanne Rybak refused to engage with the McLeod hospital again but told KHN about the new bill.

In response to questions from KHN, McLeod Health determined the bill the Rybaks received was a mistake.

“Unfortunately our software system regenerated this statement due to a technical issue,” wrote spokesperson Jumana Swindler. “We are checking to ensure that it has not happened to any other patients and we are sorry this family was impacted by the error.”

A week after KHN’s inquiry, the Rybaks received a letter from the hospital explaining and apologizing for the error.

Many medical billing cases like this “boil down to human error,” said Michael Corbett, director of health care consulting for LBMC, a Tennessee-based firm that consults with health systems nationally on issues like billing and revenue. “Facilities don’t have a lack of tools [to avoid this]. It’s a breakdown in their processes.”

A billing agent may forget to mark the account as paid, he said. Or the hospital might contract its billing to an outside company and fail to inform them that this bill was covered under the hospital’s financial assistance program.

As hospitals and medical practices increasingly consolidate under large health systems, the chances for errors increase. Even hospitals and clinics within the same system may have different backend software, and within each hospital there can be separate programs for billing and electronic health records, Corbett explained.

Larger health systems may also have more people processing any given bill. If responsibilities are not clearly defined, multiple employees could unknowingly act on the same patient account.

The covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated potential errors, Corbett said. New medical billing employees may have received quick, virtual training and are working remotely with little interaction with team members or oversight. Some billing departments are understaffed, leading to delays in patients receiving bills or follow-up notices, he added.

To curb mistakes, Corbett said, hospitals need to invest in more comprehensive training and supervision for billing employees; enact consistent processes for anything from how patients’ financial information is collected at registration to when they’re sent bills; and, perhaps most important, track whether those processes are being followed.

For patients who find themselves in a situation like the Rybak family’s, Corbett advises calling the hospital billing department and asking to speak with a senior leader in its revenue cycle division. Unlike an account representative, this person could make decisions, Corbett said.

At the end of the conversation, ask to get the explanation in writing, he added.

“You’d anticipate and hope those notes are being recorded,” Corbett said, but that may not be the case. Or notes might get recorded in a section of hospital files that are excluded from a patient’s legal medical record, making it difficult for patients to access later.

For Suzanne Rybak, the idea of calling McLeod Health to straighten out yet another bill was too much. Instead, she added the statement to a binder of paperwork, in which she’s documented all her billing struggles with McLeod Health over the past two years.

Still, out of sight hardly means out of mind. The binder sits in her craft room, where she remembers Jameson encouraging her as she made beach bags and other items. He’d say to use “fruity colors,” Suzanne recalled — his way of describing tropical colors. Now she makes candles in that room, focusing on tropical fragrances she knows Jameson would have loved.

“I want hospitals to realize that you’re not just sending this bill to an address,” Suzanne said. “There are people who live in that house, who are going to open that mail and have feelings. … It’s a disaster to bring all that up again.”

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?’: 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).

Must-Reads Of The Week From Brianna Labuskes

Newsletter editor Brianna Labuskes wades through hundreds of health care policy stories each week, so you don’t have to.

Happy Friday! Where yours truly has parsed approximately 4,346,276,986 coronavirus stories to bring you the most important ones — such as the fact that 38% of Americans won’t buy Corona beer “under any circumstances” because of the outbreak; that apparently dog masks are now all the rage, despite the fact that health professionals say even healthy humans don’t need them; and that if you need of a cheat sheet on what facial hairstyles are officially called you can head over to the CDC for a nifty graphic. (The “walrus” might be my favorite.)

More seriously, here’s what you need to know about the outbreak dominating global attention, sending stocks plunging and creating a booming demand for hand sanitizer. I can tell you one common thread running through coverage about experts’ advice: Keep calm, carry on and wash your hands.

President Donald Trump cracked jokes about his germophobia and downplayed the severity of the coronavirus outbreak at a press conference this week, in which he put Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the country’s coronavirus response. This raised immediate eyebrows, considering that under Pence’s watch Indiana weathered a major HIV outbreak largely attributed to decisions he made as governor.

By contrast, you have the CDC’s Dr. Nancy Messonnier, who has become a leading player in the crisis, saying it’s not a question of if but when the coronavirus will sweep into the U.S. She also said that she’s been talking with her kids about how to prepare and that “the disruption to everyday life might be severe.”

Not surprisingly, after all that whiplash, the administration decided all information released to the public must first get the OK from Pence.

Politico: Coronavirus Gets a Trumpian Response

The New York Times: Pence Will Control All Coronavirus Messaging From Health Officials

The New York Times: What Has Mike Pence Done in Health?

The New York Times: C.D.C. Officials Warn of Coronavirus Outbreaks in the U.S.

Meanwhile, a new case out of California put a harsh spotlight on the deep flaws of the CDC’s original testing parameters. The patient — who may be the first in the U.S. with no link to traveling abroad — was in the hospital for more than 10 days before the CDC approved a coronavirus test. The delay exposed about 100 health workers to the virus as well as set back any attempts to contain people she’d been in contact with.

Stat: A Single Coronavirus Case Exposes a Bigger Problem: The Scope of Undetected U.S. Spread Is Unknown

ProPublica: Key Missteps at the CDC Have Set Back Its Ability to Detect the Potential Spread of Coronavirus

If a whistleblower is to be believed, those testing missteps weren’t the only ones made by the government in the early days of the response: New allegations have come to light that HHS workers who were sent to help with the U.S. evacuees weren’t given proper medical training or gear before being exposed to the patients.

The Washington Post: U.S. Workers Without Protective Gear Assisted Coronavirus Evacuees, HHS Whistleblower Says

Meanwhile, for a president who has tied his fate to the health of the stock markets, the global financial turmoil is more worrisome than ever.

Politico: Trump Faces ‘Black Swan’ Threat to the Economy and Reelection

One of the few good things about the coronavirus is that the vast majority of cases are mild. However, that’s also one of the things that might tip it into a pandemic. For more extreme illnesses (like Ebola), it’s far easier to isolate patients. But for those with symptoms that are essentially presenting as a mild cold, it’s harder to contain the spread.

On that note, it’s hard to tell just how lethal the disease is (and anyone who tells you otherwise, question their motives). Because so many cases are mild, some experts say we’re seeing only the tip of the iceberg, and the mortality rate would drop if we had a better sense of how many people are actually infected. Others argue that there’s no evidence that officials don’t have an accurate count.

Right now, from what’s available, it seems the death rate outside the epicenter in China was 0.7%. That’s still soberingly high, but also a long way away from SARS’ 10%.

The New York Times: Most Coronavirus Cases Are Mild. That’s Good and Bad News.

Stat: New China Coronavirus Data Buttress Fears About High Fatality Rate

As someone who has little kiddos in their life (and who affectionately calls them Typhoid Marys), I can’t help but include this story. Are kids innocent bystanders in this outbreak, getting infected if someone brings the virus into their households? Or are they, in fact, a population that is stealthily driving this epidemic, as they can do with the flu?

Stat: Key Question for Coronavirus Response: What’s Kids’ Role in Spreading It?

Globally, cases are climbing, with patients showing up in Lithuania, the Netherlands, Iran, Kuwait, the United Kingdom … you get the gist. Although we’re not really seeing it yet in Latin or South American countries beyond a Brazilian patient who had traveled to Italy, where cases skyrocketed 45% in one day.

In China, officials are tapping their tried-and-true propaganda playbook, but the anger that has boiled up over the government’s handling of the outbreak may be cracking the party’s stronghold. Meanwhile, authorities, in an ongoing attempt to contain the spread, are offering people more than $1,400 to self-report if they have coronavirus symptoms.

The New York Times: Coronavirus Weakens China’s Powerful Propaganda Machine

Reuters: China City Offers $1,400 Reward for Virus Patients Who Report to Authorities

And South Korea gets a shoutout for implementing a very cool idea to create “drive-thru” testing for potential patients.

Reuters: South Korea Launches ‘Drive-Thru’ Coronavirus Testing Facilities As Demand Soars

Remember, there are plenty more stories were those came from. If you’re interested in the full scope of coronavirus coverage, check out all our Morning Briefings from the week.


Believe it or not, there was other news this week! Democrats held a rowdy debate in South Carolina ahead of Super Tuesday, where Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) fielded the inevitable attacks that come with being a front-runner. He was put on the hot spot about topics ranging from the cost of his “Medicare for All” plan to his past stance on guns.

Reuters: At Rowdy Debate, Democratic Rivals Warn Sanders Nomination Would Be ‘Catastrophe’

The New York Times: Fact-Checking the Democratic Debate in South Carolina

Sanders (after releasing a plan on how he was going to pay for his ambitious agenda) said that “‘Medicare for All’ will lower health care costs in this country by $450 billion a year and save the lives of 68,000 people who would otherwise have died.” But experts are skeptical of the findings.

KHN: Sanders Embraces New Study That Lowers ‘Medicare For All’s’ Cost, But Skepticism Abounds


A federal appeals court upheld a Trump administration ban on federally funded family planning centers referring women for abortions, arguing that the rule is slightly less restrictive than a 1988 version upheld by the Supreme Court. What’s interesting to note is that the court was the California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Barack Obama over eight years.

The Washington Post: Appeals Court Upholds Trump Ban on Abortion Referrals by Family Planning Clinics

Los Angeles Times: Trump Has Flipped the 9th Circuit — and Some New Judges Are Causing a ‘Shock Wave’

WBUR: Looking at Changes Happening Within the Nation’s Largest Federal Appeals Court

Beyond fighting for survival in the courts, abortion clinics are often faced with so many fees and unexpected costs that they can face closure from their financial burdens alone. Among those are: security to protect staff and patients; airfare to get doctors to areas lacking trained physicians willing to perform abortions; higher rates for contractors concerned about protesters and boycotts; more stringent loan terms; insurance that can be canceled unexpectedly; and, for some clinic owners, legal fees for defending the constitutionality of the procedure.

Bloomberg: Abortion Clinics Are the Most Challenging Small Business in America


Vocal opposition continues to pour in about the arcane Medicaid rule change that could reduce Medicaid spending by 6% to 8%, or $37 billion to $49 billion, a year. The Trump administration says the change would increase transparency and prevent abuses that enable states to draw down more federal money than they’re entitled to. But, so far, more than 4,200 organizations or individuals from both parties are sounding alarm bells about it.

Stateline: Medical Groups Slam Trump Medicaid Rule


In the miscellaneous file for the week:

— The Sacklers, under fire over allegations about their role in the opioid crisis, turned to Mike Bloomberg to help them manage their reputation. Will that haunt him in his presidential bid?

ProPublica: When the Billionaire Family Behind the Opioid Crisis Needed PR Help, They Turned to Mike Bloomberg

— Are some people immune to Alzheimer’s? Scientists studying donated brains have identified patients who have all the markers for the debilitating disease but didn’t seem to have any symptoms when alive. The findings offer hope that the seemingly inherent protection could be replicated by a drug.

Stat: They Have ‘Alzheimer’s Brains’ But No Symptoms. Why?

— America is facing an autopsy crisis: Large swaths of the country don’t have a medical examiner. Bodies are even having to be shipped across state lines if an autopsy is needed. At one point the problem was so bad that Oklahoma’s overloaded medical examiner declined to perform autopsies on people over 40 who died of unexplained causes.

The New York Times: Piled Bodies, Overflowing Morgues: Inside America’s Autopsy Crisis

— Colorado is continuing to move forward with plans for its public option, this week unveiling reimbursement rates that officials say would keep hospitals profitable under the system. Hospitals were … uh … a little skeptical of those claims.

The Denver Post: Colorado Consumers Could Save Up to 20% Under State Health Insurance Option, Polis Says

— In this terrifying story, a student died after calling 911 because the responders couldn’t locate him.

The Washington Post: College Student Yeming Shen Died of Flu in Troy, N.Y., After 911 Couldn’t Track His Location.


That’s it from me! Have a great weekend.

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