How to spot Medicare scams and protect yourself


Medicare fraud occurs when someone makes false claims for health care services, procedures and equipment to obtain Medicare payments.
Family Features - More than 65 million people in the United States were enrolled in Medicare as of February 2023, with more people becoming eligible and enrolling each year. Anyone on Medicare is at risk of Medicare-related fraud, and the Medicare program continues to warn people to watch out for scammers who steal Medicare Numbers and other personal information to exploit beneficiaries' benefits.

Broadly speaking, Medicare fraud occurs when someone makes false claims for health care services, procedures and equipment to obtain Medicare payments. Medicare fraud costs taxpayers billions of dollars and puts the health and welfare of beneficiaries at risk.

"Anyone on Medicare can be a target of Medicare fraud," said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure. "But there are steps you can take to protect yourself and your loved ones by using CMS' fraud tips to recognize and report potential scammers. Let's all work together to make sure you're not a victim of Medicare fraud."

How to Spot Medicare Scams
There are many types of Medicare scams, taking the form of unsolicited emails, phone calls, text messages, social media posts and phony websites. Scammers often claim to be from the Medicare office, an insurance company or a government office. They'll ask for your personal and financial information, such as your Medicare or Social Security Number, so that they can submit false claims for payment.

Remember that Medicare will never call, text, email or contact you through social media asking for your Medicare Number.

How to Protect Yourself
You'll also need to know how to protect yourself from potential fraudsters. Remember to:

  • * Guard your Medicare Number just like your Social Security card and credit card
  • * Share your Medicare Number only with trusted health care providers
  • * Review your Medicare statements, watch for services billed that look suspicious and ask questions if something looks wrong
  • How to Report Scammers
    Reporting Medicare fraud protects you and millions of other people with Medicare and those with disabilities. If you or someone you know have experienced Medicare fraud or suspect an offer you've received is a scam, report it as soon as possible.

    To learn more about Medicare fraud, visit Medicare.gov/fraud. To report potential Medicare fraud, you can call 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) or report the scam to the Federal Trade Commission at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.

    Information provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


    Healthcare tip: 7 can't-miss steps for Medicare annual enrollment

    Couple applying for Medicare
    Photo: Brandpoint

    BPT - It's here - your yearly opportunity to make changes to your Medicare coverage. Medicare Annual Enrollment happens every year Oct. 15 through Dec. 7, during which you can review your current plan, compare your coverage options, and make any necessary updates. Any changes you make then go into effect on Jan. 1, 2024.

    Whether you're enrolling for the first time or not, it can be a lot of information to sift through. To help you stay organized and make sure you check every box, ClearMatch Medicare created the following handy checklist. Follow these steps to find the coverage that works for you.

    1. Create a provider list

    Make a list of all your current medical providers, including your primary doctor as well as any specialists or services you use regularly. This should also include the clinics or hospitals you visit most. Listing this information will help you decide which Medicare plan is right for you.

    2. List your prescriptions

    Do you take any prescription drugs? If so, write them down. Medicare plans change each year, and it's possible that your current plan may stop covering your prescriptions. Have your medications top of mind before comparing plans for the coming year.

    3. Plan ahead

    If possible, have a conversation with your doctor about what screenings, tests or medications you might need in the coming year. While you can't see into the future, try to note any healthcare changes you expect over the next 12 months.

    4. Review your plan's Annual Notice of Change and Evidence of Coverage

    If you have any coverage outside of Original Medicare (Parts A and B), your plan sends an Annual Notice of Change (ANOC) and Evidence of Coverage (EOC), which you should receive in September. If you don't receive one, contact your plan. These documents provide details about upcoming changes to your coverage. Compare them to your current and projected medical needs to determine if it's time to change plans.

    5. Review your current Medicare and other insurance coverage

    Think about your existing plan. Is it meeting your needs? Are you OK with the cost? Reflect on what's working and what's not - then plan for any changes you need to make for next year.

    And if you have other health insurance benefits besides Medicare, talk to your benefits administrator to determine how your Medicare enrollment impacts your additional health coverage.


    Read our latest health and medical news

    6. Review Medicare Advantage options

    Many Medicare Advantage plans offer benefits not covered by Original Medicare, such as prescription drug coverage and routine dental and vision care. You may find that a Medicare Advantage plan saves you money thanks to this increased coverage. These plans also have a yearly out-of-pocket maximum, unlike Original Medicare.

    7. Confirm your total cost

    The total cost of your Medicare plan may include monthly premiums, deductibles, co-pays and co-insurance. When comparing plans, dig a little deeper for an accurate picture of total costs so you're prepared for the year and know what you can afford. Keep in mind:

    * For Part D plans, you need to consider the monthly premium, co-pays and the drug formulary. Most insurers use tiered pricing for prescription drugs. If your prescriptions are on one of the upper tiers, your co-pay could be substantial.

    * Most Medicare Advantage and Part D plans with extremely low premiums have higher co-pays, deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums.

    Overwhelmed by all these steps? Don't worry, free help is just a phone call away. ClearMatch Medicare is dedicated to making Medicare easier to understand so you can choose the plan that's right for you. Their highly trained and licensed insurance agents are patient and helpful, and if they find you're already in the right plan, they'll tell you so.

    Call 1-888-441-7382 (TTY:711) for a free Medicare review, Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-9 p.m., Saturday, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. (ET) or visit ClearMatchMedicare.com, open 24-7.



    Medicare plan for Illinoisans sees changes in new enrollment period

    by Terri Dee
    Illinois News Connection

    CHICAGO - Open enrollment for Medicare ends on Dec 7. The federal health insurance program is for anyone aged 65 or older. Some people younger than 65 with certain disabilities or conditions, limited income and resources can also get coverage.

    Health research organization KFF reports 43% of Illinoisans have Medicare Advantage and 57% opted for traditional Medicare coverage.

    Stephani Becker, associate director of health care justice at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law in Illinois, explained the program.

    "It covers inpatient care in hospitals, services from doctors and other health care providers, outpatient care, home health care, durable medical equipment and many preventive services," Becker outlined. "That's your Medicare Part A and Part B. Then there's a part D, which is a drug-coverage program."

    KFF also noted in 2025, Medicare beneficiaries will pay no more than $2,000 out of pocket for prescription drugs covered under Part D, Medicare's outpatient drug benefit, due to a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

    Another important distinction to know is the difference between the original Medicare and Medicare Advantage. Traditional Medicare does not cover dental, vision and hearing insurance. However, many Medicare Advantage programs do. Becker emphasized it is important to review all documentation carefully to understand exactly what is in private plan coverage.

    "One is the premium, which is what you pay monthly to your health insurance company," Becker pointed out. "Then the second is your out-of-pocket costs, so things like copays and coinsurance and deductibles, and that's the type of payment that you use when you use your insurance."

    JustPlainClear.com and MedicareMadeClear.com are good websites to explain various health care plans for members and caregivers.

    Becker adds someone who is self-employed and not eligible for Medicare can buy a plan for themselves on the marketplace and may be eligible for premium assistance. A slightly larger business with two or more employees, for example, can work with a broker and buy a small group health plan.

    Meanwhile, open enrollment dates vary for other types of health plans. People with employer-sponsored coverage typically select a plan during a two-to-three week period between September and December. And open enrollment for plans on the Health Insurance Marketplace generally runs from November 1 to January 15 in most states. More information is available at www.UHCOpenEnrollment.com.


    Read our latest health and medical news Subscribe

    Keywords:

    I'm all for having medical insurance for everyone

    By Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator


    Give all Americans the option to buy into Medicare.

    I've paid into Social Security and Medicare my entire life. I'm still paying to be on Plan B and Supplemental Coverage. I also pay for prescription insurance. I often feel like a coffee coupon from McDonald's would pay for about as much medicine as my prescription card pays.

    I no longer pay over $1600 a month in medical insurance but I still pay about $450 a month even with Medicare. Nothing is free.

    Americans should have the option to buy into Medicare especially if medical insurance will not cover them and they can't afford the sky rocketing premiums. It's also time to get rid of medical supplements and prescription cards. Make Medicare a single payer of the doctor's visits, prescription costs and all the above.

    The government has more power to control the cost of big pharmacies and hospital costs. Most medical providers have "one price" but then the "price" they will accept from Medicare. Under President Trump Hospitals will have to display their secret negotiated rates to patients starting in January, 2021. This gives you the option to shop around.

    I'm all for having medical insurance available. Make it available from state to state. Make it easy for Americans to buy from pharmacies in Canada. Let senior Americans at age 55 buy 20-year term medical insurance plans if they would prefer to do so. Some Americans have no idea how desperate other Americans are when it comes to medical treatment.

    Why make it so hard for Americans who do not have access to healthcare? Let them buy into Medicare. If they are unemployed or disabled then give them the Medicaid option. However, this is just more bureaucracy. This system needs to become one.

    It's also time to make 60 the age that retired Americans go on Medicare.

    In your late fifties and early sixties Americans have to start going to the doctor more. A friend of mine is waiting until she turns 65 and has Medicare so she can have a badly needed surgery. She needs it now. If she could buy into Medicare she could go ahead and move forward with her needed surgery.

    We also need to turn the age back to 65 for collecting full Social Security benefits. American men die by the time they are 76.1 years old. Many die much younger. This is very little time to enjoy retirement. Sadly, many Americans aren't having much of a retirement in their golden years. Many are working longer and spending less time doing what they had hoped to do.

    The government waste our Social Security contributions. They've spent trillions on foreign wars. They now tell us Social Security has be reduced by 25% in a few years. Rich political leaders want to push the age until 70 for you to collect your Social Security. This is not working for the American people. We are working longer with the prospects of collecting less. On top of this, older Americans are having to pay more of their dwindling retirement dollars for medical bills.

    Bringing our troops home and spending less money in Iraq, Afghanistan and on rebuilding foreign nations is a start. We can and we must fix our medical insurance dilemma.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Glenn Mollette is a syndicated American columnist and author of American Issues, Every American Has An Opinion and ten other books. He is read in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    This article is the sole opinions of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of PhotoNews Media. We welcome comments and views from our readers.


    -----------------------------------------------------------




    Government oversight was in short supply as patients become infected with Covid at hospitals

    by Lauren Weber and Christina Jewett, Kaiser Health News

    One by one, the nurses taking care of actress Judi Evans at Riverside Community Hospital kept calling out sick.

    Patients were coughing as staffers wheeled the maskless soap opera star around the California hospital while treating her for injuries from a horseback fall in May 2020, Evans said.



    Hospitals, like Riverside, with high rates of covid patients who didn’t have the diagnosis when they were admitted have rarely been held accountable due to multiple gaps in government oversight, a KHN investigation has found.


    She remembered they took her to a room to remove blood from her compressed lung where another maskless patient was also getting his lung drained. He was crying out that he didn’t want to die of covid.

    No one had told her to wear a mask, she said. “It didn’t cross my mind, as I’m in a hospital where you’re supposed to be safe.”

    Then, about a week into her hospital stay, she tested positive for covid-19. It left the 57-year-old hospitalized for a month, staring down more than $1 million in bills for treatment costs and suffering from debilitating long-haul symptoms, she said.

    Hospitals, like Riverside, with high rates of covid patients who didn’t have the diagnosis when they were admitted have rarely been held accountable due to multiple gaps in government oversight, a KHN investigation has found.

    While a federal reporting system closely tracks hospital-acquired infections for MRSA and other bugs, it doesn’t publicly report covid caught in individual hospitals.

    Health News on The Sentinel

    Medicare officials, tapped by Congress decades ago to ensure quality care in hospitals, also discovered a gaping hole in their authority as covid spread through the nation. They could not force private accreditors — which almost 90% of hospitals pay for oversight — to do targeted infection-control inspections. That means Riverside and nearly 4,200 other hospitals did not receive those specific covid-focused inspections, according to a government watchdog report, even though Medicare asked accreditors to do them in March 2020.

    Seema Verma, former chief of Medicare and Medicaid under President Donald Trump, said government inspectors went into nearly every nursing home last year. That the same couldn’t be done for hospitals reveals a problem. “We didn’t have the authority,” she told KHN. “This is something to be corrected.”

    KHN previously reported that at least 10,000 patients nationwide were diagnosed with covid in hospitals last year after being admitted for something else — a sure undercount of the infection’s spread inside hospitals, since that data analysis primarily includes Medicare patients 65 and older.

    Nationally, 1.7% of Medicare inpatients were documented as having covid diagnosed after being admitted for another condition, according to data from April through September 2020 that hospitals reported to Medicare. CDIMD, a Nashville-based consulting and data analytics company, analyzed the data for KHN.

    At Riverside Community Hospital, 4% of the covid Medicare patients were diagnosed after admission — more than double the national average. At 38 other hospitals, that rate was 5% or higher. All those hospitals are approved by private accreditors, and 29 of them hold “The Gold Seal of Approval” from their accreditor.

    To be sure, the data has limitations: It represents a difficult time in the pandemic, when protective gear and tests were scarce and vaccines were not yet available. And it could include community-acquired cases that were slow to show up. But hospital-employed medical coders decide whether a case of covid was present on admission based on doctors’ notes, and are trained to query doctors if it’s unclear. Some institutions fared better than others — while the American public was left in the dark.

    Spurred by serious complaints, federal inspectors found infection-control issues in few of those 38 hospitals last year. In Michigan, inspectors reported that one hospital “failed to provide and maintain a sanitary environment resulting in the potential for the spread of infectious disease to 151 served by the facility.” In Rhode Island, inspectors found a hospital “​​failed to have an effective hospital-wide program for the surveillance and prevention” of covid.

    KHN was able to find federal inspection reports documenting infection-control issues for eight of those 38 hospitals. The other 30 hospitals around the country, from Alabama to Arizona, had no publicly available federal records of infection-control problems in 2020.

    KHN found that even when state inspectors in California assessed hospitals with high rates of covid diagnosed after admission, they identified few shortcomings.

    “The American public thinks someone is watching over them,” said Lisa McGiffert, co-founder of the Patient Safety Action Network, an advocacy group. “Generally they think someone’s in charge and going to make sure bad things don’t happen. Our oversight system in our country is so broken and so untrustworthy.”

    The data shows that the problem has deadly consequences: About a fifth of the Medicare covid patients who were diagnosed after admission died. And it was costly as well. In California alone, the total hospital charges for such patients from April through December last year was over $845 million, according to an analysis done for KHN by the California Department of Health Care Access and Information.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pledged funding for increased infection-control efforts — but that money is not focused on tracking covid’s spread in hospitals. Instead, it will spend $2.1 billion partly to support an existing tracking system for hospital-acquired pathogens such as MRSA and C. diff.

    The CDC does not currently track hospital-acquired covid, nor does it plan to do so with the additional funding. That tracking is done by another part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, according to Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, associate director for the CDC’s health care-associated infection-prevention programs. But it’s not made public on a hospital-by-hospital basis. HHS officials did not respond to questions.

    The Scene at Riverside

    In March 2020, Evans was alarmed by nonstop TV footage of covid deaths, so she and her husband locked down. They hadn’t been going out much, anyway, since losing their only child at the end of 2019 to another public health crisis — fentanyl.

    At the time, concerns about covid were mounting among the staff at Riverside Community Hospital, a for-profit HCA Healthcare facility.

    The hospital’s highly protective N95 masks had been pulled off the supply room shelves and put in a central office, according to Monique Hernandez, a shop steward for her union, Service Employees International Union Local 121RN. Only nurses who had patients getting aerosol-generating procedures such as intubation — which were believed at the time to spread the virus — could get one, she said.

    She said that practice left the nurses on her unit with a difficult choice: either say you had a patient undergoing such procedures or risk getting sick.

    Nurse unions were early adopters of the notion — now widely accepted — that covid is spread by minuscule particles that can linger in the air. Studies since have matched the genetic fingerprint of the virus to show that covid has spread among workers or patients wearing surgical masks instead of more protective masks like N95s.

    On April 22, 2020, Hernandez and other nurses joined a silent protest outside the hospital where they held up signs saying “PPE Over Profit.” By that time, the hospital had several staff clusters of infection, according to Hernandez, and she was tired of caregivers being at risk.

    In a statement, Riverside spokesperson David Maxfield said the hospital’s top priority has been to protect staff “so they can best care for our patients.”

    “Any suggestion otherwise ignores the extensive work, planning and training we have done to ensure the delivery of high-quality care during this pandemic,” he said.

    In mid-May, Judi Evans’ husband coaxed her into going horseback riding — one of the few things that brought her joy after her son’s death. On her second day back in the saddle, she was thrown from her horse. She broke her collarbone and seven ribs, and her lung was compressed. She was taken to Riverside Community Hospital.

    There, many of her nurses wore masks they had previously used, Evans recalled. Other staffers came in without any masks at all, she said. A few days in, she said, one of the doctors told her it’s crazy that the hospital was testing her for MRSA and other hospital infections but not covid.

    Maxfield said that the hospital began enforcing a universal mask mandate for staff and visitors on March 31, 2020, and, “in line with CDC, patients were and are advised to wear masks when outside their room if tolerated.” He stressed “safety of our patients and colleagues has been our top priority.”

    After about a week in the hospital, Evans said, she spiked a fever and begged for a covid test. It was positive. There is no way to know for certain where or how she got infected but she believes it was at Riverside. Covid infections can take two to 14 days from exposure to show symptoms like a fever, with the average being four to five days. According to CDC guidance, infection onset that occurs two days or more after admission could be “hospital-associated.”

    Doctors told her they might have to amputate her legs when they began to swell uncontrollably, she said.

    “It was like being in a horror film — one of those where everything that could go wrong does go wrong,” Evans said.

    She left with over $1 million in bills from a month-long stay — and her legs, thankfully. She said she still suffers from long-covid symptoms and is haunted by the screams of fellow patients in the covid ward.

    By the end of that year, Riverside Community Hospital would report that 58 of its 1,649 covid patients were diagnosed with the virus after admission, according to state data that covers all payers from April to December.

    That’s nearly three times as high as the California average for covid cases not present on admission, according to the analysis for KHN by California health data officials.

    “Based on contact tracing, outlined by the CDC and other infectious disease experts, there is no evidence to suggest the risk of transmission at our hospital is different than what you would find at other hospitals,” Maxfield said.

    A lawsuit filed in August by the SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West on behalf of the daughter of a hospital lab assistant who died of covid and other hospital staffers says the hospital forced employees to work without adequate protective gear and while sick and “highly contagious.”

    The hospital “created an unnecessarily dangerous work environment,” the lawsuit claims, “which in turn has created dangerous conditions for patients” and a “public nuisance.”

    Attorneys for Riverside Community Hospital are fighting the ongoing lawsuit. “This lawsuit is an attempt for the union to gain publicity, and we have filed a motion to end it,” said Maxfield, the hospital spokesperson.

    The hospital’s lawyers have said the plaintiffs got covid during a spike in local cases and are only speculating that they contracted the virus at the hospital, according to records filed in Riverside County Superior Court.

    They also said in legal filings that the court should not step into the place of “government agencies who oversee healthcare and workplace safety” and “handled the response to the pandemic.”

    ‘A Shortcoming in the Oversight System’

    Decades ago, Congress tasked Medicare with ensuring safe, quality care in U.S. hospitals by building in routine government inspections. However, hospitals can opt to pay up to tens of thousands of dollars per year to nongovernmental accreditors entrusted by CMS to certify the hospitals as safe. So 90% do just that.

    But these accrediting agencies — including the Joint Commission, which certified Riverside — are private organizations. Thus they are not required to follow CMS’ directives, including the request in a March 20 memo urging the accrediting agencies to execute targeted infection-control surveys aimed at preparing hospitals for covid’s onslaught.

    And so they didn’t send staffers to survey hospitals for the specialized infection-control inspections in 2020, according to a June 2021 Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General report.

    Riverside, despite allegations of lax practices, holds The Gold Seal of Approval from the Joint Commission, which last inspected the hospital on-site in May 2018 before going in on Nov. 19 this year.

    The inspector general’s office urged CMS to pursue the authority to require special surveys in a health emergency — lest it lose control of its mission to keep hospitals safe.

    “CMS could not ensure that accredited hospitals would continue to provide quality care and operate safely during the COVID-19 emergency,” and could not ensure it going forward, the report said.

    “We’re telling CMS to do their job,” the report’s author, Assistant Regional Inspector General Calvin Jones, said in an interview. “The covid experience really showed a shortcoming in the oversight system.”

    CMS spokesperson Raymond Thorn said the agency agrees with the report’s recommendation and will work on a regulation after the public health emergency ends.

    Accrediting agencies, however, pushed back on the inspector general’s findings. Among them: DNV Healthcare USA Inc. Its director of accreditation, Troy McCann, said there was not a gap in oversight. Although he said travel restrictions limited accreditors ability to fly across state lines, his group continued its annual reviews after May 2020 and incorporated the special focus on infection control into them. “We have a strong emphasis, always, on safety, infection control and emergency preparedness, which has left our hospitals stronger,” McCann said.

    Angela FitzSimmons, spokesperson for the Accreditation Commission for Health Care, said that the accrediting organization’s surveys typically focus on infection control, and the group worked during the pandemic to prioritize hospitals with prior issues in the area of infection prevention.

    “We did not deem it necessary to add random surveys that would occur at a cost to the hospital without just cause,” FitzSimmons said.

    Maureen Lyons, a spokesperson for the Joint Commission, told KHN that, after evaluating CMS guidance, the nonprofit group decided it would incorporate the infection-control surveys into its surveys done every three years and, in the meantime, provide hospitals with the latest federal guidance on covid.

    “Hospitals were operating in extremis. Thus, we collaborated closely with CMS to determine optimal strategies during this time of emergency,” she said.

    The Joint Commission cited safety issues for its inspectors, who travel to the hospitals and need proper protective equipment that was running low at the time, as part of the reason for its decision.

    Verma, the CMS administrator at the time, pushed back on accreditors’ travel safety concerns, saying that “narrative doesn’t quite fit because the state and CMS surveyors were going into nursing homes.”

    Though Verma cautioned that hospitals were overwhelmed by the crush of covid patients, “doing these inspections may have helped hospitals bolster their infection-control practices,” she said. “Without these surveys, we really have no way of knowing.”

    ‘Immediate Jeopardy’

    Medicare inspectors can go into a privately accredited hospital after they get a serious complaint. They found alarming circumstances when they visited some of the hospitals with high rates of covid diagnosed after a patient was admitted for another concern last year.

    At Levindale Hebrew Geriatric Center and Hospital in Baltimore, the July 2020 inspection report says “systemic failures left the hospital and all of its patients, staff, and visitors vulnerable to harm and possible death from COVID-19.”

    In response, hospital spokesperson Sharon Boston said that “we have seen a large decrease in the spread of the virus at Levindale.”

    Inspectors had declared a state of “immediate jeopardy” after they investigated a complaint and discovered an outbreak that began in April and continued through the beginning of July, with more than 120 patients and employees infected with covid. And in a unit for those with Alzheimer’s and other conditions, 20% of the 55 patients who had covid died.

    The hospital moved patients whose roommates tested positive for covid to other shared rooms, “potentially exposing their new roommate,” the inspection report said. Boston said that was an “isolated” incident and the situation was corrected the next day, with new policies put in place.

    The Medicare data analyzed exclusively for KHN shows that 52 of Levindale’s 64 covid hospital patients, or 81%, were diagnosed with covid after admission from April to September 2020. Boston cited different numbers over a different time period: Of 67 covid patients, 64 had what she called “hospital-acquired” covid from March to June 2020. That would be nearly 96%.

    The hospital shares space with a nursing home, though, so KHN did not group it with the general short-term acute-care hospitals as part of the analysis. Levindale’s last Joint Commission on-site survey was in December 2018, resulting in The Gold Seal of Approval. It had not had its once-every-three-years survey as of Dec. 10, 2021, according to the Joint Commission’s tracking.

    Boston said Levindale “quickly addressed” the issues that Medicare inspectors cited, increasing patient testing and more recently mandating staff vaccines. Since December 2020, Boston said, the facility has not had a covid patient die.

    At the state level, hospital inspectors in California found few problems to cite even at hospitals where 5% or more patients were diagnosed with covid after they were admitted for another concern. Fifty-three complaints about such hospitals went to the Department of Public Health from April until the end of 2020. Only three of those complaints resulted in a finding of deficiency that facility was expected to fix.

    CDPH did not respond to requests for comment.

    A New Chapter

    Things are better now at Riverside Community Hospital, Hernandez said. She is pleased with the current safety practices, including more protective gear and HEPA filters for covid patients’ rooms. For Hernandez, though, it all comes too late now.

    “We laugh at it,” she said, “but it hurts your soul.”

    Evans said she was able to negotiate her $1 million-plus hospital bills down to roughly $70,000.

    Her covid aftereffects have been ongoing — she said she stopped gasping for air and reaching for her at-home oxygen tank only a few months ago. She still hasn’t been able to return to work full time, she said.

    For the past year, her husband would wake up in the middle of the night to check whether her oxygen levels were dipping. Terrified of losing her, he’d slip an oxygen mask on her face, she said.

    “I would walk 1,000 miles to go to another hospital,” Evans said, if she could do it all over again. “I would never step foot in that hospital again.”

    Methodology

    KHN requested custom analyses of Medicare, California and Florida inpatient hospital data to examine the number of covid-19 cases diagnosed after a patient’s admission.

    The Medicare and Medicare Advantage data, which includes patients who are 65 and older, is from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file and was analyzed by CDIMD, a Nashville-based medical code consulting and data analytics firm. The data is from April 1 through Sept. 30, 2020. The data for the fourth quarter of 2020 was not yet available.

    The data shows the number of inpatient Medicare hospital stays in the U.S., including the number of people diagnosed with covid-19 and the number of admissions for which the covid diagnosis was not “present on admission.” CMS considers some medical conditions that are not “present on admission” to be hospital-acquired, according to the agency. The data is for general acute-care hospitals, which may include a psychiatric floor, and not for other hospitals such as those in the Department of Veterans Affairs system or stand-alone psychiatric hospitals.

    KHN requested a similar analysis from California’s Department of Health Care Access and Information of its hospital inpatient data. That data was from April 1 through Dec. 31, 2020, and covered patients of all ages and payer types and, in general, private psychiatric and long-term acute-care hospitals. Etienne Pracht, a University of South Florida researcher, provided the number of Florida covid patients who did not have the virus upon hospital admission for all ages and payer types at general and psychiatric hospitals from April 1 through Dec. 31, 2020. KHN subtracted the number of Medicare patients in the MedPAR data from the Florida and California datasets so they would not be counted twice.

    To calculate the rate of hospitalized Medicare patients who tested positive for covid — and died — KHN relied on the MedPAR data for April through September. That data includes records for 6,629 seniors, 1,409 of whom, or 21%, died. California data for all ages and payer types from April through December shows a similar rate: Of 2,115 diagnosed with covid-19 after hospital admission, 435, or 21%, died. The MedPAR data was also used to calculate the national rate of 1.7%, with 6,629 of 394,939 covid patients diagnosed with the virus whose infections were deemed not present on admission, according to the CDIMD analysis of data that hospitals report to Medicare. It was also used to calculate which entities licensed as short-term acute care hospitals had 5% or more of their covid cases diagnosed within the hospital. As stated in the story, Levindale Hebrew Geriatric Center and Hospital in Baltimore was not included in that list of 38 because it shares space with a nursing home and had fewer than 500 total discharges.

    Data that hospitals submit to Medicare on whether an inpatient hospital diagnosis was “present on admission” is used by Medicare for payment determinations and is intended to incentivize hospitals to prevent infections during hospital care. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality also uses the data to “assist in identifying quality of care issues.”

    Whether covid-19 is acquired in a hospital or in the community is measured in different ways. Some nations assume the virus is hospital-acquired if it is diagnosed seven or more days after admission, while U.S. data counts cases only after 14 days.

    Hospitals’ medical coders who examined patient records for the data analyzed for this KHN report focus on each physician’s admission, progress and discharge notes to determine whether covid was “present on admission.” They do not have a set number of days they look for and are trained to query physicians if the case is unclear, according to Sue Bowman, senior director of coding policy and compliance at the American Health Information Management Association.

    KHN tallied the cases in which covid-19 was logged in the data as not “present on admission” to the hospital. Some covid cases are coded as “U” for having insufficient documentation to make a determination. Since Medicare and AHRQ consider the “U” to be an “N” (or not present on admission) for the purposes of payment decisions and quality indicators, KHN chose to count those cases in the grand total.

    In 409 of 6,629 Medicare cases and in 70 of 2,185 California cases, the “present on admission” indicator was “U.” The Florida data did not include patients whose “present on admission” indicator was “U.” Medical coders have another code, “W,” for “clinically undetermined” cases, which consider a condition present on admission for billing or quality measures. Medical coders use the “U” (leaning toward “not present on admission”) and “W” (leaning toward “present on admission”) when there is some uncertainty about the case. KHN did not count “W” cases.

    The Medicare MedPAR data includes about 2,500 U.S. hospitals that had at least a dozen covid-19 cases from April through September 2020. Of those, 1,070 reported no cases of covid diagnosed after admission for other conditions in the Medicare records. Data was suppressed due to privacy reasons for about 1,300 hospitals that had between one and 11 of such covid cases. There were 126 hospitals reporting 12 or more cases of covid that were “not present on admission” or unknown. For those, we divided the number of cases diagnosed after admission by the total number of patients with covid to arrive at the rate, as is standard in health care.

    Inspection and Accreditation Analysis

    To evaluate which of the 38 hospitals detailed above had federal inspection reports documenting infection-control issues, KHN searched CMS’ publicly available “2567” reports, which detail deficiencies for each hospital for 2020. For surveys listed online as “not available,” KHN requested and obtained them from CMS. KHN further asked CMS to double-check the remaining hospitals for any inspection reports that weren’t posted online. KHN also checked the Association of Health Care Journalists’ database http://www.hospitalinspections.org/ for each of the 38 hospitals for any additional reports, as well as CMS’ Quality, Certification and Oversight Reports site.

    To check that each of these hospitals was accredited, KHN looked up each hospital using a site run by the Joint Commission and reached out to the accreditors DNV Healthcare USA Inc. and the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

    To tabulate infection-control complaints for hospitals at the state level in California, KHN used data available through the California Department of Public Health’s Cal Health Find Database. KHN searched the database for the hospitals that had higher than 5% of covid patients being diagnosed after admission, according to the California data, and tallied all complaints and deficiencies found involving infection control from April to December 2020.

    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.


    New Medicare Advantage now tailoring to Asian Americans, Latinos, and LGBTQ+ needs

    by Stephanie Stephens
    Kaiser Health News

    As Medicare Advantage continues to gain popularity among seniors, three Southern California companies are pioneering new types of plans that target cultural and ethnic communities with special offerings and native-language practitioners.

    Clever Care Health Plan, based in Huntington Beach, and Alignment Health, based in nearby Orange, both have plans aimed at Asian Americans, with extra benefits including coverage for Eastern medicines and treatments such as cupping and tui na massage. Alignment also has an offering targeting Latinos, while Long Beach-based SCAN Health Plan has a product aimed at the LGBTQ+ community. All of them have launched since 2020.


    Asian Americans may want coverage for traditional Eastern treatments, while LGBTQ+ patients might be especially concerned with HIV prevention or management

    While many Medicare Advantage providers target various communities with their advertising, this trio of companies appear to be among the first in the nation to create plans with provider networks and benefits designed for specific cultural cohorts. Medicare Advantage is typically cheaper than traditional Medicare but generally requires patients to use in-network providers.

    “This fits me better,” said Clever Care member Tam Pham, 78, a Vietnamese American from Westminster, California. Speaking to KFF Health News via an interpreter, she said she appreciates the dental care and herbal supplement benefits included in her plan, and especially the access to a Vietnamese-speaking doctor.

    “I can always get help when I call, without an interpreter,” she said.

    Proponents of these new culturally targeted plans say they can offer not only trusted providers who understand their patients’ unique context and speak their language, but also special products and services designed for their needs. Asian Americans may want coverage for traditional Eastern treatments, while LGBTQ+ patients might be especially concerned with HIV prevention or management, for example.

    Health policy researchers note that Medicare Advantage tends to be lucrative for insurers but can be a mixed bag for patients, who often have a limited choice of providers — and that targeted plans would not necessarily solve that problem. Some also worry that the approach could end up being a new vector for discrimination.

    “It’s strange to think about commodifying and profiting off people’s racial and ethnic identities,” said Naomi Zewde, an assistant professor at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. “We should do so with care and proceed carefully, so as not to be exploitive.”

    Still, there’s plenty of evidence that patients can benefit from care that is targeted to their race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

    A November 2020 study of almost 118,000 patient surveys, published in JAMA Network Open, underscored the need for a connection between physician and patient, finding that patients with the same racial or ethnic background as their physicians are more likely to rate the latter highly. A 2022 survey of 11,500 people around the world by the pharmaceutical company Sanofi showed a legacy of distrust in health care systems among marginalized groups, such as ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities.

    Clever Care, founded by Korean American health care executive Myong Lee, aimed from the start to create Medicare Advantage plans for underserved Asian communities, said Peter Winston, the senior vice president and general manager of community and provider development at the company. “When we started enrollments, we realized there is no one ‘Asian,’ but there is Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Japanese,” Winston added.

    The company has separate customer service lines by language and gives members flexibility on how and where to spend their allowances for benefits like fitness programs.

    Winston said the plan began with 500 members in January 2021 and is now up to 14,000 (still very small compared with mainstream plans). Herbal supplement benefit dollars vary by plan, but more than 200 products traditionally used by Asian clients are on offer, with coverage of up to several hundred dollars per quarter.

    Sachin Jain, a physician and the CEO of SCAN Group, said its LGBTQ+ plan serves 600 members.

    “This is a group of people who, for much of their lives, lived in the shadows,” Jain added. “There is an opportunity for us as a company to help affirm them, to provide them with a special set of benefits that address unmet needs.”


    Alignment also has an offering aimed at Latinos, dubbed el Único, in parts of Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Florida, and California.

    SCAN has run into bias issues itself, with some of its employees posting hate speech and one longtime provider refusing to participate in the plan, Jain recounted.

    Alignment Health offers a plan targeting Asian Americans in six California counties, with benefits such as traditional wellness services, a grocery allowance for Asian stores, nonemergency medical transportation, and even pet care in the event a member has a hospital procedure or emergency and needs to be away from home.

    Alignment also has an offering aimed at Latinos, dubbed el Único, in parts of Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Florida, and California. The California product, an HMO co-branded with Rite Aid, is available in six counties, while in Florida and Nevada, it’s a so-called special needs plan for Medicare beneficiaries who also qualify for Medicaid. All offer a Spanish-speaking provider network.

    Todd Macaluso, the chief growth officer for Alignment, declined to share specific numbers but said California membership in Harmony — its plan tailored to Asian Americans — and el Único together has grown 80% year over year since 2021.

    Alignment’s marketing efforts, which include visiting places where prospective members may shop or socialize, are about more than just signing up customers, Macaluso said.

    “Being present there means we can see what works, what’s needed, and build it out. The Medicare-eligible population in Fresno looks very different from one in Ventura.”

    “Just having materials in the same language is important, as is identifying the caller and routing them properly,” Macaluso added.

    Blacks, Latinos, and Asians overall are significantly more likely than white beneficiaries to choose Medicare Advantage plans, according to recent research conducted for Better Medicare Alliance, a nonprofit funded by health insurers. (Latino people can be of any race or combination of races.) But it’s not clear to what extent that will translate into the growth of targeted networks: Big insurers’ Medicare Advantage marketing efforts often target specific racial or ethnic cohorts, but the plans don’t usually include any special features for those groups.

    Utibe Essien, an assistant professor of medicine at UCLA, noted the historical underserving of the Black community, and that the shortage of Black physicians could make it hard to build a targeted offering for that population. Similarly, many parts of the country don’t have a high enough concentration of specific groups to support a dedicated network.

    Still, all three companies are optimistic about expansion among groups that haven’t always been treated well by the health care system. “If you treat them with respect, and bring care to them the way they expect it, they will come,” Winston said.

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

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

    Commentary |

    Project 2025's plan to do away with Medicad and Medicare

    Fernando Zhiminaicela/Pixabay


    While admitting that Medicare and Medicaid “help many,” the authors of Project 2025 nonetheless declare that the programs “operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation,


    by Sonali Kolhatkar



    Conservatives have done the United States a huge favor by explaining in detail what they’ll try to do if Donald Trump is reelected.

    Project 2025, a “presidential transition project” of the Heritage Foundation, helpfully lays out how a group of former Trump officials would like to transform the country into a right-wing dystopia where the rich thrive and the rest of us die aspiring to be rich. 

    Declaring in its Mandate for Leadership that “unaccountable federal spending is the secret lifeblood of the Great Awokening” (really!), the plan focuses heavily on reversing social progress on the rights of racial and sexual minorities. 

    It also promises to decimate the most popular benefits programs in the U.S.: Medicare and Medicaid. 

    In a section dedicated to the Department of Health and Human Services, Project 2025 declares that “HHS is home to Medicare and Medicaid, the principal drivers of our $31 trillion national debt.” 

    This is a popular conservative framing used to justify ending social programs. In fact, per person Medicare spending has plateaued for more than a decade and represents one of the greatest reductions to the federal debt.

    While admitting that Medicare and Medicaid “help many,” the authors of Project 2025 nonetheless declare that the programs “operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation, encourage fraud, and impede cost containment, in addition to which their fiscal future is in peril.” 

    To solve these imaginary problems, they suggest making “Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option” rather than traditional Medicare.

    But Medicare Advantage (MA) is not a government-run healthcare program. It’s merely a way to turn tax dollars into profits for private health insurers. The more that MA providers deny coverage, the more money their shareholders make. There is no incentive for them to cover the health care needs of seniors.

    There is plenty of evidence that MA programs not only fleece taxpayers by submitting inflated reimbursement bills to the government but also routinely deny necessary medical coverage. 

    In other words, they’re drinking out of both sides of the government trough.

    The Center for Economic and Policy Research pointed out in a March 2024 paper that the “insurance companies that run these MA plans spend significant sums of money to blanket seniors with marketing” while relying on “heavily restricted networks that damage one’s choice of provider along with dangerous delays and denials of necessary care.”

    But Project 2025 claims, without evidence, that “the MA program has been registering consistently high marks for superior performance in delivering high-quality care.” 

    Medicaid, the government program that covers health care for the lowest-income Americans, including millions of children, is also a major target of the conservative authors.

    They want to add work requirements to the benefit, adopting the familiar conservative trope of low-income Americans living off tax dollars because they’re too lazy to work. And like the MA programs, they want to allow private insurers to get in on the game.

    Calling Medicaid a “cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state,” Project 2025 complains about the program’s increased eligibility while at the same time claiming to care about how it impacts “those who are most in need.”

    But a June 2024 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that Medicaid’s expanded eligibility rules have helped insure millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured and saved money in state budgets. 

    Most encouragingly, “the people who gained coverage have grown healthier and more financially secure, while long-standing racial inequities in health outcomes, coverage, and access to care have shrunk.” 

    Project 2025 claims to have the underlying ideology to “incentivize personal responsibility,” as if its authors simply want Americans to begin acting like responsible grownups. But they mysteriously don’t apply this same standard to wealthy elites — perhaps because that’s precisely who they are.


    Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This commentary was produced by the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and adapted for syndication by OtherWords.org.

    Read our latest health and medical news


    What's a phone call from your doctor is worth today?

    Health News on The Sentinel

    by Julie Appleby
    Kaiser Health News

    Maybe this has happened to you recently: Your doctor telephoned to check in with you, chatting for 11 to 20 minutes, perhaps answering a question you contacted her office with, or asking how you’re responding to a medication change.

    For that, your doctor got paid about $27 if you are on Medicare — maybe a bit more if you have private insurance.

    Behind those calls is a four-digit "virtual check-in" billing code created during the pandemic, for phone conversations lasting just within that range, which has drawn outsize interest from physician groups.

    It’s part of a much bigger, increasingly heated debate: Should insurers pay for "audio-only" visits? And, if they do, should they pay the same reimbursement rate as when a patient is sitting in a doctor’s office, as has been allowed during the pandemic?

    Cutting off or reducing audio-only payments could lead providers to sharply curtail telehealth services, warn some physician groups and other experts. Other stakeholders, including employers who pay for health coverage, fear payment parity for audio-only telehealth visits could lead to overbilling. Will it lead, for example, to a flood of unneeded follow-up calls?

    Robert Berenson, an Institute Fellow at the Urban Institute, who has spent much of his career studying payment methods, said if insurers pay too little, doctors — now accustomed to the reimbursement — might no longer make the follow-up calls they might have made for free pre-pandemic.

    But, he added, "if you pay what they want, parity with in-person, you’ll have a run on the treasury. The right policy is somewhere in between."

    Medicare billing codes, while a dull and arcane topic, draw keen interest from doctors, hospitals, therapists and others because they are the basis for health care charges in the United States. Medicare’s verdict serves as a benchmark and guide for private insurers in setting their own payment policies.

    Thousands of codes exist, describing every possible type of treatment. Without a code, there can be no payment. The creation of codes and Medicare’s determination of a reimbursement amount, designed to reflect the amount of work involved, prompt ferocious lobbying by the business interests involved. The American Medical Association derives a chunk of revenue from owning the rights to a specific set of physician billing codes. Other codes are developed by dental groups, as well as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or state Medicaid agencies.

    The idea of a "virtual check-in" code began before the pandemic, in 2019, when Medicare included it to cover five- to 10-minute telephone calls for doctors to respond to established patients. It pays about $14.

    When the pandemic hit, Congress and the Trump administration opened the door wider to telehealth, temporarily lifting restrictions — mainly those limiting such services to rural areas.

    Meanwhile, CMS this year added a billing code for longer "virtual check-ins" — 11- to 20-minute calls — with payment set at about $27 a pop, with the patient contributing 20% in copayment. Such calls are meant to determine whether a patient needs to come in or otherwise have a longer evaluation visit, or if their health concern can simply be handled over the phone.

    And physicians argue that allowing payments for audio-only care is a positive step for them and for their patients.

    "I take care of patients who drive from two or three hours away and live in places without broadband access," said Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., a dermatologist and president-elect of the American Medical Association. "For these patients, it’s important to have a backup when the video option doesn’t’ work."

    Still, the focus on telephone-only care has raised concerns.

    "Here’s an invitation to convert every five-minute call into an 11- to 20-minute call," said Berenson.

    The Medicare code allows "other qualified health professionals," such as physician assistants or nurse practitioners, to bill for such calls. Private insurers would set their own rules about whether non-physicians can bill for follow-up calls. It’s not clear how much of a revenue stream dedicating such staff members to make these short, telephone check-ins would create for a medical practice.

    To avoid overuse, CMS did set rules: The code can’t be used if the call takes place within seven days of an evaluation visit, either in person or through telemedicine. Nor can a doctor bill for the call if he or she determines the patient needs to come in right away.

    When the health emergency ends, however, so do most audio-only payments. The emergency is expected to last at least through the end of the year. Congress or, possibly, CMS could change the rules on audio-only payments, and much more lobbying is expected.

    While the virtual check-in codes have been made permanent, physician groups are lobbying for Medicare to retain a host of other telephone-only-visit codes created during the pandemic, including several that allow physicians to bill for telephone-only visits in which the doctor potentially diagnoses a patient’s condition and sets up a treatment plan.

    For those, considered "evaluation and management" audio visits, Medicare during the public health emergency has paid about $55 for a five- to 10-minute call and $89 for one that runs 11 to 20 minutes — the same as for an in-office visit.

    "Whether we see patients in house, by video or by phone, we need the same coding" and the same payments, because a similar amount of work is involved, said Dr. Ada Stewart, the board chair for the American Academy of Family Physicians.

    Many patients like the concept of telehealth, according to Suzanne Delbanco, executive director of Catalyst for Payment Reform, a group representing employers who want payment methods for health care to be overhauled. And, for some patients, it’s the easiest way to see a doctor, especially for those who live far from urban areas or are unable to take time off work or away from home.

    But, she said, employers "don’t want to get locked into paying more for it than they have in past, or as much as other [in-person] visits when it’s not truly the same value to the patient."


    Backtracking the Biden-Trump debate, here's what they got wrong, and right

    by Amy Maxmen
    KFF Health News and PolitiFact
    Trump campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. In the White House, Trump supported a failed effort to do just that. He repeatedly said he would dismantle the health care law in campaign stops and social media posts throughout 2023.

    President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, shared a debate stage June 27 for the first time since 2020, in a confrontation that — because of strict debate rules — managed to avoid the near-constant interruptions that marred their previous encounters.

    Biden, who spoke in a raspy voice and often struggled to articulate his arguments, said at one point that his administration “finally beat Medicare.” Trump, meanwhile, repeated numerous falsehoods, including that Democrats want doctors to be able to abort babies after birth.

    Illustration: Richard Duijnstee/Pixabay

    Trump took credit for the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that upended Roe v. Wade and returned abortion policy to states. “This is what everybody wanted,” he said, adding “it’s been a great thing.” Biden’s response: “It’s been a terrible thing.”

    In one notable moment, Trump said he would not repeal FDA approval for medication abortion, used last year in nearly two-thirds of U.S. abortions. Some conservatives have targeted the FDA’s more than 20-year-old approval of the drug mifepristone to further restrict access to abortion nationwide.

    “The Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill. And I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it,” Trump said. The Supreme Court ruled this month that an alliance of anti-abortion medical groups and doctors lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s approval of the drug. The court’s ruling, however, did not amount to an approval of the drug.

    CNN hosted the debate, which had no audience, at its Atlanta headquarters. CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash moderated. The debate format allowed CNN to mute candidates’ microphones when it wasn’t their turn to speak.

    Our PolitiFact partners fact-checked the debate in real time as Biden and Trump clashed on the economy, immigration, and abortion, and revisited discussion of their ages. Biden, 81, has become the oldest sitting U.S. president; if Trump defeats him, he would end his second term at age 82. You can read the full coverage here and excerpts detailing specific health-related claims follow:

    Biden: “We brought down the price [of] prescription drug[s], which is a major issue for many people, to $15 for an insulin shot, as opposed to $400.”

    Half True. Biden touted his efforts to reduce prescription drug costs by referring to the $35 monthly insulin price cap his administration put in place as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But he initially flubbed the number during the debate, saying it was lowered to $15. In his closing statement, Biden corrected the amount to $35.

    The price of insulin for Medicare enrollees, starting in 2023, dropped to $35 a month, not $15. Drug pricing experts told PolitiFact when it rated a similar claim that most Medicare enrollees were likely not paying a monthly average of $400 before the changes, although because costs vary depending on coverage phases and dosages, some might have paid that much in a given month.

    Trump: “I’m the one that got the insulin down for the seniors.”

    Mostly False. When he was president, Trump instituted the Part D Senior Savings Model, a program that capped insulin costs at $35 a month for some older Americans in participating drug plans.

    But because it was voluntary, only 38% of all Medicare drug plans, including Medicare Advantage plans, participated in 2022, according to KFF. Trump’s plan also covered only one form of each dosage and insulin type.

    Biden points to the Inflation Reduction Act’s mandatory $35 monthly insulin cap as a major achievement. This cap applies to all Medicare prescription plans and expanded to all covered insulin types and dosages. Although Trump’s model was a start, it did not have the sweeping reach that Biden’s mandatory cap achieved.

    Biden: Trump “wants to get rid of the ACA again.”

    Half True. In 2016, Trump campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. In the White House, Trump supported a failed effort to do just that. He repeatedly said he would dismantle the health care law in campaign stops and social media posts throughout 2023. In March, however, Trump walked back this stance, writing on his Truth Social platform that he “isn’t running to terminate” the ACA but to make it “better” and “less expensive.” Trump hasn’t said how he would do this. He has often promised Obamacare replacement plans without ever producing one.

    Trump: “The problem [Democrats] have is they’re radical, because they will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth.”

    False. Willfully terminating a newborn’s life is infanticide and illegal in every U.S. state. 

    Most elected Democrats who have spoken publicly about this have said they support abortion under Roe v. Wade’s standard, which allowed access up to fetal viability — typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy, when the fetus can survive outside the womb. Many Democrats have also said they support abortions past this point if the treating physician deems it necessary.

    Medical experts say situations resulting in fetal death in the third trimester are rare — fewer than 1% of abortions in the U.S. occur after 21 weeks — and typically involve fatal fetal anomalies or life-threatening emergencies affecting the pregnant person. For fetuses with very short life expectancies, doctors may induce labor and offer palliative care. Some families choose this option when facing diagnoses that limit their babies’ survival to minutes or days after delivery.

    Read our latest health and medical news

    Some Republicans who have made claims similar to Trump’s point to Democratic support of the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022, which would have prohibited many state government restrictions on access to abortion, citing the bill’s provisions that say providers and patients have the right to perform and receive abortion services without certain limitations or requirements that would impede access. Anti-abortion advocates say the bill, which failed in the Senate by a 49-51 vote, would have created a loophole that eliminated any limits on abortions later in pregnancy.

    Alina Salganicoff, director of KFF’s Women’s Health Policy program, said the legislation would have allowed health providers to perform abortions without obstacles such as waiting periods, medically unnecessary tests and in-person visits, or other restrictions. The bill would have allowed an abortion after viability when, according to the bill, “in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”

    Trump: “Social Security, he’s destroying it, because millions of people are pouring into our country, and they’re putting them onto Social Security. They’re putting them onto Medicare, Medicaid.”

    False. It’s wrong to say that immigration will destroy Social Security. Social Security’s fiscal challenges stem from a shortage of workers compared with beneficiaries.

    Immigration is far from a fiscal fix-all for Social Security’s challenges. But having more immigrants in the United States would likely increase the worker-to-beneficiary ratio, potentially for decades, thus extending the program’s solvency.

    Most immigrants in the U.S. without legal permission are also ineligible for Social Security. However, people who entered the U.S. without authorization and were granted humanitarian parole — temporary permission to stay in the country — for more than one year are eligible for benefits from the program.

    Immigrants lacking legal residency in the U.S. are generally ineligible to enroll in federally funded health care coverage such as Medicare and Medicaid. (Some states provide Medicaid coverage under state-funded programs regardless of immigration status. Immigrants are eligible for emergency Medicaid regardless of their legal status.)


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

    Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.


    Time is running out for free Covid vaccines, tests, and many treatment for Americans

    Covid rapid tests will no longer be free
    Alexandra Koch/Pixabay
    Government pandemic policies that gave free Covid vaccines and tests to the general public will disappear in two months. The medical and insurance industries are gearing up to capitalize on what looks like a voluptuous revenue stream the virus that will likely never end starting on May 11.

    by Julie Appleby
    Kaiser Health News
    We see a double-digit billion[-dollar] market opportunity
    The White House announced this month that the national public health emergency, first declared in early 2020 in response to the pandemic, is set to expire May 11. When it ends, so will many of the policies designed to combat the virus's spread.

    Take vaccines. Until now, the federal government has been purchasing covid-19 shots. It recently bought 105 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent booster for about $30.48 a dose, and 66 million doses of Moderna's version for $26.36 a dose. (These are among the companies that developed the first covid vaccines sold in the United States.)

    People will be able to get these vaccines at low or no cost as long as the government-purchased supplies last. But even before the end date for the public emergency was set, Congress opted not to provide more money to increase the government's dwindling stockpile. As a result, Pfizer and Moderna were already planning their moves into the commercial market. Both have indicated they will raise prices, somewhere in the range of $110 to $130 per dose, though insurers and government health programs could negotiate lower rates.

    "We see a double-digit billion[-dollar] market opportunity," investors were told at a JPMorgan conference in San Francisco recently by Ryan Richardson, chief strategy officer for BioNTech. The company expects a gross price — the full price before any discounts — of $110 a dose, which, Richardson said, "is more than justified from a health economics perspective."

    That could translate to tens of billions of dollars in revenue for the manufacturers, even if uptake of the vaccines is slow. And consumers would foot the bill, either directly or indirectly.

    If half of adults — about the same percentage as those who opt for an annual flu shot — get covid boosters at the new, higher prices, a recent KFF report estimated, insurers, employers, and other payors would shell out $12.4 billion to $14.8 billion. That's up to nearly twice as much as what it would have cost for every adult in the U.S. to get a bivalent booster at the average price paid by the federal government.

    As for covid treatments, an August blog post by the Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response noted that government-purchased supplies of the drug Paxlovid are expected to last through midyear before the private sector takes over. The government's bulk purchase price from manufacturer Pfizer was $530 for a course of treatment, and it isn't yet known what the companies will charge once government supplies run out.

    How Much of That Pinch Will Consumers Feel?

    One thing is certain: How much, if any, of the boosted costs are passed on to consumers will depend on their health coverage.

    Medicare beneficiaries, those enrolled in Medicaid — the state-federal health insurance program for people with low incomes — and people with Affordable Care Act coverage will continue to get covid vaccines without cost sharing, even when the public health emergency ends and the government-purchased vaccines run out. Many people with job-based insurance will also likely not face copayments for vaccines, unless they go out of network for their vaccinations. People with limited-benefit or short-term insurance policies might have to pay for all or part of their vaccinations. And people who don't have insurance will need to either pay the full cost out-of-pocket or seek no- or low-cost vaccinations from community clinics or other providers. If they cannot find a free or low-cost option, some uninsured patients may be forced to skip vaccinations or testing.

    Coming up with what could be $100 or more for vaccination will be especially hard "if you are uninsured or underinsured; that's where these price hikes could drive additional disparities," said Sean Robbins, executive vice president of external affairs for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Those increases, he said, will also affect people with insurance, as the costs "flow through to premiums."

    Meanwhile, public policy experts say many private insurers will continue to cover Paxlovid, although patients may face a copayment, at least until they meet their deductible, just as they do for other medications. Medicaid will continue to cover it without cost to patients until at least 2024. But Medicare coverage will be limited until the treatment goes through the regular FDA process, which takes longer than the emergency use authorization it has been marketed under.

    Another complication: The rolls of the uninsured are likely to climb over the next year, as states are poised to reinstate the process of regularly determining Medicaid eligibility, which was halted during the pandemic. Starting in April, states will begin reassessing whether Medicaid enrollees meet income and other qualifying factors.

    An estimated 5 million to 14 million people nationwide might lose coverage.

    "This is our No. 1 concern" right now, said John Baackes, CEO of L.A. Care, the nation's largest publicly operated health plan with 2.7 million members.

    "They may not realize they've lost coverage until they go to fill a prescription" or seek other medical care, including vaccinations, he said.

    What About Covid Test Kits?

    Rules remain in place for insurers, including Medicare and Affordable Care Act plans, to cover the cost of up to eight in-home test kits a month for each person on the plan, until the public health emergency ends.

    For consumers — including those without insurance — a government website is still offering up to four test kits per household, until they run out. The Biden administration shifted funding to purchase additional kits and made them available in late December.

    Starting in May, though, beneficiaries in original Medicare and many people with private, job-based insurance will have to start paying out-of-pocket for the rapid antigen test kits. Some Medicare Advantage plans, which are an alternative to original Medicare, might opt to continue covering them without a copayment. Policies will vary, so check with your insurer. And Medicaid enrollees can continue to get the test kits without cost for a little over a year.

    State rules also can vary, and continued coverage without cost sharing for covid tests, treatments, and vaccines after the health emergency ends might be available with some health plans.

    Overall, the future of covid tests, vaccines, and treatments will reflect the complicated mix of coverage consumers already navigate for most other types of care.

    "From a consumer perspective, vaccines will still be free, but for treatments and test kits, a lot of people will face cost sharing," said Jen Kates, a senior vice president at KFF. "We're taking what was universal access and now saying we're going back to how it is in the regular U.S. health system."


    KHN correspondent Darius Tahir contributed to this report.

    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.



    More Sentinel Stories