Federal and state regulators aren't doing enough to stop the growing problem of rogue health insurance brokers making unauthorized policy switches for Affordable Care Act policyholders, say consumers, agents, nonprofit enrollee assistance groups, and other insurance experts.
"We think it's urgent and it requires a lot more attention and resources," said Jennifer Sullivan, director of health coverage access for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees the ACA, "has acknowledged the issue," said former Oklahoma insurance commissioner John Doak. "But it appears their response is inadequate."
The reactions follow a KFF Health News article outlining how licensed brokers' easy access to policyholder information on healthcare.gov has led unscrupulous agents to switch people's policies without express permission. Those agents can then take the commission that comes with signing a new customer. Dozens of people and insurance brokers responded to the earlier report recounting similar situations.
Some switched policyholders end up in plans that don't include their doctors or the medications they regularly take, or come with higher deductibles than their original coverage choice. If their income or eligibility for premium tax credits is misrepresented, some people end up owing back taxes.
Agents whose clients have been affected say the switches ramped up last year and are continuing into 2024, although quantifying the problem continues to be difficult. The problem seems concentrated on the federal healthcare.gov website, which is the marketplace where people in 32 states buy ACA plans, which are also known as Obamacare. CMS declined to provide the number of complaints that have been filed.
Even so, CMS representatives said during a December committee meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that they were "acutely aware" of the problem and were working on solutions.
A similar NAIC gathering was held in March. During those meetings, state regulators urged CMS officials to look for unauthorized switches, rather than reacting only to filed complaints. State regulators also want the agency to tell them sooner about agents or brokers under investigation, and to be provided with the number of affected consumers in their regions.
In an April 4 written statement to KFF Health News, Jeff Wu, acting director of CMS' Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, pointed to the agency's sharp prohibition on agents enrolling people or changing their plans without getting written or recorded consent, and said his team is "analyzing potential additional system controls to block unauthorized or fraudulent activity."
It is also working with state regulators and large broker agencies, Wu wrote, to identify "the most effective ways to root out bad actors." He also said more agents and brokers are being suspended or terminated from healthcare.gov.
Wu did not provide, however, a tally of just how many have been sanctioned.
Low-income consumers are often targeted, possibly because they qualify for zero-premium plans, meaning they might not know they've been switched or enrolled because they aren't paying a monthly bill.
Also, rules took effect in 2022 that allow low-income residents to enroll at any time of the year, not just during the annual open enrollment period. While the change was meant to help people who most need to access coverage, it has had the unintended effect of creating an opportunity for this scheme to ramp up.
"There have been bad apples out there signing people up and capturing the commissions to do so for a while, but it's exacerbated in the last couple of years, turning it from a few isolated incidents to something more common," said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.
Many victims don't know they've been switched until they try to use their plans — either because agents changed the policy without talking to them or because the consumer unknowingly enrolled by responding to online advertisements promising gift cards, government subsidies, or free health insurance.
The challenge now is how federal regulators and their counterparts in the states can thwart the activity without diminishing enrollment — a top priority for the marketplace. In fact, Obamacare's record-breaking enrollment figures are being touted prominently in President Joe Biden's reelection campaign.
Thwarting the switches "really comes down to oversight and enforcement," Corlette said. "As soon as regulators identify someone who is engaged in unauthorized plan-switching or enrollment, they need to cut them off immediately."
That isn't simple.
For starters, consumers or their agents must report suspected problems to state and federal regulators before investigations are launched.
Such investigations can take weeks and states generally don't have access to complaints until federal investigators finish an inquiry, state regulators complained during the NAIC meetings.
Doak attended the December meeting, where he urged federal regulators to look for patterns that might indicate unauthorized switching — such as policyholders' coverage being changed multiple times in a short period — and then quickly initiate follow-up with the consumer.
"All regulators have a duty to get on top of this issue and protect the most vulnerable consumers from unknowingly having their policies moved or their information mistreated," Doak told KFF Health News. He is now executive vice president of government affairs for Insurance Care Direct, a health insurance brokerage.
Being more proactive requires funding.
Wu said the agency's administrative budget has remained nearly flat for 13 years even as enrollment has grown sharply in the ACA and the other health programs it oversees.
And the complaint process itself can be cumbersome because it can involve different state or federal agencies lacking coordination.
Even after complaints are filed, state or federal officials follow up directly with the consumer, who might have limited English proficiency, lack an email address, or simply not answer their phone — which can stall or stop a resolution, said Katie Roders Turner, executive director of the Family Healthcare Foundation, a Tampa Bay, Florida, nonprofit that helps people enroll or deal with problems that arise with their plans.
Suggested improvements include creating a central form or portal for complaints and beefing up safeguards on the healthcare.gov site to prevent such unauthorized activity in the first place.
Currently, licensed agents need only a name, date of birth, and state of residence to access policyholder information and make changes. That information is easy to obtain.
States that run their own marketplaces — there are 18 and the District of Columbia — often require more information, such as a one-time passcode sent to the consumer, who then gives it to their chosen agent.
In the meantime, the frustration is increasing.
Lauren Phillips, a sales agent in Georgia, said she reached out to an agent in Florida who was switching one of her clients, asking her to stop. When it happened again to the same client, she reported it to regulators.
"Their solution was for me to just watch the policy and fix it if it happens again, which is not a viable solution, "Phillips said.
Recently, after noticing the client's policy had been switched again, she reported it and changed it back. When she checked two mornings later, the policy had been terminated.
"Now my client has no insurance at all," Phillips said. "They say they are working on solutions. But here we are in the fourth month of the year and agents and consumers are still suffering at the hands of these terrible agents."
The cost of insulin in the United States has risen considerably in recent years, with some estimates finding that Americans have paid around 10 times as much for the drug as people in other developed countries.
But recent changes by the federal government and drug manufacturers have started to drive insulin prices down, something President Joe Biden often mentions at campaign events.
Biden told the crowd at a March 19 campaign reception in Reno, Nevada, that he's fought for years to allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies.
"How many of you know someone who needs insulin?" Biden asked. "OK, well, guess what? It was costing 400 bucks a month on average. It now costs $35 a month."
We've heard Biden make this point several times on the campaign trail — in other instances, he has said beneficiaries were paying "as much as" $400 a month — so we wanted to look into it.
The Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden signed in 2022, caps out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 a month for Medicare enrollees. The cap took effect in 2023. In response, three drug manufacturers said they planned to reduce the price of insulin to $35 through price caps or savings programs.
The legislation also helped patients by clarifying how much they would have to pay for insulin and other drugs.
But Biden overstated the average monthly cost that Medicare beneficiaries were paying before the law.
One government estimate for out-of-pocket insulin costs found that people with diabetes enrolled in Medicare or private insurance paid an average of $452 a year — not a month, as Biden said. That's according to a December 2022 report by the Department of Health and Human Services using 2019 data. Uninsured users, however, paid more than twice as much on average for the drug, or about $996 annually.
Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.
Your Email Address
About Half of US Insulin Users Are on Medicare
More than 37 million Americans have diabetes, and more than 7 million of them need insulin to control their blood sugar levels and prevent dangerous complications. Of the Americans who take the drug, about 52% are on Medicare.
It's unlikely that many Medicare enrollees were paying the $400 out-of-pocket monthly average Biden referred to, though it could be on target for some people, especially if they're uninsured, drug pricing experts told us.
"It would be more accurate to say that it could cost people on Medicare over $400 for a month of insulin, but the average cost would have been quite a bit lower than $400 on Medicare," said Stacie Dusetzina, a health policy professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Medicare Part D, also called the Medicare prescription drug benefit, helps beneficiaries pay for self-administered prescriptions. The benefit has several phases, including a deductible, an initial coverage phase, a coverage gap phase, and catastrophic coverage. What Medicare beneficiaries pay for their prescriptions often depends on which phase they're in.
"It is confusing, because the amount that a person was supposed to pay jumps around a lot in the Part D benefit," Dusetzina said. For example, she said, Medicare beneficiaries would be more likely to pay $400 a month for insulin during months when they hadn't yet met their deductible.
Mariana Socal, an associate scientist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said it's also difficult to estimate insulin's precise cost under Medicare because individual prices hinge on other factors, such as how many other prescription medications patients take.
"Because the Medicare program has multiple instances where the patient is required to pay a coinsurance (percentage of the drug's cost) to get their drug, it is very likely that patients were paying much more than $35 per month, on average, before the cap established by the Inflation Reduction Act went into effect," Socal wrote in an email.
There are different ways to administer insulin, including through a pump, inhaler, or pen injector filled with the medicine.
In a 2023 report, HHS researchers estimated that about 37% of insulin fills for Medicare enrollees cost patients more than $35, and 24% of fills exceeded $70. Nationally, the average out-of-pocket cost for insulin was $58 per fill, typically for a 30-day supply, the report found. Patients with private insurance or Medicare paid about $63 per fill, on average.
For people with employer-sponsored insurance, the average monthly out-of-pocket spending on insulin in 2019 was $82, according to a report published in October 2021 by the Health Care Cost Institute, a nonprofit that studies health care prices. The study found that the majority of patients were spending an average of $35 a month, or lower, on the drug. But among the "8.7% of individuals in the highest spending category," the median monthly out-of-pocket spending on insulin was about $315, the study said.
Our Ruling
Biden said Medicare beneficiaries used to pay an average of $400 per month for insulin and are now paying $35 per month.
The Inflation Reduction Act capped the monthly price of insulin at $35 for Medicare enrollees, starting in 2023. The change built in price predictability and helped insulin users save hundreds of dollars a year.
However, most Medicare enrollees were not paying a monthly average of $400 before these changes, according to experts and government data. Costs vary, so it is possible some people paid that much in a given month, depending on their coverage phase and dosage.
Research has shown that patients with private insurance or Medicare often paid more than $35 a month for their insulin, sometimes much more, but not as high as the $400 average Biden cited.
We rate Biden's statement Half True.
PolitiFact copy chief Matthew Crowley contributed to this report.
For Cindy Westman, $30 buys a week's worth of gas to drive to medical appointments and run errands.
It's also how much she spent on her monthly internet bill before the federal Affordable Connectivity Program stepped in and covered her payments.
"When you have low income and you are living on disability and your daughter's disabled, every dollar counts," said Westman, who lives in rural Illinois.
More than 23 million low-income households — urban, suburban, rural, and tribal — are enrolled in the federal discount program Congress created in 2021 to bridge the nation's digital connectivity gap. The program has provided $30 monthly subsidies for internet bills or $75 discounts in tribal and high-cost areas.
But the program is expected to run out of money in April or May, according to the Federal Communications Commission. In January, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel asked Congress to allocate $6 billion to keep the program running until the end of 2024. She said the subsidy gives Americans the "internet service they need to fully participate in modern life."
The importance of high-speed internet was seared into the American psyche by scenes of children sitting in parking lots and outside fast-food restaurants to attend school online during the COVID-19 pandemic. During that same period, health care providers and patients like Westman say, being connected also became a vital part of today's health care delivery system.
Westman said her internet connection has become so important to her access to health care she would sell "anything that I own" to stay connected.
Westman, 43, lives in the small town of Eureka, Illinois, and has been diagnosed with genetic and immune system disorders. Her 12-year-old daughter has cerebral palsy and autism.
She steered the $30 saved on her internet toward taking care of her daughter, paying for things such as driving 30 minutes west to Peoria, Illinois, for two physical therapy appointments each week. And with an internet connection, Westman can access online medical records, and whenever possible she uses telehealth appointments to avoid the hour-plus drive to specialty care.
"It's essential for me to keep the internet going no matter what," Westman said.
Expanding telehealth is a common reason health care providers around the U.S. — in states such as Massachusetts and Arkansas — joined efforts to sign their patients up for the federal discount program.
"This is an issue that has real impacts on health outcomes," said Alister Martin, an emergency medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital. Martin realized at the height of the pandemic that patients with means were using telehealth to access covid care. But those seeking in-person care during his ER shifts tended to be lower-income, and often people of color.
"They have no other choice," Martin said. "But they probably don't need to be in the ER action." Martin became a White House fellow and later created a nonprofit that he said has helped 1,154 patients at health centers in Boston and Houston enroll in the discount program.
At the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, a federal grant was used to conduct dozens of outreach events and help patients enroll, said Joseph Sanford, an anesthesiologist and the director of the system's Institute for Digital Health & Innovation.
"We believe that telehealth is the great democratization to access to care," Sanford said. New enrollment in the discount program halted nationwide last month.
Leading up to the enrollment halt, Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) led a bipartisan effort to introduce the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act in January. The group requested $7 billion — more than the FCC's ask — to keep the program funded. "Affordability is everything," Welch said.
In December, federal regulators surveyed program recipients and found that 22% reported no internet service before, and 72% said they used their ACP-subsidized internet to "schedule or attend healthcare appointments."
Estimates of how many low-income U.S. households qualify for the program vary, but experts agree that only about half of the roughly 50 million eligible households have signed on.
"A big barrier for this program generally was people don't know about it," said Brian Whitacre, a professor and the Neustadt chair in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University.
Whitacre and others said rural households should be signing up at even higher rates than urban ones because a higher percentage of them are eligible.
Yet, people found signing up for the program laborious. Enrollment was a two-step process. Applicants were required to get approved by the federal government then work with an internet service provider that would apply the discount. The government application was online — hard to get to if you didn't yet have internet service — though applicants could try to find a way to download a version, print it, and submit the application by mail.
When Frances Goli, the broadband project manager for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in Idaho, began enrolling tribal and community members at the Fort Hall Reservation last year, she found that many residents did not know about the program — even though it had been approved more than a year earlier.
Goli and Amber Hastings, an AmeriCorps member with the University of Idaho Extension Digital Economy Program, spent hours helping residents through the arduous process of finding the proper tribal documentation required to receive the larger $75 discount for those living on tribal lands.
"That was one of the biggest hurdles," Goli said. "They're getting denied and saying, come back with a better document. And that is just frustrating for our community members."
Of the more than 200 households Goli and Hastings aided, about 40% had not had internet before.
In the tribal lands of Oklahoma, said Sachin Gupta, director of government business and economic development at internet service provider Centranet, years ago the funding may not have mattered.
"But then covid hit," Gupta said. "The stories I have heard."
Elders, he said, reportedly "died of entirely preventable causes" such as high blood pressure and diabetes because they feared covid in the clinics.
"It's really important to establish connectivity," Gupta said. The end of the discounts will "take a toll."
DENVER — In February, Norma Brambila's teenage daughter wrote her a letter she now carries in her purse. It is a drawing of a rose, and a note encouraging Brambila to "keep fighting" her sickness and reminding her she'd someday join her family in heaven.
Brambila, a community organizer who emigrated from Mexico a quarter-century ago, had only a sinus infection, but her children had never seen her so ill. "I was in bed for four days," she said.
Lacking insurance, Brambila had avoided seeking care, hoping garlic and cinnamon would do the trick. But when she felt she could no longer breathe, she went to an emergency room. The $365 bill — enough to cover a week of groceries for her family — was more than she could afford, pushing her into debt. It also affected another decision she'd been weighing: whether to go to Mexico for surgery to remove the growth in her abdomen that she said is as big as a papaya.
Brambila lives in a southwestern Denver neighborhood called Westwood, a largely Hispanic, low-income community where many residents are immigrants. Westwood is also in a ZIP code, 80219, with some of the highest levels of medical debt in Colorado.
More than 1 in 5 adults there have historically had unpaid medical bills on their credit reports, more in line with West Virginia than the rest of Colorado, according to 2022 credit data analyzed by the nonprofit Urban Institute.
The area's struggles reflect a paradox about Colorado. The state's overall medical debt burden is lower than most. But racial and ethnic disparities are wider.
The gap between the debt burden in ZIP codes where residents are primarily Hispanic and/or non-white and ZIP codes that are primarily non-Hispanic white is twice what it is nationally. (Hispanics can be of any race or combination of races.)
Medical debt in Colorado is also concentrated in ZIP codes with relatively high shares of immigrants, many of whom are from Mexico. The Urban Institute found that 19% of adults in these places had medical debt on their credit reports, compared with 11% in communities with fewer immigrants.
Nationwide, about 100 million people have some form of health care debt, according to a KFF Health News-NPR investigation. This includes not only unpaid bills that end up in collections, but also those being paid off through installment plans, credit cards, or other loans.
Racial and ethnic gaps in medical debt exist nearly everywhere, data shows. But Colorado's divide — on par with South Carolina's, according to the Urban Institute data — exists even though the state has some of the most extensive medical debt protections in the country.
The gap threatens to deepen long-standing inequalities, say patient and consumer advocates. And it underscores the need for more action to address medical debt.
"It exacerbates racial wealth gaps," said Berneta Haynes, a senior attorney with the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center who co-authored a report on medical debt and racial disparities. Haynes said too many Colorado residents, especially residents of color, are still caught in a vicious cycle in which they forgo medical care to avoid bills, leading to worse health and more debt.
Brambila said she has seen this cycle all too often around Westwood in her work as a community organizer. "I really would love to help people to pay their medical bills," she said.
Health or Debt?
Roxana Burciaga, who grew up in Westwood and works at Mi Casa Resource Center there, said she hears questions at least once a week about how to pay for medical care.
Medical debt is a "big, big, big topic in our community," she said. People don't understand what their insurance actually covers or can't get appointments for preventive care that suit their work schedules, she said.
Many, like Brambila, skip preventive care to avoid the bills and end up in the emergency room.
Doctors and nurses say they see the strains, as well.
Amber Koch-Laking, a family physician at Denver Health's Westwood Family Health Center, part of the city's public health system, said finances often come up in conversations with patients. Many patients try to get telehealth appointments to avoid the cost of going in person.
Adding to the crunch is Medicaid "unwinding", the process of states reexamining post-pandemic eligibility for health coverage for low-income people, Koch-Laking said. "They say, ‘Oh, I'm losing my Medicaid in three weeks, can you take care of these seven things without a visit?' Or like, ‘Can we just do it over the portal, because I can't afford it?'"
Looking for the Right Fix
Colorado has taken steps to protect patients from medical debt, including expanding Medicaid coverage through the 2010 Affordable Care Act. More recently, state leaders required hospitals to expand financial assistance for low-income patients and barred all medical debts from consumers' credit reports.
But the complexities of many assistance programs remain a major barrier for immigrants and others with limited English, said Julissa Soto, a Denver-based health equity consultant focused on Latino Coloradans.
Many patients, for example, may not know they can seek help with medical bills from the state or community nonprofits.
"The health care system is a puzzle. You better learn how to play with puzzles," said Soto, who said she was sent to collections for medical bills when she first immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico. "Many hospitals also have funding to help out with your debt. You just have to get to the right person, because it seems that nobody wants to let us know that those programs exist."
She said simplifying bills would go a long way to helping many patients.
Several states, including Oregon, Maryland, and Illinois, have tried to make it easier for people to access hospital financial aid by requiring hospitals to proactively screen patients.
Patient and consumer advocates say Colorado could also further restrict aggressive debt collection, such as lawsuits, which remain common in the state.
New York, for example, banned wage garnishment after finding that the practice disproportionately affected low-income communities. Research there also showed that medical debt burden was falling about twice as hard on communities of color as it was on non-Hispanic white communities.
Elisabeth Benjamin, a lawyer with the Community Service Society of New York, said hospitals were garnishing the wages of people working at Walmart and Taco Bell.
Maryland enacted limits on debt collection lawsuits after advocates found that patients living in predominantly minority neighborhoods were being disproportionately targeted. Even in wealthy counties, "the pockets that are being pursued are majority Latino neighborhoods," said Marceline White, executive director of the advocacy group Economic Action Maryland.
White's group helped pass a law requiring hospitals to pay back low-income patients and avoid the scenario she was seeing, in which hospitals were "suing patients who should have gotten free care."
Meanwhile, some consumer advocates say existing protections aren't working well enough.
State data shows patients who received financial assistance were primarily white. And, though it's unclear why, 42% of patients who may have been eligible were not fully screened by hospitals for financial assistance.
"What is clear is that a lot of people are not making it through," said Bethany Pray, deputy director of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, a Denver-based legal aid group that pushed for the discounted care legislation.
Within the state's immigrant communities, medical debt — and the fear of debt — continues to take a heavy toll.
"What we've heard from our constituents is that medical debt sometimes is the difference between them being housed and them being unhoused," said Denver City Council member Shontel Lewis. Her district includes the 80216 ZIP code, another place north of the city center that is saddled with widespread medical debt.
Paola Becerra is an immigrant living in the U.S. without legal permission who was pregnant when she was bused to Denver from a Texas shelter a few months ago.
She said she has skipped prenatal care visits because she couldn't afford the $50 copays. She has emergency health coverage through Medicaid, but it doesn't cover preventive visits, and she has already racked up about $1,600 in bills.
"I didn't know that I was going to arrive pregnant," said Becerra, who thought she could no longer conceive when she left Colombia. "You have to give up your health. Either I pay the rent, or I pay the hospital."
For Rocio Leal, a community organizer in Boulder, medical debt has become a defining feature of her life.
Despite the health insurance she had through her job, Leal ended up with high-interest payday loans to pay for healthy births, wage garnishment, prenatal appointments she missed to save money, and a "ruined" credit score, which limited her housing options.
Leal recalled times she thought they'd be evicted and other times the electricity was cut off. "It's not like we're avoiding and don't want to pay. It's just sometimes we don't have an option to pay," she said.
Leal said the worst times are behind her now. She's in a home she loves, where neighbors bring cakes over to thank her son for shoveling the snow off their driveway.
Her children are doing well. One daughter got a perfect GPA for the second semester in a row. Another is playing violin in the school orchestra. Her third daughter attends art club. And her son was recently accepted to college for biomedical engineering. They are covered by Medicaid, which has removed the uncertainty around big medical bills.
But medical debt still haunts Leal, who has Type 2 diabetes.
When she was referred to Boulder Medical Center to get her eyes checked after the diabetes diagnosis, she said she was told there was a red flag by her name. The last time she'd interacted with the medical center was about a dozen years earlier, when she'd been unable to pay pediatrician bills.
"I was in the process of moving and then my wages were garnished," she recalled. "I just was like, ‘What else do I owe?'"
Heart pounding, she hung up the phone.
KFF Health News senior correspondent Noam N. Levey contributed to this report.
Patients hurl verbal abuse at Michelle Ravera every day in the emergency room. Physical violence is less common, she said, but has become a growing threat.
Ravera, an ER nurse at Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento, recalled an incident in which an agitated patient wanted to leave. "Without any warning he just reached up, grabbed my glasses, and punched me in the face," said Ravera, 54. "And then he was getting ready to attack another patient in the room." Ravera and hospital security guards subdued the patient so he couldn't hurt anyone else.
Violence against health care workers is on the rise, including in the ER, where tensions can run high as staff juggle multiple urgent tasks. Covid-19 only made things worse: With routine care harder to come by, many patients ended up in the ER with serious diseases — and brimming with frustrations.
In California, simple assault against workers inside an ER is considered the same as simple assault against almost anyone else, and carries a maximum punishment of a $1,000 fine and six months in jail. In contrast, simple assault against emergency medical workers in the field, such as an EMT responding to a 911 call, carries maximum penalties of a $2,000 fine and a year in jail. Simple assault does not involve the use of a deadly weapon or the intention to inflict serious bodily injury.
State Assembly member Freddie Rodriguez, who worked as an EMT, has authored a bill to make the punishments consistent: a $2,000 fine and one year in jail for simple assault on any on-the-job emergency health care worker, whether in the field or an ER. The measure would also eliminate the discrepancy for simple battery.
Patients and family members are assaulting staff and "doing things they shouldn't be doing to the people that are there to take care of your loved ones," said Rodriguez, a Democrat from Pomona. The bill passed the state Assembly unanimously in January and awaits consideration in the Senate.
Rodriguez has introduced similar measures twice before. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed one in 2015, saying he doubted a longer jail sentence would deter violence. "We need to find more creative ways to protect the safety of these critical workers," he wrote in his veto message. The 2019 bill died in the state Senate.
Rodriguez said ERs have become more dangerous for health care workers since then and that "there has to be accountability" for violent behavior. Opponents fear stiffer penalties would be levied disproportionately on patients of color or those with developmental disabilities. They also point out that violent patients can already face penalties under existing assault and battery laws.
Data from the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health shows that reported attacks on ER workers by patients, visitors, and strangers jumped about 25% from 2018 to 2023, from 2,587 to 3,238. The rate of attacks per 100,000 ER visits also increased.
Punching, kicking, pushing, and similar aggression accounted for most of the attacks. Only a small number included weapons.
These numbers are likely an undercount, said Al'ai Alvarez, an ER doctor and clinical associate professor at Stanford University's Department of Emergency Medicine. Many hospital staffers don't fill out workplace violence reports because they don't have time or feel nothing will come of it, he said.
Ravera remembers when her community rallied around health care workers at the start of the pandemic, acting respectfully and bringing food and extra N95 masks to workers.
"Then something just switched," she said. "The patients became angrier and more aggressive."
Violence can contribute to burnout and drive workers to quit — or worse, said Alvarez, who has lost colleagues to suicide, and thinks burnout was a key factor. "The cost of burnout is more than just loss of productivity," he said. "It's loss of human beings that also had the potential to take care of many more people."
The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects California will experience an 18% shortage of all types of nurses in 2035, the third worst in the country.
Federal legislation called the Safety From Violence for Healthcare Employees Act would set sentences of up to 10 years for assault against a health care worker, not limited to emergency workers, and up to 20 years in cases involving dangerous weapons or bodily injury. Though it was introduced in 2023, it has not yet had a committee hearing.
Opponents of the California bill, which include ACLU California Action, the California Public Defenders Association, and advocates for people with autism, argue it wouldn't deter attacks — and would unfairly target certain patients.
"There's no evidence to suggest that increased penalties are going to meaningfully address this conduct," said Eric Henderson, a legislative advocate for ACLU California Action. "Most importantly, there are already laws on the books to address assaultive conduct."
Beth Burt, executive director of the Autism Society Inland Empire, said the measure doesn't take into account the special needs of people with autism and other developmental disorders.
The smells, lights, textures, and crowds in the ER can overstimulate a person with autism, she said. When that happens, they can struggle to articulate their feelings, which can result in a violent outburst, "whether it's a 9-year-old or a 29-year-old," Burt said.
She worries that hospital staff may misunderstand these reactions, and involve law enforcement when it's not necessary. As "a parent, it is still my worst fear" that she'll get a phone call to inform her that her adult son with autism has been arrested, she said.
Burt would rather the state prioritize de-escalation programs over penalties, such as the training programs for first responders she helped create through the Autism Society Inland Empire. After implementing the training, hospital administrators asked Burt to share some strategies with them, she said. Hospital security staffers who do not want to use physical restraints on autistic patients have also sought her advice, she said.
Supporters of the bill, including health care and law enforcement groups, counter that people with mental health conditions or autism who are charged with assault in an ER may be eligible for existing programs that provide mental health treatment in lieu of a criminal sentence.
Stephanie Jensen, an ER nurse and head of governmental affairs for the Emergency Nurses Association, California State Council, said her organization is simply arguing for equity. "If you punch me in the hospital, it's the same as if you punch me on the street," she said.
If lawmakers don't act, she warned, there won't be enough workers for the patients who need them.
"It's hard to keep those human resources accessible when it just seems like you're showing up to get beat up every day," Jensen said. "The emergency department is taking it on the chin, literally and figuratively."
The loss of a trusted doctor is never easy, and it's an experience that is increasingly common.
This article was published on Tuesday, April 2, 2024 in KFF Health News.
First, her favorite doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, retired. Then her other doctor at a health center a few miles away left the practice. Now, Piedad Fred has developed a new chronic condition: distrust in the American medical system.
"I don't know," she said, her eyes filling with tears. "To go to a doctor that doesn't know who you are? That doesn't know what allergies you have, the medicines that make you feel bad? It's difficult."
At 71, Fred has never been vaccinated against covid-19. She no longer gets an annual flu shot. And she hasn't considered whether to be vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, even though her age and an asthma condition put her at higher risk of severe infection.
"It's not that I don't believe in vaccines," Fred, a Colombian immigrant, said in Spanish at her home last fall. "It's just that I don't have faith in doctors."
The loss of a trusted doctor is never easy, and it's an experience that is increasingly common.
The stress of the pandemic drove a lot of health care workers to retire or quit. Now, a nationwide shortage of doctors and others who provide primary care is making it hard to find replacements. And as patients are shuffled from one provider to the next, it's eroding their trust in the health system.
The American Medical Association's president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, recently called the physician shortage a "public health crisis."
In Fred's home state of Rhode Island, the percentage of people without a regular source of routine health care increased from 2021 to 2022, though the state's residents still do better than most Americans.
Hispanic residents and those with less than a high school education are less likely to have a source of routine health care, according to the nonprofit organization Rhode Island Foundation.
The community health centers known as federally qualified health centers, or FQHCs, are the safety net of last resort, serving the uninsured, the underinsured, and other vulnerable people. There are more than 1,400 community health centers nationwide, and about two-thirds of them lost between 5% and a quarter of their workforce during a six-month period in 2022, according to a report by the National Association of Community Health Centers.
Another 15% of FQHCs reported losing between a quarter and half of their staff. And it's not just doctors: The most severe shortage, the survey found, was among nurses.
In a domino effect, the shortage of clinicians has placed additional burdens on support staff members such as medical assistants and other unlicensed workers.
Their extra tasks include "sterilizing equipment, keeping more logs, keeping more paperwork, working with larger patient loads," said Jesse Martin, executive vice president of District 1199 NE of the Service Employees International Union, which represents 29,000 health care workers in Connecticut and Rhode Island.
"When you add that work to the same eight hours' worth of a day's work you can't get everything done," Martin said.
Last October, scores of SEIU members who work at Providence Community Health Centers, Rhode Island's largest FQHC, held an informational picket outside the clinics, demanding improvements in staffing, work schedules, and wages.
The marketing and communications director for PCHC, Brett Davey, declined to comment.
Staff discontent has rippled through community health care centers across the country. In Chicago, workers at three health clinics held a two-day strike in November, demanding higher pay, better benefits, and a smaller workload.
Then just before Thanksgiving at Unity Health Care, the largest federally qualified health center in Washington, D.C., doctors and other medical providers voted to unionize. They said they were being pressed to prioritize patient volume over quality of care, leading to job burnout and more staff turnover.
The staffing shortages come as community health centers are caring for more patients. The number of people served by the centers between 2015 and 2022 increased by 24% nationally, and by 32.6% in Rhode Island, according to the Rhode Island Health Center Association, or RIHCA.
"As private practices close or get smaller, we are seeing patient demand go up at the health centers," said Elena Nicolella, RIHCA's president and CEO. "Now with the workforce challenges, it's very difficult to meet that patient demand."
In Rhode Island, community health centers in 2022 served about 1 in 5 residents, which is more than twice the national average of 1 in 11 people, according to RIHCA.
Job vacancy rates at Rhode Island's community health centers are 21% for physicians, 18% for physician assistants and nurse practitioners, and 10% for registered nurses, according to six of the state's eight health centers that responded to a survey conducted by RIHCA for The Public's Radio, NPR, and KFF Health News.
Pediatricians are also in short supply. Last year, 15 pediatricians left staff positions at the Rhode Island health centers, and seven of them have yet to be replaced.
These clinicians often want to give back to the community, she said, and are motivated to practice "a kind of medicine that is maybe less corporate," and through which they can they develop close relationships with patients and within multigenerational families.
So when workplace pressures make it harder for these clinicians to meet their patients' needs, they are more likely to burn out, Burdette said.
When a doctor quits or retires, Carla Martin, a pediatrician and an internist, often gets asked to help. The week before Thanksgiving, she was filling in at two urgent care clinics in Providence.
"We're seeing a lot of people coming in for things that are really primary care issues, not urgent care issues, just because it's really hard to get appointments," Martin said.
One patient recently visited urgent care asking for a refill of her asthma medication. "She said, ‘I ran out of my asthma medicine, I can't get a hold of my PCP for refill, I keep calling, I can't get through,'" Martin said.
Stories like that worry Christopher Koller, president of the Milbank Memorial Fund, a nonprofit philanthropy focused on health policy. "When people say, ‘I can't get an appointment with my doctor,' that means they don't have a usual source of care anymore," Koller said.
Koller points to research showing that having a consistent relationship with a doctor or other primary care clinician is associated with improvements in overall health and fewer emergency room visits.
When that relationship is broken, patients can lose trust in their health care providers.
That's how it felt to Piedad Fred, the Colombian immigrant who stopped getting vaccinated. Fred used to go to a community health center in Rhode Island, but then accessing care there began to frustrate her.
She described making repeated phone calls for a same-day appointment, only to be told that none were available and that she should try again tomorrow. After one visit, she said, one of her prescriptions never made it to the pharmacy.
And there was another time when she waited 40 minutes in the exam room to consult with a physician assistant — who then said she couldn't give her a cortisone shot for her knee, as her doctor used to do.
Fred said that she won't be going back.
So what will she do the next time she gets sick or injured and needs medical care?
"Well, I'll be going to a hospital," she said in Spanish.
But experts warn that more people crowding into hospital emergency rooms will only further strain the health system, and the people who work there.
From spring break parties to Mardi Gras, many people remember the last major "normal" thing they did before the novel coronavirus pandemic dawned, forcing governments worldwide to issue stay-at-home advisories and shutdowns.
Even before the first case of COVID-19 was detected in the U.S., fears and uncertainties helped spur misinformation's rapid spread. In March 2020, schools closed, employers sent staff to work from home, and grocery stores called for physical distancing to keep people safe. But little halted the flow of misleading claims that sent fact-checkers and public health officials into overdrive.
Some people falsely asserted COVID's symptoms were associated with 5G wireless technology. Faux cures and untested treatments populated social media and political discourse. Amid uncertainty about the virus's origins, some people proclaimed COVID didn't exist at all. PolitiFact named "downplay and denial" about the virus its 2020 "Lie of the Year."
Four years later, people's lives are largely free of the extreme public health measures that restricted them early in the pandemic. But COVID misinformation persists, although it's now centered mostly on vaccines and vaccine-related conspiracy theories.
"From a misinformation researcher perspective, [there has been] shifting levels of trust," said Tara Kirk Sell, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. "Early on in the pandemic, there was a lot of: ‘This isn't real,' fake cures, and then later on, we see more vaccine-focused mis- and disinformation and a more partisan type of disinformation and misinformation."
Here are some of the most persistent COVID misinformation narratives we see today:
A Loss of Trust in the Vaccines
COVID vaccines were quickly developed, with U.S. patients receiving the first shots in December 2020, 11 months after the first domestic case was detected.
Experts credit the speedy development with helping to save millions of lives and preventing hospitalizations. Researchers at the University of Southern California and Brown University calculated that vaccines saved 2.4 million lives in 141 countries starting from the vaccines' rollout through August 2021 alone. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows there were 1,164 U.S. deaths provisionally attributed to COVID the week of March 2, down from nearly 26,000 at the pandemic's height in January 2021, as vaccines were just rolling out.
But on social media and in some public officials' remarks, misinformation about COVID vaccine efficacy and safety is common. U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has built his 2024 campaign on a movement that seeks to legitimize conspiracy theories about the vaccines. PolitiFact made that its 2023 "Lie of the Year."
PolitiFact has seen claims that spike proteins from vaccines are replacing sperm in vaccinated males. (That's false.) We've researched the assertion that vaccines can change your DNA. (That's misleading and ignores evidence). Social media posts poked fun at Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce for encouraging people to get vaccinated, asserting that the vaccine actually shuts off recipients' hearts. (No, it doesn't.) And some people pointed to an American Red Cross blood donation questionnaire as evidence that shots are unsafe. (PolitiFact rated that False.)
Experts say this misinformation has real-world effects.
A September 2023 survey by KFF found that 57% of Americans "say they are very or somewhat confident" in COVID vaccines. And those who distrust them are more likely to identify as politically conservative: Thirty-six percent of Republicans compared with 84% of Democrats say they are very or somewhat confident in the vaccine.
Immunization rates for routine vaccines for other conditions have also taken a hit. Measles had been eradicated for more than 20 years in the U.S. but there have been recent outbreaks in states including Florida, Maryland, and Ohio. Florida's surgeon general has expressed skepticism about vaccines and rejectedguidance from the CDC about how to contain potentially deadly disease spread.
The vaccination rate among kindergartners has declined from 95% in the 2019-20 school year to 93% in 2022-23, according to the CDC. Public health officials have set a 95% vaccination rate target to prevent and reduce the risk of disease outbreaks. The CDC also found exemptions had risen to 3%, the highest rate ever recorded in the U.S.
Unsubstantiated Claims That Vaccines Cause Deaths or Other Illness
PolitiFact has seen repeated and unsubstantiated claims that COVID vaccines have caused mass numbers of deaths.
A recent widely shared post claimed 17 million people had died because of the vaccine, despite contrary evidence from multiple studies and institutions such as the World Health Organization and CDC that the vaccines are safe and help to prevent severe illness and death.
Another online post claimed the booster vaccine had eight strains of HIV and would kill 23% of the population. Vaccine manufacturers publish the ingredient lists; they do not include HIV. People living with HIV were among the people given priority access during early vaccine rollout to protect them from severe illness.
COVID vaccines also have been blamed for causing Alzheimer's and cancer. Experts have found no evidence the vaccines cause either conditions.
"You had this remarkable scientific or medical accomplishment contrasted with this remarkable rejection of that technology by a significant portion of the American public," said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
More than three years after vaccines became available, about 70% of Americans have completed a primary series of COVID vaccination, according to CDC figures. About 17% have gotten the most recent bivalent booster.
False claims often pull from and misuse data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The database, run by the CDC and the FDA, allows anybody to report reactions after any vaccine. The reports themselves are unverified, but the database is designed to help researchers find patterns for further investigation.
An October 2023 survey published in November by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found 63% of Americans think "it is safer to get the COVID-19 vaccine than the COVID-19 disease" — that was down from 75% in April 2021.
Celebrity Deaths Falsely Attributed to Vaccines
Betty White, Bob Saget, Matthew Perry, and DMX are just a few of the many celebrities whose deaths were falsely linked to the vaccine. The anti-vaccine film "Died Suddenly" tried to give credence to false claims that the vaccine causes people to die shortly after receiving it.
Céline Gounder, editor-at-large for public health at KFF Health News and an infectious disease specialist, said these claims proliferate because of two things: cognitive bias and more insidious motivated reasoning.
"It's like saying ‘I had an ice cream cone and then I died the next day; the ice cream must have killed me," she said. And those with preexisting beliefs about the vaccine seek to attach sudden deaths to the vaccine.
Gounder experienced this personally when her husband, the celebrated sports journalist Grant Wahl, died while covering the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Wahl died of a ruptured aortic aneurysm but anti-vaccine accounts falsely linked his death to a COVID vaccine, forcing Gounder to publicly set the record straight.
"It is very clear that this is about harming other people," said Gounder, who was a guest at United Facts of America in 2023. "And in this case, trying to harm me and my family at a point where we were grieving my husband's loss. What was important in that moment was to really stand up for my husband, his legacy, and to do what I know he would have wanted me to do, which is to speak the truth and to do so very publicly."
Out-of-Control Claims About Government Control
False claims that the pandemic was planned by government leaders and those in power abound.
At any given moment, Microsoft Corp. co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, World Economic Forum head Klaus Schwab, or Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, are blamed for orchestrating pandemic-related threats.
In November, Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) falsely claimed Fauci "brought" the virus to his state a year before the pandemic. There is no evidence of that. Gates, according to the narratives, is using dangerous vaccines to push a depopulation agenda. That's false. And Schwab has not said he has an "agenda" to establish a totalitarian global regime using the coronavirus to depopulate the Earth and reorganize society. That's part of a conspiracy theory that's come to be called "The Great Reset" that has been debunkedmanytimes.
The United Nations' World Health Organization is frequently painted as a global force for evil, too, with detractors saying it is using vaccination to control or harm people. But the WHO has not declared that a new pandemic is happening, as some have claimed. Its current pandemic preparedness treaty is in no way positioned to remove human rights protections or restrict freedoms, as one post said. And the organization has not announced plans to deploy troops to corral people and forcibly vaccinate them. The WHO is, however, working on a new treaty to help countries improve coordination in response to future pandemics.
GRINNELL, Iowa — A for-profit company has proposed turning a boarded-up former nursing home here into a psychiatric hospital, joining a national trend toward having such hospitals owned by investors instead of by state governments or nonprofit health systems.
The companies see a business opportunity in the shortage of inpatient beds for people with severe mental illness.
The scarcity of inpatient psychiatric care is evident nationwide, especially in rural areas. People in crisis often are held for days or weeks in emergency rooms or jails, then transported far from their hometowns when a bed opens in a distant hospital.
Eight nonprofit Iowa hospitals have shuttered their psychiatric units since 2007, often citing staffing and financial challenges. Iowa closed two of its four mental health institutions in 2015.
The state now ranks last in the nation for access to state-run psychiatric hospitals, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center. The national group, which promotes improving care for people with severe mental illness, recommends states have at least 50 state-run psychiatric beds per 100,000 people. Iowa has just two such beds per 100,000 residents, the group said.
Two out-of-state companies have developed psychiatric hospitals in Iowa in the past four years, and now a third company has obtained a state "certificate of need" to open a 60-bed facility in Grinnell.
Before 2020, Iowa had no privately owned, free-standing psychiatric hospitals. But several national companies specialize in developing such facilities, which treat people in crisis from conditions such as depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder, sometimes compounded by drug or alcohol abuse. One of the companies operating in Iowa, Universal Health Services, says it has mental health facilities in 39 states.
Lisa Dailey, the Treatment Advocacy Center's executive director, said that for-profit hospitals don't necessarily provide worse care than nonprofit ones but that they tend to be less transparent and more motivated by money. "Private facilities are private," she said. "As a result, you may not have a great insight into why they make the decisions that they make."
Dailey said solid data on privately run mental health hospitals nationwide is scarce. But she has heard for-profit companies have recently set up free-standing psychiatric hospitals in several states, including California. The California Department of Public Health confirmed three such facilities have opened there since 2021, in Aliso Viejo, Madera, and Sacramento.
The latest Iowa psychiatric hospital would be housed in a vacant nursing home on the outskirts of Grinnell, a college town of 9,500 people in a rural region of the state. The project's developers noted there are no other inpatient mental health facilities in Poweshiek County, where Grinnell is located, or in any of the eight surrounding counties. The nearest inpatient mental health facilities are 55 miles west in Des Moines.
The Indiana-based company proposing the hospital, Hickory Recovery Network, primarily runs addiction treatment centers in Indiana. But it opened psychiatric hospitals in Ohioand Texas in 2023 and 2024, and it told Iowa regulators it could open the Grinnell hospital by August.
An affiliated company ran the facility as a nursing home, called the Grinnell Health Care Center, until 2022, according to a Hickory Recovery Network filing with Iowa regulators.
Medicare rated the nursing home's overall quality at just two out of five stars. And in 2020, the facility was suspended indefinitely from Iowa's Medicaid program because of billing issues, state records show.
Officials from Hickory Recovery Network responded only briefly to KFF Health News inquiries, including about how the former Iowa nursing home's spotty record could affect the proposed psychiatric hospital.
In a short telephone interview in February, Melissa Durkin, the company's chief operating officer, declined to say who owns Hickory Recovery Network.
Durkin denied in the interview that her organization was associated with the company that ran the defunct and troubled Grinnell nursing home.
However, Hickory Recovery's application for a certificate of need refers to the nursing home operator as "Hickory's affiliated company." In testimony before Iowa regulators, Durkin made a similar reference as she expressed confidence her organization could find sufficient staff to reopen the facility as a psychiatric hospital. "We have a history with that building. We operated a nursing home there before," she said at the video-recorded hearing.
Durkin said in the interview that company leaders had not decided for sure to redevelop the vacant Iowa nursing home into a psychiatric hospital, although they twice went through the complicated process of applying for a state "certificate of need" for the project. The first attempt was stymied in 2023 by a tie vote of the board that considers such permits, which are a major hurdle for large health care projects. The second application was approved by a unanimous vote after a hearing on Jan. 25.
Keri Lyn Powers, a Hickory executive, told regulators the company planned to spend $1.5 million to remodel the building. The main changes would include making rooms safe for people who might be suicidal, she said.
The company predicted in its application that 90% of the hospital's patient revenues would come from Medicare or Medicaid, public programs for seniors or people who have low incomes or disabilities. It doesn't mention that the nursing home was suspended from Iowa's Medicaid program, which covers about half of the state's nursing home residents.
Iowa authorities suspended the Grinnell Health Care Center nursing home in 2020 for failing to repay nearly $25,000 in overpayments from Medicaid, state records show. When the nursing home closed in 2022, its former medical director told the local newspaper part of the reason for its demise was its inability to collect Medicaid reimbursements. Iowa administrators recently notified the owners that the former nursing home owed $284,676 to Medicaid. A state spokesperson said in March that neither amount had been repaid.
The proposal to reopen the building as a psychiatric hospital won support from patient advocates, Grinnell's nonprofit community hospital, and the regional mental health coordinator.
The only opposition at the state hearing came from Kevin Pettit, leader of one of Iowa's two other private free-standing psychiatric hospitals. Pettit is chief executive officer of Clive Behavioral Health Hospital, a 100-bed facility in suburban Des Moines that opened in 2021. Pettit told regulators he supports expanding mental health services, but he predicted the proposed Grinnell facility would struggle to hire qualified employees.
He said despite strong demand for care, many Iowa psychiatric facilities are limiting admissions. "The beds exist, but they're not actually open, … because we're dealing with staffing issues throughout the state," Pettit testified.
Overall, Iowa has 901 licensed inpatient mental health beds, including in psychiatric units at community hospitals, in free-standing psychiatric hospitals, and in the two remaining state mental health institutes, according to the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services. But as of January, just 738 of those beds were staffed and being used.
Pettit's facility is run by Pennsylvania-based Universal Health Services in partnership with MercyOne, a hospital system based in the Des Moines area.
In an interview, Pettit said his hospital only has enough staff to use about half of its beds. He said it's especially difficult to recruit nurses and therapists, even in an urban area with a relatively robust labor supply.
State inspectors have cited problems at the Clive facility, including four times declaring that deficiencies put patients' safety in "immediate jeopardy." Those issues included insufficient staff to properly monitor patients and insufficient safeguards to prevent access to items patients could use to choke or cut themselves.
Pettit said such citations are not unusual in the tightly regulated industry. He said the organization is committed to patient safety. "We value the review by our regulatory entities during the survey process and view any finding as an opportunity for continuous improvement of our operations," he wrote in an email.
Iowa's other privately owned psychiatric hospital, Eagle View Behavioral Health in Bettendorf, also has been cited by state inspectors. The 72-bed hospital was purchased in 2022 by Summit BHC from Strategic Behavioral Health, which opened the facility in 2020. Both companies are based in Tennessee.
State inspectors have cited the Bettendorf facility twice for issues posing "immediate jeopardy" to patient safety. In 2023, inspectors cited the facility for insufficient supervision of patients, "resulting in inappropriate sexual activity" between adult and adolescent patients. In 2021, the facility was cited for insufficient safety checks to prevent suicide attempts and sexual misconduct.
Eagle View officials did not respond to requests for comment.
Advocates for Iowa patients have supported the development of free-standing psychiatric hospitals.
Leslie Carpenter of Iowa City, whose adult son has been hospitalized repeatedly for severe mental illness, spoke in favor of the Grinnell facility's application for a certificate of need.
In an interview afterward, Carpenter said she was optimistic the new facility could find enough staff to help address Iowa's critical shortage of inpatient psychiatric care.
She said she would keep a close eye on how the new facility fares. "I think if a company were willing to come in and do the job well, it could be a game changer."
Critics of concierge medicine say the practice exacerbates primary care shortages, ensuring access only for the affluent, while driving up healthcare costs.
This article was published on Monday, April 1, 2024 in KFF Health News.
Nonprofit hospitals created largely to serve the poor are adding concierge physician practices, charging patients annual membership fees of $2,000 or more for easier access to their doctors.
It's a trend that began decades ago with physician practices. Thousands of doctors have shifted to the concierge model, in which they can increase their income while decreasing their patient load.
Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, University Hospitals in the Cleveland area, and Baptist Health in Miami are among the large hospital systems offering concierge physician services. The fees, which can exceed $4,000 a year, are in addition to copayments, deductibles, and other charges not paid by patients' insurance plans.
Critics of concierge medicine say the practice exacerbates primary care shortages, ensuring access only for the affluent, while driving up health care costs. But for tax-exempt hospitals, the financial benefits can be twofold. Concierge fees provide new revenue directly and serve as a tool to help recruit and retain physicians. Those doctors then provide lucrative referrals of their well-heeled patients to the hospitals that employ them.
"Hospitals are attracted to physicians that offer concierge services because their patients do not come with bad debts or a need for charity care, and most of them have private insurance which pays the hospital very well," said Gerard Anderson, a hospital finance expert at Johns Hopkins University.
"They are the ideal patient, from the hospitals' perspective."
Concierge physicians typically limit their practices to a few hundred patients, compared with a couple of thousand for a traditional primary care doctor, so they can promise immediate access and longer visits.
"Every time we see these models expand, we are contracting the availability of primary care doctors for the general population," said Jewel Mullen, associate dean for health equity at the University of Texas-Austin's Dell Medical School. The former Connecticut health commissioner said concierge doctors join large hospital systems because of the institutions' reputations, while hospitals sign up concierge physicians to ensure referrals to specialists and inpatient care. "It helps hospitals secure a bigger piece of their market," she said.
Concierge physicians typically promise same-day or next-day appointments. Many provide patients their mobile phone number.
Aaron Klein, who oversees the concierge physician practices at Baptist Health, said the program was initially intended to serve donors.
"High-end donors wanted to make sure they have doctors to care for them," he said.
Baptist opened its concierge program in 2019 and now has three practices across South Florida, where patients pay $2,500 a year.
"My philosophy is: It's better to give world-class care to a few hundred patients rather than provide inadequate care to a few thousand patients," Klein said.
Concierge physician practices started more than 20 years ago, mainly in upscale areas such as Boca Raton, Florida, and La Jolla, California. They catered mostly to wealthy retirees willing to pay extra for better physician access. Some of the first physician practices to enter the business were backed by private equity firms.
One of the largest, Boca Raton-based MDVIP, has more than 1,100 physicians and more than 390,000 patients. It was started in 2000, and since 2014 private equity firms have owned a majority stake in the company.
Some concierge physicians say their more attentive care means healthier patients. A study published last year by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley and University of Pennsylvania found no impact on mortality rates. What the study did find: higher costs.
Using Medicare claims data, the researchers found that concierge medicine enrollment corresponded with a 30%-50% increase in total health care spending by patients.
For hospitals, "this is an extension of them consolidating the market," said Adam Leive, a study co-author and an assistant professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. Inova Health Care Services in Fairfax, Virginia, one of the state's largest tax-exempt hospital chains, employs 18 concierge doctors, who each handle no more than 400 patients. Those patients pay $2,200 a year for the privilege.
George Salem, 70, of McLean, Virginia, has been a patient in Inova's concierge practice for several years along with his wife. Earlier this year he slammed his finger in a hotel door, he said. As soon as he got home, he called his physician, who saw him immediately and stitched up the wound. He said he sees his doctor about 10 to 12 times a year.
"I loved my internist before, but it was impossible to get to see him," Salem said. Immediate access to his doctor "very much gives me peace of mind," he said.
Craig Cheifetz, a vice president at Inova who oversees the concierge program, said the hospital system took interest in the model after MDVIP began moving aggressively into the Washington, D.C., suburbs about a decade ago. Today, Inova's program has 6,000 patients.
Cheifetz disputes the charge that concierge physician programs exacerbate primary care shortages. The model keeps doctors who were considering retiring early in the business with a lighter caseload, he said. And the fees amount to no more than a few dollars a day — about what some people spend on coffee, he said.
"Inova has an incredible primary care network for those who can't afford the concierge care," he said. "We are still providing all that is necessary in primary care for those who need it."
Some hospitals are starting concierge physician practices far from their home locations. For example, Tampa General Hospital in Florida last year opened a concierge practice in upper-middle-class Palm Beach Gardens, a roughly three-hour drive from Tampa. Mount Sinai Health System in New York runs a concierge physician practice in West Palm Beach.
NCH Healthcare System in Naples, Florida, employs 12 concierge physicians who treat about 3,000 patients total. "We found a need in this community for those who wanted a more personalized health care experience," said James Brinkert, regional administrator for the system. Members pay an annual fee of at least $3,500.
NCH patients whose doctors convert to concierge and who don't want to pay the membership fee are referred to other primary care practices or to urgent care, Brinkert said.
When she was in ninth grade, Fiona Lu fell into a depression. She had trouble adjusting to her new high school in Orange County, California, and felt so isolated and exhausted that she cried every morning.
Lu wanted to get help, but her Medi-Cal plan wouldn't cover therapy unless she had permission from a parent or guardian.
Her mother — a single parent and an immigrant from China — worked long hours to provide for Fiona, her brother, and her grandmother. Finding time to explain to her mom what therapy was, and why she needed it, felt like too much of an obstacle.
"I wouldn't want her to have to sign all these forms and go to therapy with me," said Lu, now 18 and a freshman at UCLA. "There's a lot of rhetoric in immigrant cultures that having mental health concerns and getting treatment for that is a Western phenomenon."
By her senior year of high school, Lu turned that experience into activism. She campaigned to change state policy to allow children 12 and older living in low-income households to get mental health counseling without their parents' consent.
In October of last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law expanding access to young patients covered by Medicaid, which is called Medi-Cal in California.
Teenagers with commercial insurance have had this privilege in the state for more than a decade. Yet parents of children who already had the ability to access care on their own were among the most vocal in opposing the expansion of that coverage by Medi-Cal.
Many parents seized on the bill to air grievances about how much control they believe the state has over their children, especially around gender identity and care.
One mother appeared on Fox News last spring calling school therapists "indoctrinators" and saying the bill allowed them to fill children's heads with ideas about "transgenderism" without their parents knowing.
Those arguments were then repeated on social media and at protests held across California and in other parts of the country in late October.
At the California Capitol, several Republican lawmakers voted against the bill, AB 665. One of them was Assembly member James Gallagher of Sutter County.
"If my child is dealing with a mental health crisis, I want to know about it," Gallagher said while discussing the bill on the Assembly floor last spring. "This misguided, and I think wrongful, trend in our policy now that is continuing to exclude parents from that equation and say they don't need to be informed is wrong."
State lawmaker salaries are too high for them or their families to qualify for Medi-Cal. Instead, they are offered a choice of 15 commercial health insurance plans, meaning children like Gallagher's already have the privileges that he objected to in his speech.
To Lu, this was frustrating and hypocritical. She said she felt that the opponents lining up against AB 665 at legislative hearings were mostly middle-class parents trying to hijack the narrative.
"It's inauthentic that they were advocating against a policy that won't directly affect them," Lu said. "They don't realize that this is a policy that will affect hundreds of thousands of other families."
Sponsors of AB 665 presented the bill as a commonsense update to an existing law. In 2010, California lawmakers had made it easier for young people to access outpatient mental health treatment and emergency shelters without their parents' consent by removing a requirement that they be in immediate crisis.
But at the last minute, lawmakers in 2010 removed the expansion of coverage for teenagers by Medi-Cal for cost reasons. More than a decade later, AB 665 is meant to close the disparity between public and private insurance and level the playing field.
"This is about equity," said Assembly member Wendy Carrillo, a Los Angeles Democrat and the bill's author.
The original law, which regulated private insurance plans, passed with bipartisan support and had little meaningful opposition in the legislature, she said. The law was signed by a Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"Since then, the extremes on both sides have gotten so extreme that we have a hard time actually talking about the need for mental health," she said.
After Carrillo introduced the bill last year, her office faced death threats. She said the goal of the law is not to divide families but to encourage communication between parents and children through counseling.
More than 20 other states allow young people to consent to outpatient mental health treatment without their parents' permission, including Colorado, Ohio, Tennessee, and Alabama, according to a 2015 paper by researchers at Rowan University.
To opponents of the new law, like Erin Friday, a San Francisco Bay Area attorney, AB 665 is part of a broader campaign to take parents' rights away in California, something she opposes regardless of what kind of health insurance children have.
Friday is a self-described lifelong Democrat. But then she discovered her teenager had come out as transgender at school and for months had been referred to by a different name and different pronouns by teachers, without Friday's knowledge. She devoted herself to fighting bills that she saw as promoting "transgender ideology." She said she plans to sue to try to overturn the new California law before it takes effect this summer.
"We're giving children autonomy they should never have," Friday said.
Under the new law, young people will be able to talk to a therapist about gender identity without their parents' consent. But they cannot get residential treatment, medication, or gender-affirming surgery without their parents' OK, as some opponents have suggested.
Nor can minors run away from home or emancipate themselves under the law, as opponents have also suggested.
"This law is not about inpatient psychiatric facilities. This law is not about changing child custody laws," said Rachel Velcoff Hults, an attorney and the director of health of the National Center for Youth Law, which supported AB 665.
"This law is about ensuring when a young person needs counseling or needs a temporary roof over their head to ensure their own safety and well-being, that we want to make sure they have a way to access it," she said.
Removing the parental consent requirement could also expand the number of mental health clinicians in California willing to treat young people on Medi-Cal. Without parental consent, under the old rules, clinicians could not be paid by Medi-Cal for the counseling they provided, either in a private practice or a school counselor's office.
Esther Lau struggled with mental health as a high school student in Fremont. Unlike Lu, she had her parents' support, but she couldn't find a therapist who accepted Medi-Cal. As the only native English speaker in her family, she had to navigate the health care bureaucracy on her own.
For her, AB 665 will give clinicians incentive to accept more young people from low-income households into their practices.
"For the opposition, it's just about political tactics and furthering their agenda," Lau said. "The bill was designed to expand access to Medi-Cal youth, period."