Union Health is making a new bid to Indiana regulators to buy its rival hospital in Terre Haute as the door looks poised to close on such deals.
The nonprofit health system is trying to leverage an existing state law to acquire Terre Haute Regional Hospital, the only other acute care hospital in Vigo County. After withdrawing its initial application in November amid pushback, Union has shifted its pitch to emphasize what it describes as Regional's "declining position" while offering more concrete promises, such as limits on price increases.
Union submitted its new application on Feb. 5 as Indiana lawmakers were attempting to nix such mergers in their state. Lawmakers then watered down a bill that threatened to forbid Union's deal altogether, with the amended legislation now barring mergers sought after Feb. 15, leaving an opening for Union. That means the proposed merger will next face a showdown with the administration of Indiana's new governor, which has signaled opposition to such deals.
Indiana is among the latest states reconsidering Certificate of Public Advantage laws that greenlight hospital monopolies. This year, Tennessee lawmakers introduced a bill to restructure state oversight of these mergers after an attempt last year to repeal its COPA law. In 2023, Maine repealed its COPA law, joining Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, and North Dakota.
"I would hope that they are reconsidering the laws because of the research on the long-run harms of COPAs," said Christopher Garmon, a University of Missouri-Kansas City economist who has studied COPA mergers.
Indiana is one of 19 states that still have COPA laws, which allow mergers that the Federal Trade Commission otherwise considers illegal because they reduce competition and often create monopolies.
In exchange for approval of these deals, the merging hospitals typically agree to meet conditions imposed by their state to mitigate the harms of a monopoly. But health care economists and the FTC have said that state oversight cannot replace competition and that these mergers ultimately harm patients.
Union Health's first application faced pushback. The state's Department of Health received hundreds of comments, with most opposing the deal, according to a review of documents KFF Health News obtained through a state public records request. Doctors, health economists, and the FTC were among those who called on state regulators to deny Union's proposal.
Union pulled its application in November, just days before the state was due to rule on the deal.
When Union filed its new application in early February, this time it promised a slew of concrete commitments and pledges to improve residents' health in the largely rural communities that surround Terre Haute. Among them were promises to keep both hospitals' emergency rooms open and inpatient services in operation, and to tie increases in hospital charges to the consumer price index for medical care, essentially establishing a cap so charges don't exceed medical inflation.
It also recast its pitch to describe Regional as a hospital in decline, which Union said puts the region at risk of losing access to services if the merger is not approved. Tennessee-based HCA Healthcare owns Terre Haute Regional.
In that scenario, Union warned, if Regional were to close, the health system would essentially have a monopoly anyway, "without any oversight, terms, or conditions" of a COPA. Instead, it argued, a green light from state regulators could avert a hospital closure and guarantee state oversight of the combined hospital system.
Union's first application did not argue that the merger was necessary for Regional to remain viable. In public comments submitted in September and March, the FTC argued to state regulators that both hospitals are "financially stable," adding that Regional is "part of the largest hospital system in the country with tremendous financial resources." It also cited hospital financial reporting that showed Terre Haute Regional Hospital's profits were better than those of most other hospitals in the country.
"This repackaged COPA application presents the same problems as before," Clarke Edwards, acting director of the FTC's Office of Policy Planning, said in a statement on March 17 after the commission unanimously opposed the merger.
HCA did not respond to questions about Union's characterization that Regional is a hospital in decline.
Despite Union's assurances that the merger would benefit the region, an analysis of the first proposal found the opposite. Zack Cooper, a health economist and an associate professor at Yale University, estimated that the price of care would rise by at least 10%, 500 jobs would be lost, and nurses' pay would decline by at least 7%.
Despite the new application and new promises, "the nature of the deal hasn't changed," Cooper said. He said that his findings remain unchanged and that Union stands to benefit — not the community.
"Life is easier for a firm if you face less competition," he said. "There's less pressure to compete on quality. There's less pressure to compete on price."
In January, state Sen. Ed Charbonneau, a Republican and a key architect of Indiana's 2021 COPA law, introduced the legislation to repeal the law, which would have foreclosed Union's chance at a possible second attempt at the merger.
In February, seated side by side at a state Senate health committee hearing, Union Health CEO Steve Holman, Terre Haute Chamber of Commerce President Kristin Craig, and state Sen. Greg Goode, a Republican representing the region, testified against the bill.
Holman told lawmakers the merger would improve the health of the region. He also noted that the hospital system had already spent $3 million on legal fees pursuing the deal. He said it seemed like lawmakers were attempting to cripple Union's chances. "Why has this come up now?" Holman asked.
The bill to repeal the COPA law advanced out of committee by a 7-4 vote. State Sen. Mike Bohacek, a Republican who represents a region a three-hour drive north of Terre Haute, said he voted against repealing the law out of deference to local officials.
"I have no dog in this fight," Bohacek said.
Charbonneau later amended his bill, winning support from Union and Goode. The new version sailed through the Senate. It is now backed by two powerful Republican representatives in the House: Brad Barrett, chair of the Public Health Committee, and Bob Heaton, House majority whip. Heaton represents parts of Vigo County.
Union Health spokesperson Amanda Scott said in an email to KFF Health News that Union and Regional Hospital "recognize the significance of a final approval" and that Union views this as its last chance to acquire its rival.
But Indiana's new governor, Republican Mike Braun, took office in January vowing to crack down on consolidation, especially in health care.
Earlier this year, Braun tapped Gloria Sachdev to lead a newly created Cabinet position overseeing the state's health care agencies, including the state Department of Health, which will decide on the merger.
As CEO of the Employers' Forum of Indiana, a coalition of businesses that has combated high hospital prices, Sachdev was an outspoken critic of the proposed merger in Terre Haute. In an October opinion piece in The Indianapolis Star, she urged regulators to consider how these mergers can crush communities.
Sachdev, now the state's secretary of health and family services, didn't answer questions on the new bid. After KFF Health News asked the governor's office whether Braun has final authority over the fate of Union's merger request, Department of Health spokesperson Greta Sanderson provided a joint statement from the agency and the office of the governor: "Gov. Braun will expect to be informed, ask questions, and ensure that whatever decision is made is thoughtful and objective with the best interests of Hoosiers in mind."
The state has until June 21 to review the merger application before rendering a decision, according to the Department of Health. The public can comment on the proposal through March 23.
DENVER — Seven years ago, Erica Green learned through a Facebook post that her brother had been shot.
She rushed to check on him at a hospital run by Denver Health, the city's safety-net system, but she was unable to get information from emergency room workers, who complained that she was creating a disturbance.
"I was distraught and outside, crying, and Jerry came out of the front doors," she said.
Jerry Morgan is a familiar face from Green's Denver neighborhood. He had rushed to the hospital after his pager alerted him to the shooting. As a violence prevention professional with the At-Risk Intervention and Mentoring program, or AIM, Morgan supports gun-violence patients and their families at the hospital — as he did the day Green's brother was shot.
"It made the situation of that traumatic experience so much better. After that, I was, like, I want to do this work," Green said.
Today, Green works with Morgan as the program manager for AIM, a hospital-linked violence intervention program launched in 2010 as a partnership between Denver Health and the nonprofit Denver Youth Program. It since has expanded to include Children's Hospital Colorado and the University of Colorado Hospital.
AIM is one of dozens of hospital-linked violence intervention programs around the country. The programs aim to uncover the social and economic factors that contributed to someone ending up in the ER with a bullet wound: inadequate housing, job loss, or feeling unsafe in one's neighborhood, for example.
Such programs that take a public health approach to stopping gun violence have had success — one in San Francisco reported a fourfold reduction in violent injury recidivism rates over six years. But President Donald Trump's executive orders calling for the review of the Biden administration's gun policies and trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans have created uncertainty around the programs' long-term federal funding. Some organizers believe their programs will be just fine, but others are looking to shore up alternative funding sources.
"We've been worried about, if a domino does fall, how is it going to impact us? There's a lot of unknowns," said John Torres, associate director for Youth Alive, an Oakland, California-based nonprofit.
Federal data shows that gun violence became a leading cause of death among children and young adults at the start of this decade and was tied to more than 48,000 deaths among people of all ages in 2022. New York-based pediatric trauma surgeon Chethan Sathya, a National Institutes of Health-funded firearms injury prevention researcher, believes those statistics show that gun violence can't be ignored as a health care issue. "It's killing so many people," Sathya said.
Research shows that a violent injury puts someone at heightened risk for future ones, and the risk of death goes up significantly by the third violent injury, according to a 2006 study published in The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection and Critical Care.
Benjamin Li, an emergency medicine physician at Denver Health and the health system's AIM medical director, said the ER is an ideal setting to intervene in gun violence by working to reverse-engineer what led to a patient's injuries.
"If you are just seeing the person, patching them up, and then sending them right back into the exact same circumstances, we know it's going to lead to them being hurt again," Li said. "It's critical we address the social determinants of health and then try to change the equation."
That might mean providing alternative solutions to gunshot victims who might otherwise seek retaliation, said Paris Davis, the intervention programs director for Youth Alive.
"If that's helping them relocate out of the area, if that's allowing them to gain housing, if that's shifting that energy into education or job or, you know, family therapy, whatever the needs are for that particular case and individual, that is what we provide," Davis said.
AIM outreach workers meet gunshot wound victims at their hospital bedsides to have what Morgan, AIM's lead outreach worker, calls a tough, nonjudgmental conversation on how the patients ended up there.
AIM uses that information to help patients access the resources they need to navigate their biggest challenges after they're discharged, Morgan said. Those challenges can include returning to school or work, or finding housing. AIM outreach workers might also attend court proceedings and assist with transportation to health care appointments.
"We try to help in whatever capacity we can, but it's interdependent on whatever the client needs," Morgan said.
Since 2010, AIM has grown from three full-time outreach workers to nine, and this year opened the REACH Clinic in Denver's Five Points neighborhood. The community-based clinic provides wound-care kits; physical therapy; and behavioral, mental and occupational health care. In the coming months, it plans to add bullet removal to its services. It's part of a growing movement of community-based clinics focused on violent injuries, including the Bullet Related Injury Clinic in St. Louis.
Ginny McCarthy, an assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at the University of Colorado, described REACH as an extension of the hospital-based work, providing holistic treatment in a single location and building trust between health care providers and communities of color that have historically experienced racial biases in medical care.
The alliance's executive director, Fatimah Loren Dreier, compared medicine's role in addressing gun violence to that of preventing an infectious disease, like cholera. "That disease spreads if you don't have good sanitation in places where people aggregate," she said.
"That is what health care can do really well to shift society. When we deploy this, we get better outcomes for everybody," Dreier said.
The alliance, of which AIM is a member, offers technical assistance and training for hospital-linked violence intervention programs and successfully petitioned to make their services eligible for traditional insurance reimbursement.
But in early February, Trump issued an executive order instructing the U.S. attorney general to conduct a 30-day review of a number of Biden's policies on gun violence. The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention now appears to be defunct, and recent moves to freeze federal grants created uncertainty among the gun-violence prevention programs that receive federal funding.
AIM receives 30% of its funding from its operating agreement with Denver's Office of Community Violence Solutions, according to Li. The rest is from grants, including Victims of Crime Act funding, through the Department of Justice. As of mid-February, Trump's executive orders had not affected AIM's current funding.
Some who work with the hospital-linked violence prevention programs in Colorado are hoping a new voter-approved firearms and ammunition excise tax in the state, expected to generate about $39 million annually and support victim services, could be a new source of funding. But the tax's revenues aren't expected to fully flow until 2026, and it's not clear how that money will be allocated.
Trauma surgeon and public health researcher Catherine Velopulos, who is the AIM medical director at the University of Colorado hospital in Aurora, said any interruption in federal funding, even for a few months, would be "very difficult for us." But Velopulos said she was reassured by the bipartisan support for the kind of work AIM does.
"People want to oversimplify the problem and just say, ‘If we get rid of guns, it's all going to stop,' or ‘It doesn't matter what we do, because they're going to get guns, anyway,'" she said. "What we really have to address is why people feel so scared that they have to arm themselves."
Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a professor at the University of California-San Francisco medical school, has spent well over a decade researching the disquieting risk that one of modern medicine's most valuable tools, computerized tomography scans, can sometimes cause cancer.
Smith-Bindman and like-minded colleagues have long pushed for federal policies aimed at improving safety for patients undergoing CT scans. Under new Medicare regulations effective this year, hospitals and imaging centers must start collecting and sharing more information about the radiation their scanners emit.
About 93 million CT scans are performed every year in the United States, according to IMV, a medical market research company that tracks imaging. More than half of those scans are for people 60 and older. Yet there is scant regulation of radiation levels as the machines scan organs and structures inside bodies. Dosages are erratic, varying widely from one clinic to another, and are too often unnecessarily high, Smith-Bindman and other critics say.
"It's unfathomable," Smith-Bindman said. "We keep doing more and more CTs, and the doses keep going up."
One CT scan can expose a patient to 10 or 15 times as much radiation as another, Smith-Bindman said. "There is very large variation," she said, "and the doses vary by an order of magnitude — tenfold, not 10% different — for patients seen for the same clinical problem." In outlier institutions, the variation is even higher, according to research she and a team of international collaborators have published.
She and other researchers estimated in 2009 that high doses could be responsible for 2% of cancers. Ongoing research shows it's probably higher, since far more scans are performed today.
The cancer risk from CT scans for any individual patient is very low, although it rises for patients who have numerous scans throughout their lives. Radiologists don't want to scare off patients who can benefit from imaging, which plays a crucial role in identifying life-threatening conditions like cancers and aneurysms and guides doctors through complicated procedures.
But the new data collection rules from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued in the closing months of the Biden administration are aimed at making imaging safer. They also require a more careful assessment of the dosing, quality, and necessity of CT scans.
The requirements, rolled out in January, are being phased in over about three years for hospitals, outpatient settings, and physicians. Under the complicated reporting system, not every radiologist or health care setting is required to comply immediately. Providers could face financial penalties under Medicare if they don't comply, though those will be phased in, too, starting in 2027.
When the Biden administration issued the new guidelines, a CMS spokesperson said in an email that excessive and unnecessary radiation exposure was a health risk that could be addressed through measurement and feedback to hospitals and physicians. The agency at the time declined to make an official available for an interview. The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment for this article.
The Leapfrog Group, an organization that tracks hospital safety, welcomed the new rules. "Radiation exposure is a very serious patient safety issue, so we commend CMS for focusing on CT scans," said Leah Binder, the group's president and CEO. Leapfrog has set standards for pediatric exposure to imaging radiation, "and we find significant variation among hospitals," Binder added.
CMS contracted with UCSF in 2019 to research solutions aimed at encouraging better measurement and assessment of CTs, leading to the development of the agency's new approach.
The American College of Radiology and three other associations involved in medical imaging, however, objected to the draft CMS rules when they were under review, arguing in written comments in 2023 that they were excessively cumbersome, would burden providers, and could add to the cost of scans. The group was also concerned, at that time, that health providers would have to use a single, proprietary tech tool for gathering the dosing and any related scan data.
The single company in question, Alara Imaging, supplies free software that radiologists and radiology programs need to comply with the new regulations. The promise to keep it free is included in the company's copyright. Smith-Bindman is a co-founder of Alara Imaging, and UCSF also has a stake in the company, which is developing other health tech products unrelated to the CMS imaging rule that it does plan to commercialize.
But the landscape has recently changed. ACR said in a statement from Judy Burleson, ACR vice president for quality management programs, that CMS is allowing in other vendors — and that ACR itself is "in discussion with Alara" on the data collection and submission. In addition, a company called Medisolv, which works on health care quality, said at least one client is working with another vendor, Imalogix, on the CT dose data.
Several dozen health quality and safety organizations — including some national leaders in patient safety, like the Institute of Healthcare Improvement — have supported CMS' efforts.
Concerns about CT dosing are long-standing. A landmark study published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2009 by a research team that included experts from the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and universities estimated that CT scans were responsible for 29,000 excess cancer cases a year in the United States, about 2% of all cases diagnosed annually.
But the number of CT scans kept climbing. By 2016, it was estimated at 74 million, up 20% in a decade, though radiologists say dosages of radiation per scan have declined. Some researchers have noted that U.S. doctors order far more imaging than physicians in other developed countries, arguing some of it is wasteful and dangerous.
More recent studies, some looking at pediatric patients and some drawing on radiation exposure data from survivors of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, have also identified CT scan risk.
Older people may face greater cancer risks because of imaging they had earlier in life. And scientists have emphasized the need to be particularly careful with children, who may be more vulnerable to radiation exposure while young and face the consequences of cumulative exposure as they age.
Max Wintermark, a neuroradiologist at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who has been involved in the field's work on appropriate utilization of imaging, said doctors generally follow dosing protocols for CT scans. In addition, the technology is improving; he expects artificial intelligence to soon help doctors determine optimal imaging use and dosing, delivering "the minimum amount of radiation dose to get us to the diagnosis that we're trying to reach."
But he said he welcomes the new CMS regulations.
"I think the measures will help accelerate the transition towards always lower and lower doses," he said. "They are helpful."
After a patch of ice sent Marc Durocher hurtling to the ground, and doctors at UMass Memorial Medical Center repaired the broken hip that resulted, the 75-year-old electrician found himself at a crossroads.
He didn't need to be in the hospital any longer. But he was still in pain, unsteady on his feet, unready for independence.
Patients nationwide often stall at this intersection, stuck in the hospital for days or weeks because nursing homes and physical rehabilitation facilities are full. Yet when Durocher was ready for discharge in late January, a clinician came by with a surprising path forward: Want to go home?
Specifically, he was invited to join a research study at UMass Chan Medical School in Worcester, Massachusetts, testing the concept of "SNF at home" or "subacute at home," in which services typically provided at a skilled nursing facility are instead offered in the home, with visits from caregivers and remote monitoring technology.
Durocher hesitated, worried he might not get the care he needed, but he and his wife, Jeanne, ultimately decided to try it. What could be better than recovering at his home in Auburn with his dog, Buddy?
Such rehab at home is underway in various parts of the country — including New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — as a solution to a shortage of nursing home and rehab beds for patients too sick to go home but not sick enough to need hospitalization.
Staffing shortages at post-acute facilities around the country led to a 24% increase over three years in hospital length of stay among patients who need skilled nursing care, according to a 2022 analysis. With no place to go, these patients occupy expensive hospital beds they don't need, while others wait in emergency rooms for those spots. In Massachusetts, for example, at least 1,995 patients were awaiting hospital discharge in December, according to a survey of hospitals by the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association.
Offering intensive services and remote monitoring technology in the home can work as an alternative — especially in rural areas, where nursing homes are closing at a faster rate than in cities and patients' relatives often must travel far to visit. For patients of the Marshfield Clinic Health System who live in rural parts of Wisconsin, the clinic's six-year-old SNF-at-home program is often the only option, said Swetha Gudibanda, medical director of the hospital-at-home program.
"This is going to be the future of medicine," Gudibanda said.
But the concept is new, an outgrowth of hospital-at-home services expanded by a covid-19 pandemic-inspired Medicare waiver. SNF-at-home care remains uncommon, lost in a fiscal and regulatory netherworld. No federal standards spell out how to run these programs, which patients should qualify, or what services to offer. No reimbursement mechanism exists, so fee-for-service Medicare and most insurance companies don't cover such care at home.
The programs have emerged only at a few hospital systems with their own insurance companies (like the Marshfield Clinic) or those that arrange for "bundled payments," in which providers receive a set fee to manage an episode of care, as can occur with Medicare Advantage plans.
In Durocher's case, the care was available — at no cost to him or other patients — only through the clinical trial, funded by a grant from the state Medicaid program. State health officials supported two simultaneous studies at UMass and Mass General Brigham hoping to reduce costs, improve quality of care, and, crucially, make it easier to transition patients out of the hospital.
The American Health Care Association, the trade group of for-profit nursing homes, calls "SNF at home" a misnomer because, by law, such services must be provided in an institution and meet detailed requirements. And the association points out that skilled nursing facilities provide services and socialization that can never be replicated at home, such as daily activity programs, religious services, and access to social workers.
But patients at home tend to get up and move around more than those in a facility, speeding their recovery, said Wendy Mitchell, medical director of the UMass Chan clinical trial. Also, therapy is tailored to their home environment, teaching patients to navigate the exact stairs and bathrooms they'll eventually use on their own.
A quarter of people who go into nursing homes suffer an "adverse event," such as infection or bed sore, said David Levine, clinical director for research for Mass General Brigham's Healthcare at Home program and leader of its study. "We cause a lot of harm in facility-based care," he said.
By contrast, in 2024, not one patient in the Rehabilitation Care at Home program of Nashville-based Contessa Health developed a bed sore and only 0.3% came down with an infection while at home, according to internal company data. Contessa delivers care in the home through partnerships with five health systems, including Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, the Allegheny Health Network in Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin's Marshfield Clinic.
Contessa's program, which has been providing in-home post-hospital rehabilitation since 2019, depends on help from unpaid family caregivers. "Almost universally, our patients have somebody living with them," said Robert Moskowitz, Contessa's acting president and chief medical officer.
The two Massachusetts-based studies, however, do enroll patients who live alone. In the UMass trial, an overnight home health aide can stay for a day or two if needed. And while alone, patients "have a single-button access to a live person from our command center," said Apurv Soni, an assistant professor of medicine at UMass Chan and the leader of its study.
But SNF at home is not without hazards, and choosing the right patients to enroll is critical. The UMass research team learned an important lesson when a patient with mild dementia became alarmed by unfamiliar caregivers coming to her home. She was readmitted to the hospital, according to Mitchell.
The Mass General Brigham study relies heavily on technology intended to reduce the need for highly skilled staff. A nurse and physician each conducts an in-home visit, but the patient is otherwise monitored remotely. Medical assistants visit the home to gather data with a portable ultrasound, portable X-ray, and a device that can analyze blood tests on-site. A machine the size of a toaster oven dispenses medication, with a robotic arm that drops the pills into a dispensing unit.
The UMass trial, the one Durocher enrolled in, instead chose a "light touch" with technology, using only a few devices, Soni said.
The day Durocher went home, he said, a nurse met him there and showed him how to use a wireless blood pressure cuff, wireless pulse oximeter, and digital tablet that would transmit his vital signs twice a day. Over the next few days, he said, nurses came by to take blood samples and check on him. Physical and occupational therapists provided several hours of treatment every day, and a home health aide came a few hours a day. To his delight, the program even sent three meals a day.
Durocher learned to use the walker and how to get up the stairs to his bedroom with one crutch and support from his wife. After just one week, he transitioned to less-frequent, in-home physical therapy, covered by his insurance.
"The recovery is amazing because you're in your own setting," Durocher said. "To be relegated to a chair and a walker, and at first somebody helping you get up, or into bed, showering you — it's very humbling. But it's comfortable. It's home, right?"
Kirk Vartan pays more than $2,000 a month for a high-deductible health insurance plan from Blue Shield on Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act marketplace. He could have selected a cheaper plan from a different provider, but he wanted one that includes his wife's doctor.
"It's for the two of us, and we're not sick," said Vartan, general manager at A Slice of New York pizza shops in the Bay Area cities of San Jose and Sunnyvale. "It's ridiculous."
Vartan, who is in his late 50s, is one of millions of Californians struggling to keep up with health insurance premiums ballooning faster than inflation.
Average monthly premiums for families with employer-provided health coverage in California's private sector nearly doubled over the last 15 years, from just over $1,000 in 2008 to almost $2,000 in 2023, a KFF Health News analysis of federal data shows. That's more than twice the rate of inflation. Also, employees have had to absorb a growing share of the cost.
The spike is not confined to California. Average premiums for families with employer-provided health coverage grew as fast nationwide as they did in California from 2008 through 2023, federal data shows. Premiums continued to grow rapidly in 2024, according to KFF.
Small-business groups warn that, for workers whose employers don't provide coverage, the problem could get worse if Congress does not extend enhanced federal subsidies that make health insurance more affordable on individual markets such as Covered California, the public marketplace that insures more than 1.9 million Californians.
Premiums on Covered California have grown about 25% since 2022, roughly double the pace of inflation. But the exchange helps nearly 90% of enrollees mitigate high costs by offering state and federal subsidies based on income, with many families paying little or nothing.
Rising premiums also have hit government workers — and taxpayers. Premiums at CalPERS, which provides insurance to more than 1.5 million of California's active and retired public employees and family members, have risenabout 31%since 2022. Public employers pay part of the cost of premiums as negotiated with labor unions; workers pay the rest.
"Insurance premiums have been going up faster than wages over the last 20 years," said Miranda Dietz, a researcher at the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center who focuses on health insurance. "Especially in the last couple of years, those premium increases have been pretty dramatic."
Dietz said rising hospital prices are largely to blame. Consumer costs for hospitals and nursing homes rose about 88% from 2009 through 2024, roughly double the overall inflation rate, according to data from the Department of Labor. The rising cost of administering America's massive health care system has also pushed premiums higher, she said.
Insurance companies remain highly profitable, but their gross margins — the amount by which premium income exceeds claims costs — were fairly steady during the last few years, KFF research shows. Under federal rules, insurers must spend a minimum percentage of premiums on medical care.
Rising insurance costs are cutting deeper into family incomes and squeezing small businesses.
The average annual cost of family health insurance offered by private sector companies was about $24,000, or roughly $2,000 a month, in California during 2023, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Employers paid, on average, about two-thirds of the bill, with workers paying the remaining third, about $650 a month. Workers' share of premiums has grown faster in California than in the rest of the nation.
Many small-business workers whose employers don't offer health care turn to Covered California. During the last three decades, the percentage of businesses nationwide with 10 to 24 workers offering health insurance fell from 65% to 52%, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Coverage fell from 34% to 23% among businesses with fewer than 10 employees.
"When an employee of a small business isn't able to access health insurance with their employer, they're more likely to leave that employer," said Bianca Blomquist, California director for Small Business Majority, an advocacy group representing more than 85,000 small businesses across America.
Kirk Vartan said his pizza shop employs about 25 people and operates as a worker cooperative — a business owned by its workers. The small business lacks negotiating power to demand discounts from insurance companies to cover its workers. The best the shop could do, he said, were expensive plans that would make it hard for the cooperative to operate. And those plans would not offer as much coverage as workers could find for themselves through Covered California.
"It was a lose-lose all the way around," he said.
Mark Seelig, a spokesperson for Blue Shield of California, said rising costs for hospital stays, doctor visits, and prescription drugs put upward pressure on premiums. Blue Shield has created a new initiative that he said is designed to lower drug prices and pass on savings to consumers.
Even at California companies offering insurance, the percentage of employees enrolled in plans with a deductible has roughly doubled in 20 years, rising to 77%, federal data shows. Deductibles are the amount a worker must pay for most types of care before their insurance company starts paying part of the bill. The average annual deductible for an employer-provided family health insurance plan was about $3,200 in 2023.
During the last two decades, the cost of health insurance premiums and deductibles in California rose from about 4% of median household income to about 12%, according to the UC Berkeley Labor Center, which conducts research on labor and employment issues.
As a result, the center found, many Californians are choosing to delay or forgo health care, including some preventive care.
California is trying to lower health care costs by setting statewide spending growth caps, which state officials hope will curb premium increases. The state recently established the Office of Health Care Affordability, which set a five-year target for annual spending growth at 3.5%, dropping to 3% by 2029. Failure to hit targets could result in hefty fines for health care organizations, though that likely wouldn't happen until 2030 or later.
Other states that imposed similar caps saw health care costs rise more slowly than states that did not, Dietz said.
"Does that mean that health care becomes affordable for people?" she asked. "No. It means it doesn't get worse as quickly."
BOLIGEE, Ala. — Green lights flickered on the wireless router in Barbara Williams' kitchen. Just one bar lit up — a weak signal connecting her to the world beyond her home in the Alabama Black Belt.
Next to the router sat medications, vitamin D pills, and Williams' blood glucose monitor kit.
"I haven't used that thing in a month or so," said Williams, 72, waving toward the kit. Diagnosed with diabetes more than six years ago, she has developed nerve pain from neuropathy in both legs.
Williams is one of nearly 3 million Americans who live in mostly rural counties that lack both health care and reliable high-speed internet, according to an analysis by KFF Health News, which showed that these people tend to live sicker and die younger than others in America.
Compared with those in other regions, patients across the rural South, Appalachia, and remote West are most often unable to make a video call to their doctor or log into their patient portals. Both are essential ways to participate in the U.S. medical system. And Williams is among those who can do neither.
This year, more than $42 billion allocated in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is expected to begin flowing to states as part of a national "Internet for All" initiative launched by the Biden administration. But the program faces uncertainty after Commerce Department Secretary Howard Lutnick last week announced a "rigorous review" asserting that the previous administration's approach was full of "woke mandates."
High rates of chronic illness and historical inequities are hallmarks of many of the more than 200 U.S. counties with poor services that KFF Health News identified. Dozens of doctors, academics, and advocates interviewed for this article unanimously agreed that limited internet service hinders medical care and access.
Without fast, reliable broadband, "all we're going to do is widen health care disparities within telemedicine," said Rashmi Mullur, an endocrinologist and chief of telehealth at VA Greater Los Angeles. Patients with diabetes who also use telemedicine are more likely to get care and control their blood sugar, Mullur found.
Diabetes requires constant management. Left untreated, uncontrolled blood sugar can cause blindness, kidney failure, nerve damage, and eventually death.
Williams, who sees a nurse practitioner at the county hospital in the next town, said she is not interested in using remote patient monitoring or video calls.
"I know how my sugar affects me," Williams said. "I get a headache if it's too high." She gets weaker when it's down, she said, and always carries snacks like crackers or peppermints.
Williams said she could even drink a soda pop — orange, grape — when her sugar is low but would not drink one when she felt it was high because she would get "kind of goozie-woozy."
'This Is America'
Connectivity dead zones persist in American life despite at least $115 billion lawmakers have thrown toward fixing the inequities. Federal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 133 funding programs administered by 15 agencies, according to a 2023 federal report.
"This is America. It's not supposed to be this way," said Karthik Ganesh, chief executive of Tampa, Florida-based OnMed, a telehealth company that in September installed a walk-in booth at the Boligee Community Center about 10 minutes from Williams' home. Residents can call up free life-size video consultations with an OnMed health care provider and use equipment to check their weight and blood pressure.
OnMed, which partnered with local universities and the Alabama Cooperative Extension System, relies on SpaceX's Starlink to provide a high-speed connection in lieu of other options.
A short drive from the community center, beyond Boligee's Main Street with its deserted buildings and an empty railroad depot and down a long gravel drive, is the 22-acre property where Williams lives.
Last fall, Williams washed a dish in her kitchen, with its unforgiving linoleum-topped concrete floors. A few months earlier, she said, a man at the community center signed her up for "diabetic shoes" to help with her sore feet. They never arrived.
As Williams spoke, steam rose from a pot of boiling potatoes on the stove. Another pan sizzled with hamburger steak. And on a back burner simmered a mix of Velveeta cheese, diced tomatoes, and peppers.
She spent years on her feet as head cook at a diner in Cleveland, Ohio. The oldest of nine, Williams returned to her family home in Greene County more than 20 years ago to care for her mother and a sister, who both died from cancer in the back bedroom where she now sleeps.
Williams looked out a window and recalled when the landscape was covered in cotton that she once helped pick. Now three houses stand in a carefully tended clearing surrounded by tall trees. One belongs to a brother and the other to a sister who drives with her daily to the community center for exercise, prayers, and friendship with other seniors.
All the surviving siblings, Williams said, have diabetes. "I don't know how we became diabetic," she said. Neither of their parents had been diagnosed with the illness.
In Greene County, an estimated quarter of adults have diabetes — twice the national average. The county, which has about 7,600 residents, also has among the nation's highest rates for several chronic diseases such as high blood pressure, stroke, and obesity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows.
The county's population is predominately Black. The federal CDC reports that Black Americans are more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes and are 40% more likely than their white counterparts to die from the condition. And in the South, rural Black residents are more likely to lack home internet access, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington-based think tank.
To identify counties most lacking in reliable broadband and health care providers, KFF Health News used data from the Federal Communications Commission and George Washington University's Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity. Reporters also analyzed U.S. Census Bureau, CDC, and other data to understand the health status and demographics of those counties.
The analysis confirms that internet and care gaps are "hitting areas of extreme poverty and high social vulnerability," said Clese Erikson, deputy director of the health workforce research center at the Mullan Institute.
Digital Haves vs. Have-Nots
Just over half of homes in Greene County have access to reliable high-speed internet — among the lowest rates in the nation. Greene County also has some of the country's poorest residents, with a median household income of about $31,500. Average life expectancy is less than 72 years, below the national average.
By contrast, the KFF Health News analysis found that counties with the highest rates of internet access and health care providers correlated with higher life expectancy, less chronic disease, and key lifestyle factors such as higher incomes and education levels.
One of those is Howard County, Maryland, between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., where nearly all homes can connect to fast, reliable internet. The median household income is about $147,000 and average life expectancy is more than 82 years — a decade longer than in Greene County. A much smaller share of residents live with chronic conditions such as diabetes.
One is 78-year-old Sam Wilderson, a retired electrical engineer who has managed his Type 2 diabetes for more than a decade. He has fiber-optic internet at his home, which is a few miles from a cafe he dines at every week after Bible study. On a recent day, the cafe had a guest Wi-Fi download speed of 104 megabits per second and a 148 Mbps upload speed. The speeds are fast enough for remote workers to reliably take video calls.
Americans are demanding more speed than ever before. Most households have multiple devices — televisions, computers, gaming systems, doorbells — in addition to phones that can take up bandwidth. The more devices connected, the higher minimum speeds are needed to keep everything running smoothly.
To meet increasing needs, federal regulators updated the definition of broadband last year, establishing standard speeds of 100/20 Mbps. Those speeds are typically enough for several users to stream, browse, download, and play games at the same time.
Christopher Ali, professor of telecommunications at Penn State, recommends minimum standard speeds of 100/100 Mbps. While download speeds enable consumption, such as streaming or shopping, fast upload speeds are necessary to participate in video calls, say, for work or telehealth.
At the cafe in Howard County, on a chilly morning last fall, Wilderson ordered a glass of white wine and his usual: three-seeded bread with spinach, goat cheese, smoked salmon, and over-easy eggs. After eating, Wilderson held up his wrist: "This watch allows me to track my diabetes without pricking my finger."
Wilderson said he works with his doctors, feels young, and expects to live well into his 90s, just as his father and grandfather did.
Telehealth is crucial for people in areas with few or no medical providers, said Ry Marcattilio, an associate director of research at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. The national research and advocacy group works with communities on broadband access and reviewed KFF Health News' findings.
High-speed internet makes it easier to use video visits for medical checkups, which most patients with diabetes need every three months.
Being connected "can make a huge difference in diabetes outcomes," said Nestoras Mathioudakis, an endocrinologist and co-medical director of Johns Hopkins Medicine Diabetes & Education Program, who treats patients in Howard County.
Paying More for Less
At Williams' home in Alabama, pictures of her siblings and their kids cover the walls of the hallway and living room. A large, wood-framed image of Jesus at the Last Supper with his disciples hangs over her kitchen table.
Williams sat down as her pots simmered and sizzled. She wasn't feeling quite right. "I had a glass of orange juice and a bag of potato chips, and I knew that wasn't enough for breakfast, but I was cooking," Williams said.
Every night Williams takes a pill to control her diabetes. In the morning, if she feels as if her sugar is dropping, she knows she needs to eat. So, that morning, she left the room to grab a peppermint, walking by the flickering wireless router.
The router's download and upload speeds were 0.03/0.05 Mbps, nearly unusable by modern standards. Williams' connection on her house phone can sound scratchy, and when she connects her cellphone to the router, it does not always work. Most days it's just good enough for her to read a daily devotional website and check Facebook, though the stories don't always load.
Rural residents like Williams paid nearly $13 more a month on average in late 2020 for slow internet connections than those in urban areas, according to Brian Whitacre, an agricultural economics professor at Oklahoma State University.
"You're more likely to have competition in an urban area," Whitacre said.
In rural Alabama, cellphone and internet options are limited. Williams pays $51.28 a month to her wireless provider, Ring Planet, which did not respond to calls and emails.
In Howard County, Maryland, national fiber-optic broadband provider Verizon Communications faces competition from Comcast, a hybrid fiber-optic and cable provider. Verizon advertises a home internet plan promising speeds of 300/300 Mbps starting at $35 a month for its existing mobile customers. The company also offers a discounted price as low as $20 a month for customers who participate in certain federal assistance programs.
"Internet service providers look at the economics of going into some of these communities and there just isn't enough purchasing power in their minds to warrant the investment," said Ross DeVol, chief executive of Heartland Forward, a nonpartisan think tank based in Bentonville, Arkansas, that specializes in state and local economic development.
Conexon, a fiber-optic cable construction company, estimates it costs $25,000 per mile to build above-ground fiber lines on poles and $60,000 to $70,000 per mile to build underground.
Former President Joe Biden's 2021 infrastructure law earmarked $65 billion with a goal of connecting all Americans to high-speed internet. Money was designated to establish digital equity programs and to help low-income customers pay their internet bills. The law also set aside tens of billions through the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program, known as BEAD, to connect homes and businesses.
That effort prioritizes fiber-optic connections, but federal regulators recently outlined guidance for alternative technologies, including low Earth orbit satellites like SpaceX's Starlink service.
Funding the use of satellites in federal broadband programs has been controversial inside federal agencies. It has also been a sore point for Elon Musk, who is chief executive of SpaceX, which runs Starlink, and is a lead adviser to President Donald Trump.
After preliminary approval, a federal commission ruled that Starlink's satellite system was "not reasonably capable" of offering reliable high speeds. Musk tweeted last year that the commission had "illegally revoked" money awarded under the agency's Trump-era Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.
In February, Trump nominated Arielle Roth to lead the federal agency overseeing the infrastructure act's BEAD program. Roth is telecommunications policy director for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Last year, she criticized the program's emphasis on fiber and said it was beleaguered by a "woke social agenda" with too many regulations.
Commerce Secretary Lutnick last week said he will get rid of "burdensome regulations" and revamp the program to "take a tech-neutral approach." Republicans echoed his positions during a U.S. House subcommittee hearing the same day.
When asked about potentially weakening the program's required low-cost internet option, former National Telecommunications and Information Administration official Sarah Morris said such a change would build internet connections that people can't afford. Essentially, she said, they would be "building bridges to nowhere, building networks to no one."
'That Hurt'
Over a lunch of tortilla chips with the savory sauce that had been simmering on the stove, Williams said she hadn't been getting regular checkups before her diabetes diagnosis.
"To tell you the truth, if I can get up and move and nothing is bothering me, I don't go to the doctor," Williams said. "I'm just being honest."
Years ago, Williams recalled, "my head was hurting me so bad I had to just lay down. I couldn't stand up, walk, or nothing. I'd get so dizzy."
Williams thought it was her blood pressure, but the doctor checked for diabetes. "How did they know? I don't know," Williams said.
As lunch ended, she pulled out her glucose monitor. Williams connected the needle and wiped her finger with an alcohol pad. Then she pricked her finger.
"Oh," Williams said, sucking air through her teeth. "That hurt."
She placed the sample in the machine, and it quickly displayed a reading of 145 — a number, Williams said, that meant she needed to stop eating.
Panelists at a COVID conference last fall were asked to voice their regrets — policies they had supported during the pandemic but had come to see as misguided. COVID contact tracing, one said. Closing schools, another said. Vaccine mandates, a third said.
When Marty Makary's turn came, the Johns Hopkins University surgeon said, "I can't think of anything," adding, "The entire COVID policy of three to four years felt like a horror movie I was forced to watch."
It was a characteristic response for Makary, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration, who looks set to be confirmed after a Senate committee hearing on Thursday. A decorated doctor and a brash critic of many of his medical colleagues, Makary drew Trump's attention during the pandemic with frequent appearances on Fox News shows such as "Tucker Carlson Tonight," in which he excoriated public health officials over their handling of COVID.
Many former FDA officials and scientists with knowledge of the agency are optimistic about Makary — to a degree.
"He's a world-class surgeon, and he has health policy expertise," said Jennifer Nuzzo, a Brown University professor of epidemiology and former colleague of Makary's at Johns Hopkins. "If you have pancreatic cancer, he's the person you want to operate on you. The university is probably losing a lot of money to not have him doing that work."
His critics say he at times exaggerated the harms of the COVID vaccine and undersold the dangers of the virus, contributing to a pandemic narrative that led many Americans to shun the shots and other practices intended to curb transmission and reduce hospitalizations and deaths.
Should he take the reins at the FDA, transitioning from gadfly to the head of an agency that regulates a fifth of the U.S. economy, Makary would have to engage in the thorny challenges of governing.
"Makary spent the pandemic raving against the medical establishment as if he were an outsider, which he wasn't," said Jonathan Howard, a New York City neurologist and the author of "We Want Them Infected," a book that criticizes Makary and other academics who opposed government policies. "Now he really is the establishment. Everything that happens is going to be his responsibility."
At his confirmation hearing, Makary sounded a lower-key tone, extolling the FDA's professional staff and promising to apply good science and common sense in the service of attacking chronic disease in the U.S., including by studying food additives and chemicals that could be contributing to poor health.
"We need more humility in the medical establishment. You have to be willing to evolve your position as new data comes in," he testified. What makes a great doctor "is not how much you know; it's your humility and your willingness to learn, as you go, from patients."
Colleagues have applauded Makary's skill and intelligence as a surgeon and medical policy thinker. He contributed to a 2009 surgery checklist believed to have prevented thousands of mistakes and infections in operating rooms. He wrote a widely cited 2016 paper claiming that medical errors were the third-leading cause of death in the United States, although some researchers said the assertion was overblown. He's also founded or been a director for companies and said in the hearing that a surgical technique he invented eventually could help cure diabetes.
Humility, however, has not been Makary's most obvious trait.
During the pandemic, he took to op-eds and conservative media with controversial positions on public health policy. Some proved astute, while others look less prescient in hindsight.
In December 2020, Makary defied established scientific knowledge and said that vaccination of 20% of the population would be enough to create "herd immunity." In a February 2021 Wall Street Journal piece, he predicted that COVID would virtually disappear by April because so many people would have become immune through infection or vaccination. The U.S. death toll from COVID stood at 560,000 that April, with an additional 650,000 deaths to come. In June 2021, he said he had been unable to find evidence of a single COVID death of a previously healthy child. By then there were many reports of such deaths, although children were much less likely than older people to suffer severe disease.
In February 2023, Makary testified in Congress that the lab-leak theory of COVID's origin was a "no brainer," a surprisingly unequivocal statement for a scientist discussing a scientifically unresolved issue.
Some public health officials felt Makary gratuitously attacked authorities working in difficult circumstances.
"He went from being a pretty reasonable person to saying a lot of things that were over the top and unnecessary," said Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, who was the White House COVID-19 response coordinator under President Joe Biden.
And while almost everyone involved in fighting COVID has admitted to getting things wrong during the pandemic, Jha said, "I never had any sense from Marty that he did."
Makary did not respond to requests for comment.
Makary accused Biden administration officials of ignoring emerging evidence that previous infection with COVID could be as or more effective against future infection than vaccination. While he was probably right, Nuzzo said, his statements seemed to encourage people to get infected.
"It's reasonable to say that vaccine mandates weren't the right approach," she said. "But you can also understand that people were trying to blindly stumble our way out of the situation, and some people thought vaccine mandates would be expedient."
At Johns Hopkins, for example, Nuzzo opposed a booster mandate for the campus in 2022 but understood the final decision to require it. School authorities were intent on bringing students back to campus and worried that outbreaks would force them to shut down again, she said.
"You can argue that seat belt laws are bad because they impinge on civil rights," Howard said. "But a better thing to do would be to urge people to wear seat belts."
Makary's statements had "no grace," he said. "These were people dealing with an overwhelming virus, and he constantly accused them of lying."
Several public health officials were particularly upset by the way Makary cast aspersions on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccine safety program. In a Jan. 16, 2023, appearance on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show, Makary said the CDC had "tried to quickly downplay" evidence of an increased risk of stroke in Medicare beneficiaries who got a COVID booster. In fact, the CDC had detected a potential signal for additional strokes in one database, and in the interest of transparency it released that information, Nuzzo said. Further investigation found that there was no actual risk.
During Thursday's hearing, Makary's pandemic views were mostly left unexplored, but Democratic and Republican senators repeatedly probed for his views on the abortion drug mifepristone, which became easier to use without direct medical supervision because of a 2021 FDA ruling. Many Republicans want to reverse the FDA ruling; Democrats say there are reams of evidence that support the drug's safety when taken by a woman at home.
Makary tried to satisfy both parties. He told Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) he would be led by science and had no preconceived ideas about mifepristone's safety. Questioned by Republican Bill Cassidy, chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and an abortion foe, he said he would examine ongoing data on the drug from the FDA's risk evaluation system, which gathers reports from the field.
The abortion pill question exemplifies the kind of dilemmas Makary will face at the FDA, Jha said.
"He's going to have to decide whether he listens to the scientists in his administration, or his boss, who often disagrees with science," he said. "He's a smart, thoughtful guy and my hope is he'll find his way through."
"The two most important organs for the FDA commissioner are the brain and the spine," said former FDA deputy commissioner Joshua Sharfstein. "The spine because there's attempted influence coming from many directions, not just political but also commercial and from multiple advocacy communities. It's very important to stand up for the agency's success."
We'd like to speak with current and former personnel from the Department of Health and Human Services or its component agencies who believe the public should understand the impact of what's happening within the federal health bureaucracy. Please message KFF Health News on Signal at (415) 519-8778 or get in touch here.
More than three years ago, health insurance giant Centene Corp. settled allegations that it overcharged Medicaid programs in Ohio and Mississippi related to prescription drug billing.
Now at least 20 states have settled with Centene over its pharmacy benefit manager operation that coordinated the medications for Medicaid patients. Arizona was among the most recent to join the ranks, settling for an undisclosed payout, Richie Taylor, a spokesperson for the state's attorney general, told KFF Health News in December.
All told, Centene has agreed to pay more than $1 billion in settlements, according to Cohen Milstein, one of the law firms representing states in the agreements. Meanwhile, St. Louis-based Centene reported $163 billion in revenue in 2024, largely proceeds from government health programs for Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act. The health care company has admitted no wrongdoing in the settlements.
Two state holdouts appear to remain: Georgia has yet to settle with Centene, even though the administration of Gov. Brian Kemp hired law firm Liston & Deas in 2019 to investigate state pharmacy benefit operations.
Florida hired the same law firm in 2021 to pursue overbilling allegations involving Centene, but state officials declined to answer a reporter's questions about whether Florida has dropped the case, reached an undisclosed settlement, or is still discussing the issue.
Neither state has publicly disclosed what's standing in the way of potentially tens of millions of dollars in Centene payouts, or whether negotiations are taking place. Because the deals are largely occurring outside the court system, the process between the private law firms hired by states and Centene remains generally out of public view.
Centene spokespeople did not return multiple phone calls and emails asking for updates. In 2022, the company said it was working on settlements with Georgia and eight other states, having reached deals with 13 others. And in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in October, Centene said it had reached settlements with "the vast majority of states impacted" over the operations of its former pharmacy benefits manager.
Georgia has "taken disproportionately long compared to other states," said Greg Reybold, a vice president of the American Pharmacy Cooperative, which represents independent pharmacies.
Meanwhile, Centene's Georgia Medicaid plan, the Peach State Health Plan, lost its bid last year to continue its longtime participation in a Georgia Medicaid program in which companies cover the care for Medicaid recipients for a set fee from the government rather than for each medical service provided. The company, which has been part of the contract since the managed-care program began in 2006, filed a protest over the contract awards, saying that the process was "mismanaged, rife with errors and reckless practices."
Nationally, pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, have come under increased scrutiny over accusations of pocketing discounts on medications or inflating costs in the years since Centene started settling its Medicaid-related allegations. Members of Congress have proposed major policy constraints on PBMs. Centene has since overhauled its PBM operation.
Still, a possible settlement in Georgia could bring in significant money to the state. California had the largest publicly disclosed settlement at $215 million, split with the federal government, but a settlement with Georgia could be in the range of the $88 million that Centene agreed to pay in the Ohio dispute, Reybold said.
The state should aggressively pursue a settlement with Centene, said Roland Behm, co-founder of the Georgia Mental Health Policy Partnership, who is a critic of Centene and its Georgia Medicaid plan. Behm said state Attorney General Chris Carr should take "the same tenacious prosecutorial action" against Centene that Carr's agency takes against individuals involved in fraud against Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health insurance coverage for those with low incomes or disabilities.
Carr's office said in 2022 that it stood ready to represent Georgia in settlement negotiations with Centene. Carr, a Republican who has announced he's running for governor in 2026, received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Centene, its subsidiaries, and its executives, as did Kemp, a fellow Republican, KFF Health News reported in 2022. Contributions to the Kemp and Carr campaigns were part of more than $26.9 million that Centene, its subsidiaries, its top executives, and their spouses donated to state politicians in 33 states, to their political parties, and to nonprofit fundraising groups from 2015 through 2022.
Since 2022, the company and its political action committee have contributed, combined, at least $2 million more to the campaigns of Florida and Georgia candidates of both political parties, along with state party organizations and political committees, according to state campaign finance records.
When asked about a possible settlement, a spokesperson for Carr, Kara Murray, directed a reporter to the Georgia Department of Community Health, which administers Medicaid.
Fiona Roberts, a spokesperson for that agency, then told KFF Health News that the department "is actively pursuing options to ensure regulatory compliance with the state's contract." She declined to comment further.
Florida's attorney general's office directed a reporter to the state agency that oversees Medicaid, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. But that agency did not respond to multiple phone calls and emails requesting comment.
Rebecca Grapevine of Healthbeat contributed to this article.
The Justice Department's years-long court battle to force UnitedHealth Group to return billions of dollars in alleged Medicare Advantage overpayments hit a major setback Monday when a special master ruled the government had failed to prove its case.
In finding for UnitedHealth, Special Master Suzanne Segal found that the DOJ had not presented evidence to support its claim that the giant health insurer exaggerated how sick patients were to illegally pocket more than $2 billion in overpayments.
"A mere possibility of an overpayment is not enough for the government to carry its burden," Segal wrote in an initial ruling. She recommended that UnitedHealth's motion to dismiss the case be granted. The recommendation, which is to be presented to the federal judge handling the case, can be appealed within two weeks.
The civil fraud case against UnitedHealth Group, the nation's largest Medicare Advantage insurer, was filed in 2011 by whistleblower Benjamin Poehling, a former company employee. The DOJ took over the case in 2017. Medicare Advantage is the privately run alternative to the traditional Medicare program for seniors.
"After more than a decade of DOJ's wasteful and expensive challenge to our Medicare Advantage business, the Special Master concluded there was no evidence to support the DOJ's claims we were overpaid or that we did anything wrong," UnitedHealth spokesperson Heather Soule said in a statement.
Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesperson for the Justice Department, said the agency wouldn't comment on the ruling, which was filed in federal court in Los Angeles. Attorneys for whistleblower Poehling had no comment.
Medicare pays Advantage health plans higher rates to cover sicker patients but requires that their conditions be properly documented in medical records.
The DOJ alleges Medicare paid UnitedHealth Group more than $7.2 billion from 2009 through 2016 based on the company's efforts to boost revenue by reviewing patient records to find additional diagnoses and adding medical billing codes to their files. According to the DOJ, Medicare would have paid the company $2.1 billion less if it had deleted unsupported billing codes.
The Justice Department also alleged that in these chart reviews, the health insurance giant ignored overcharges that might have reduced bills.
But the special master, who was appointed by U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin, concluded the government's case "depends entirely on speculation and assumptions about what the codes found by the United coders actually mean."
"If this stands, I think it is a major defeat for the government," said William Hanagami, an attorney who represented a different whistleblower in one of the earliest cases alleging billing fraud by a Medicare Advantage insurance company. Hanagami said he expects the government to appeal the decision.
Segal noted that UnitedHealth executives told Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials about its chart review policies at an April 2014 meeting. At the time, CMS was considering a regulation to restrict use of chart reviews, but the agency backed off the regulation under pressure from the insurance industry. At the time, a CMS official described the industry's response as an "uproar."
The special master noted that United had requested the meeting with CMS officials, which she called "the opposite of concealment."
"The problem with the government's allegations is that the government knew of the very chart review practices which it now claims United prevented it from learning, and thus the government cannot have been duped into relying on any action or inaction by United in determining whether it had been the victim of overpayments," Segal wrote.
Segal noted CMS audits of UnitedHealth's Medicare Advantage plans had found that about 89% of billing codes were supported by patient medical records. The audit findings "undercut" the government's claim that the company engaged in widespread overbilling.
"This litigation has been pending for more than a decade," she wrote, "and the government has had ample opportunity to develop evidence in support of its theories. It has not."
The decision comes as UnitedHealth faces renewed investigations into its handling of Medicare Advantage coding, including a new Justice Department review.
Medicare Advantage insurance plans have grown explosively in recent years and now enroll about 33 million members, more than half of people eligible for Medicare.
The industry has been the target of dozens of whistleblower lawsuits and government audits alleging that the plans cost taxpayers too much money, including a demand last month by Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that UnitedHealth explain its billing practices.
In his mid-80s, he had a stroke. Then lymphoma. Then prostate cancer. He was fatigued, isolated, not all that steady on his feet.
Then Tsubaki took part in an innovative care initiative that, over four months, sent an occupational therapist, a nurse, and a handy worker to his home to help figure out what he needed to stay safe. In addition to grab bars and rails, the handy worker built a bookshelf so neither Tsubaki nor the books he cherished would topple over when he reached for them.
Reading "is kind of the back door for my cognitive health — my brain exercise," said Tsubaki, a longtime community college teacher. Now 87, he lives independently and walks a mile and a half almost every day.
The program that helped Tsubaki remain independent, called Community Aging in Place: Advancing Better Living for Elders, or CAPABLE, has been around for 15 years and is offered in about 65 places across 26 states. It helps people 60 and up, and some younger people with disabilities or limitations, who want to remain at home but have trouble with activities like bathing, dressing, or moving around safely. Several published studies have found the program saves money and prevents falls, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says contribute to the deaths of 41,000 older Americans and cost Medicare about $50 billion each year.
Despite evidence and accolades, CAPABLE remains small, serving roughly 4,600 people to date. Insurance seldom covers it (although the typical cost of $3,500 to $4,000 per client is less than many health care interventions). Traditional Medicare and most Medicare Advantage private insurance plans don't cover it. Only four states use funds from Medicaid,the federal-state program for low-income and disabled people. CAPABLE gets by on a patchwork of grants from places like state agencies for aging and philanthropies.
The payment obstacles are an object lesson in how insurers, including Medicare, are built around paying for doctors and hospitals treating people who are injured or sick — not around community services that keep people healthy. Medicare has billing codes for treating a broken hip, but not for avoiding one, let alone for something like having a handy person "tack down loose carpet near stairs."
And while keeping someone alive longer may be a desirable outcome, it's not necessarily counted as savings under federal budget rules. A 2017 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services evaluation found that CAPABLE had high satisfaction rates and some savings. But its limited size made it hard to assess the long-term economic impact.
It's unclear how the Trump administration will approach senior care.
The barriers to broader state or federal financing are frustrating, said Sarah Szanton, who helped create CAPABLE while working as a nurse practitioner doing home visits in west Baltimore. Some patients struggled to reach the door to open it for her. One tossed keys to her out of a second-story window, she recalled.
Seeking a solution, Szanton discovered a program called ABLE, which brought an occupational therapist and a handy worker to the home. Inspired by its success, Szanton developed CAPABLE, which added a nurse to check on medications, pain, and mental well-being, and do things like help participants communicate with doctors. It began in 2008. Szanton since 2021 has been the dean of Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, which coordinates research on CAPABLE. The model is participatory, with the client and care team "problem-solving and brainstorming together," said Amanda Goodenow, an occupational therapist who worked in hospitals and traditional home health before joining CAPABLE in Denver, where she also works for the CAPABLE National Center, the nonprofit that runs the program.
CAPABLE doesn't profess to fix all the gaps in U.S. long-term care, and it doesn't work with all older people. Those with dementia, for example, don't qualify. But studies show it does help participants live more safely at home with greater mobility. And one study that Szanton co-authored estimated Medicare savings of around $20,000 per person would continue for two years after a CAPABLE intervention.
"To us, it's so obvious the impact that can be made just in a short amount of time and with a small budget," said Amy Eschbach, a nurse who has worked with CAPABLE clients in the St. Louis area, where a Medicare Advantage plan covers CAPABLE. That St. Louis program caps spending on home modifications at $1,300 a person.
Both Hill staff and CMS experts who have looked at CAPABLE do see potential routes to broader coverage. One senior Democratic House aide, who asked not to be identified because they were not allowed to speak publicly, said Medicare would have to establish careful parameters. For instance, CMS would have to decide which beneficiaries would be eligible. Everyone in Medicare? Or only those with low incomes? Could Medicare somehow ensure that only necessary home modifications are made — and that unscrupulous contractors don't try to extract the equivalent of a "copay" or "deductible" from clients?
Szanton said there are safeguards and more could be built in. For instance, it's the therapists like Goodenow, not the handy workers, who put in the work orders to stay on budget.
For Tsubaki, whose books are not only shelved but organized by topic, the benefits have endured.
"I became more independent. I'm able to handle most of my activities. I go shopping, to the library, and so forth," he said. His pace is slow, he acknowledged. But he gets there.
Kenen is the journalist-in-residence and a faculty member at Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. She is not affiliated with the CAPABLE program.