The law, which takes effect immediately, follows an investigation by the Miami Herald, in conjunction with the investigative newsroom ProPublica, that found NICA had generated nearly $1.5 billion in assets — largely through the investment of assessments paid by doctors and hospitals.
This article was published on Tuesday, June 22, 2021 in ProPublica.
By Carol Marbin Miller and Daniel Chang, Miami Herald
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has signed legislation overhauling a controversial state program that provides lifelong care for children born with catastrophic brain damage, approving the most far-reaching reform in the program’s 33-year history.
With DeSantis’ signature Monday night, parents who participate in the Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, or NICA, will get an immediate $150,000 cash benefit and the pledge of Florida lawmakers that they will no longer have to fight with administrators for wheelchairs, medication, therapy and other services for their severely disabled children.
That’s on top of the $100,000 the law previously provided, which had not been increased since the program’s inception. Families said that original amount fell far short of providing for a severely disabled child.
The law, which takes effect immediately, follows an investigation by the Miami Herald, in conjunction with the investigative newsroom ProPublica, that found NICA had generated nearly $1.5 billion in assets — largely through the investment of assessments paid by doctors and hospitals. At the same time, families complained, administrators frequently delayed or denied claims for medication, therapy, equipment and nursing services to parents struggling to pay their bills.
The legislation is, in many ways, a rebuke of NICA’s leadership, which had for decades run the program with little transparency. Parents said the program denied claims and made it difficult for them to access care for their children with severe and permanent brain damage. In one 2013 email obtained by the Herald, NICA’s director wrote that the program was “not here or funded to ‘promote the best interest’ of the children.”
The new law, passed unanimously by both chambers of the Legislature, says otherwise: One provision requires that “the association shall administer the plan in a manner that promotes and protects the health and best interests of children with birth-related neurological injuries.”
Parents and guardians of children in NICA said they were glad to see the governor approve the changes, but some also wondered why it took years for the state to address the program’s inadequacies.
“It feels good to be acknowledged, not just acknowledged but that they’re trying to make things right,” said Jennifer Pham, whose younger brother, Justin Nguyen, was accepted into NICA in 1998.
Pham, whose family’s story was reported by the Herald, said her family had reached the point of desperation after years of fighting with program administrators to get what Justin had been promised.
“Why do families have to go through so much to get change?” said Pham, 31, whose family lives in Jacksonville. “I feel like anytime anything good happened with NICA was because my family was at the edge. We were at rock bottom, and then they wanted to help out.”
NICA administrators said in a prepared statement that the organization “wholeheartedly supports and appreciates” the legislative reforms.
“We are eager to provide these new benefits and have already begun implementing the new language and protocols envisioned in the legislation,” administrators said, noting that the program recently launched a revamped website and updated the benefits handbook. “Our 17-person team is committed to meeting all statutory deadlines and will do everything we can to give NICA families the support they need in navigating the claims process.”
For most of its history, NICA operated in obscurity. Lawmakers created the program to manage the care of children born with severe physical and cognitive disabilities as the result of oxygen deprivation or spinal cord injury at birth.
Families were steered into the program by a 1988 law — one of only two in the nation — that severely restricts the parents of certain brain-damaged children from suing their obstetrician or the hospital where their child was born. NICA was created to protect obstetricians from ruinous legal judgments for some of the most expensive medical mistakes, thereby lowering malpractice liability insurance premiums.
Parents said they were often treated with indifference and contempt by administrators who, they believe, cared more about their investment portfolios than the lives of frail and disabled children. Administrators hired a private investigator to tail one boy’s parents after they appealed NICA’s refusal to pay for therapy.
Yamile “Jamie” Acebo of Pembroke Pines — whose hardship was detailed in a Herald story — said the help her daughter, Jasmine, received from NICA often was delivered grudgingly, and late, if at all.
“They were just trying to nickel-and-dime me,” Acebo said of her experience with NICA. “It’s like it was their savings account — like it was theirs and they were not really doing anything to help people.”
But Acebo said she’s happy that future NICA families will get more freely what she had to fight for. “Finally something is going to get done,” said Acebo. “They are finally going to do the right thing. A lot of these families are struggling and should not have to struggle.”
Among other provisions, the new law will give families the means to fully cover funeral and burial expenses if a child in NICA dies. Acebo said she couldn’t afford both a coffin and funeral when 27-year-old Jasmine died in 2017. She said she had had to cremate her daughter, though her faith frowns upon the practice. “Let me tell you,” she said, “I had to scrape and scrounge, and people had to give me money for my daughter’s funeral.”
With DeSantis’ signature, “on top of grieving a child, they won’t have to worry, ‘Where am I going to get money to bury my child?’” Acebo said of parents still in the program. Because her involvement in NICA ended with the death of her daughter, Acebo will not receive the added $150,000. But she will receive an enhanced death benefit, $50,000 for death expenses, not the $10,000 the law previously allowed.
Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis, whose agency oversees NICA, said in a prepared statement Monday night that the legislation “fundamentally reforms” the program.
“This law represents a major paradigm shift,” Patronis said. “As of now, NICA must be fully engaged in the overall well-being of these families and children. Overall, these families are going to get more relief, and it is our job to ensure the board is holding NICA accountable and seeing these reforms are implemented.”
In addition to the increase in the one-time payment and the extra allotment for parents of deceased children, the law provides:
A $10,000 annual mental health benefit for families.
Representation on the board of directors by a NICA parent and an advocate for disabled children, and a six-year term limit for all board members.
An increase in the lifetime housing assistance and home modification benefit from $30,000 to $100,000.
Money for wheelchair-accessible vans and a “reliable method of transportation” for the life of children in care.
A code of ethics for administrators and board members.
An appeal process at the Division of Administrative Hearings, where NICA petitions are filed, for families to dispute NICA denials.
In a prepared statement, one of its legislative sponsors said the law “will help ensure so many struggling families get the help and care they deserve.”
“As a mother of two, I know there is nothing more important than ensuring your child has the proper care they need to live a long healthy life,” said state Rep. Traci Koster, a Safety Harbor Republican and the law’s House sponsor. “This legislation brings needed changes to the NICA program and improves services that they provide.”
Sen. Lauren Book, a Plantation Democrat who co-sponsored the legislation in the upper chamber, said, “No family should have to beg for the treatment and supplies their children need while a quasi-governmental agency puts up roadblock after roadblock.”
Sen. Danny Burgess, a Zephyrhills Republican who also co-sponsored the legislation, said: “On behalf of all of the NICA families who have struggled, this is a light at the end of a very dark tunnel.”
Last year as COVID-19 laid siege to the nation, many U.S. hospitals dramatically reduced their aggressive tactics to collect medical debt. Some ceased entirely.
But not all.
There was a nearly 90% drop overall in legal actions between 2019 and the first seven months of 2020 by the nation's largest hospitals and health systems, according to a new report by Johns Hopkins University. Still, researchers told ProPublica that they identified at least 16 institutions that pursued lawsuits, wage garnishments and liens against their patients in the first seven months of 2020.
The Johns Hopkins findings, released Monday in partnership with Axios, which first reported the results, are part of an ongoing series of state and national reports that look at debt collections by U.S. hospitals and health systems from 2018 to 2020.
During those years more than a quarter of the nation's largest hospitals and health systems pursued nearly 39,000 legal actions seeking more than $72 million, according to data Johns Hopkins researchers obtained through state and county court records.
More than 65% of the institutions identified were nonprofit corporations, which means that in return for tax-exempt status they are supposed to serve the public rather than private interest.
The amount of medical debt individuals owe is often a small sliver of a hospital's overall revenue — as little as 0.03% of annual receipts — but can "cause devastating financial burdens to working families," the report said. The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has estimated medical debt makes up 58% of all debt collection actions.
The poor or uninsured often bear the brunt of such actions, said Christi Walsh, clinical director of healthcare and research policy at Johns Hopkins University. "In times of crisis you start to see the huge disparities," she said.
Researchers said they could not determine all of the amounts sought by the 16 institutions taking legal action in the first half of 2020, but of those they could, Froedtert Health, a Wisconsin health system, sought the most money from patients — more than $3 million.
Even after Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers declared a public health emergency on March 12, 2020, hospitals within the Froedtert Health system filed more than 100 cases from mid-March through July, researchers reported, and 96 of the actions were liens.
One lien was against Tyler Boll-Flaig, a 21-year-old uninsured pizza delivery driver from Twin Lakes, Wisconsin, who was severely injured June 3, 2020, when a speeding drag racer smashed into his car. Boll-Flaig's jaw was shattered, and he had four vertebrae crushed and several ribs broken. His 14-year-old brother, Dominic Flaig, tagging along that night, was killed.
Days after the crash, their mother, Brandy Flaig, said she got a call from a hospital billing office asking for her surviving son's contact information to set up a payment plan for his medical bills.
Then on July 30 — less than two months later — Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee filed a $67,225 lien against Boll-Flaig. It was one of seven liens the hospital filed the same day, totaling nearly a quarter of a million dollars, according to the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access website used by researchers and reviewed by ProPublica.
"It's during the pandemic, we're still grieving, and they go after Tyler?" Flaig said. "It's predatory." Tyler Boll-Flaig declined to be interviewed.
Froedtert Hospital is the largest in the Froedtert Health system, which includes five full-service hospitals, two community hospitals and more than 40 clinics. The healthcare system reported more than $53 million in operating income during the quarter ending Sept. 30, 2020 — double the amount from the previous year, according to its financial filings. It has also received $90 million in federal CARES Act money to help with its COVID-19 response and operating costs, a spokesperson said.
Only Reedsburg Area Medical Center, a nonprofit hospital in Reedsburg, Wisconsin, pursued more legal actions in the spring and summer of 2020, with 139 lawsuits and 22 wage garnishments, the study showed. Medical center officials did not respond to a request for comment.
In contrast, Advocate Aurora Health, the top-suing health network in the state before the pandemic, dropped to zero court filings after February 2020, the report found.
Stephen Schoof, a Froedtert Health spokesperson, said in an email he could not comment on the Boll-Flaig case because of patient privacy laws. He also said the health system was unable to comment on the Johns Hopkins study because it had not yet reviewed all the findings. But Schoof disputed the numbers he was sent by ProPublica, calling them "inaccurate and misleading."
Schoof objected to how researchers defined and counted legal actions. He said that Froedtert Hospital ceased filing small claims lawsuits in March 2020 but continued to pursue liens on patients involved in accidents that might result in settlements.
"The lien process does not impact a patient's personal property and is intended to recoup expenses from settlement proceeds from the negligent party's insurance company," he said.
That is what happened in the Boll-Flaig case. Jason Abraham, Boll-Flaig's lawyer, told ProPublica the lien is in the process of being settled with the hospital. He said the sum will be covered by the at-fault driver's car insurance and workers' compensation insurance since Boll-Flaig was on the job when the accident occurred.
Liens allow hospitals to get paid quickly and by state law must be filed within 60 days of hospital discharge. Because he was hospitalized during the pandemic, Boll-Flaig was released after about 24 hours, his mother said.
Abraham said the hospital was "trying to get to the front of the line because they think there is a pool of money available."
Wisconsin Watch, a nonprofit news site, reported late last year that Froedtert Hospital filed 362 liens through Dec. 11, including 251 after May. That was more than the 300 liens it filed in all of 2019, the news investigation showed.
In New York, the Johns Hopkins researchers found 51 hospitals filed legal action against more than 1,800 patients between January 2018 and mid-December 2020. More than half came from just one health system: Northwell Health, a nonprofit that is the largest in the state, operating 19 hospitals with affiliations at four more across the state.
The most litigious in the Northwell system during that time was Long Island Jewish Medical Center, which filed a total of 2,011 court actions, with more than a quarter of those pursued last year, the research showed.
"During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, most hospitals substantially reduced or even ceased all medical debt lawsuits. However, as the pandemic's first wave subsided, many New York hospitals resumed business as usual," the study says.
Although he had not seen the Johns Hopkins report, Rich Miller, executive vice president of Northwell Health, said he was skeptical of its findings, in part because the health system stopped all legal action against patients from April through September of last year.
Northwell resumed filing cases for about two months in the fall of 2020, but has since stopped. Any case filed during the brief resumption has now been rescinded, he said.
Miller said his health system does not take legal action against Medicaid patients, those over 65, the unemployed, people with disabilities or military members. Patients are pursued legally only if they have ignored attempts to work out payment plans or if they have "a strong ability to pay," he said.
All hospitals have specific guidelines and steps they must follow before taking any "last resort" collection actions, said Marie Johnson, vice president of media relations for the American Hospital Association.
Healthcare systems must balance the need to be adequately financed with "treating all people equitably, with dignity, respect and compassion," Johnson said.
Still, the problem highlights the murkiness of the U.S. healthcare system, said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor specializing in health law. "Sometimes we treat it like a commodity, sometimes we treat it like a right," he said. "In the eyes of the law, these are just personal debts."
But he questioned the wisdom of equating unpaid medical bills, often incurred during emergencies or crisis, with an overdue credit card: "Is this really how we want to process payment disputes?"
Florida lawmakers stripped parents of the right to sue over births gone terribly wrong, created a program to cover those claims, made hundreds of millions investing the program’s funds and then offloaded much of the actual costs to Medicaid.
This article was published on Tuesday, June 1, 2021 in ProPublica.
By Daniel Chang and Carol Marbin Miller, Miami Herald
Every other month, Jay Alexander Benitez would be hospitalized with pneumonia or other respiratory infections that stemmed from the profound brain damage he suffered at birth. “It was heartache,” the boy’s mother, Alexandra Benitez, said. “Being in the hospital scared him.”
Jay’s pulmonologist said that regular therapy with a nebulizer — a machine that delivers vaporized medication to the lungs to improve breathing — might prevent some of those illnesses. But Benitez said she was forced to wait months before the treatments could begin.
A Florida law passed in 1988 had prevented the Benitezes from filing a malpractice suit to recoup the costs of their son’s care but promised that a no-fault fund would pick up the tab.
Alexandra Benitez soon learned that the no-fault fund, the Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, or NICA, would pay for nothing — not until she had first gone to Medicaid, an insurance program loathed by many of Florida’s poorest residents for its cut-rate reimbursements and propensity to fight claims large and small.
When Jay’s pulmonologist recommended the nebulizer machine to loosen mucus in his lungs, Medicaid said no. The family needed extra feeding tubes for Jay’s gastrostomy, a procedure in which a port is inserted directly into the stomach to provide nutrition. Medicaid said no. Jay’s doctor prescribed a “stander,” an adjustable frame that could be used to develop muscle strength in the boy’s legs. Medicaid said no.
NICA would not cover any medical care for her son until she could prove that Medicaid had already denied the claim and show a signed doctor’s letter verifying that the child really needed whatever she was requesting — not just breathing treatments, but also diapers, syringes, anything.
“They make the family jump through all these hoops. Just to get what children are entitled to,” said Benitez, who lives in Lakeland, just east of Tampa Bay. “Hardship, that’s what it is.”
This is the story of how Florida lawmakers stripped parents of the right to sue over births gone catastrophically wrong, created a no-fault program funded by fees paid by doctors and hospitals to cover those claims, made hundreds of millions investing those funds in the stock market, accumulated $1.5 billion in assets and then offloaded much of the costs of care onto taxpayers.
That left parents like the Benitezes to grapple with Medicaid’s arcane rules, a shortage of doctors willing to accept Medicaid patients and frequent denials of claims.
About 125 of the 215 brain-damaged clients, some of them now adults, currently in Florida’s NICA program qualify for Medicaid, and they are required to seek help first from the taxpayer-funded safety-net plan. Those with private health insurance coverage also must ask their insurer to pay for care.
After decades of enforcing this last-to-pay policy, NICA faces an existential reckoning.
Florida legislators approved a bill of sweeping reforms for the program after the Miami Herald and the nonprofit newsroom ProPublica began publishing an investigative series in April documenting parents’ frustrations with NICA. Gov. Ron DeSantis has yet to sign the bill.
And a federal lawsuit alleges that by telling parents to go to Medicaid first, NICA is causing them to commit fraud by filing a false claim with Medicaid when NICA was supposed to pay instead.
Both Medicaid and NICA consider themselves a “payer of last resort,” meaning they pick up only what insurance and other “third parties” do not. But in reality only one program can be last in line to pay, and that — as explicitly stated in federal law — is Medicaid, the whistleblower lawsuit says.
A federal district judge in Fort Lauderdale rejected an effort by NICA to throw out the suit, a decision the program is appealing.
When asked in a Sept. 25, 2008, deposition what would happen if Medicaid were to stop covering care for people in the program, NICA Executive Director Kenney Shipley replied: “It would make NICA insolvent.”
Neither NICA nor the Agency for Health Care Administration, which administers Medicaid in Florida, would provide figures for how much Medicaid has spent over the years on children enrolled in NICA. But an analysis AHCA performed for NICA in 2020 casts doubt on Shipley’s dire prediction.
Agency records for the period from January 2009 through Sept. 20, 2017, show AHCA paid at least $35.8 million to provide care through Medicaid for 122 people with NICA coverage. That equates to less than $5 million per year.
Still, federal law is clear that without a specific exemption, which NICA does not have, Medicaid must pay last, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law professor at George Washington University and adviser to Congress on federal Medicaid payment and access policy.
“I’m not understanding why [Medicaid] has not come down on them like a load of bricks,” Rosenbaum said. “There’s something upside down about this whole arrangement.”
Helping Doctors, Billing Taxpayers
Florida lawmakers created NICA to reduce malpractice insurance premiums for doctors by shielding them from lawsuits for birth injuries that result in profound physical and cognitive disabilities, usually due to oxygen deprivation.
Obstetricians pay $5,000 a year for coverage under the program, an amount that hasn’t been raised in 33 years and would be nearly $12,000 in today’s dollars. All other licensed Florida doctors pay $250 a year. Hospitals chip in $50 per live birth.
In return for barring parents from suing, NICA compensates them with a one-time payment and a commitment to cover a lifetime of “medically necessary” care for the injured child.
But parents whose injured children are enrolled in NICA and qualify for Medicaid based on their income say Florida stripped them of the right to sue and replaced it with essentially the same medical treatment that every other poor and disabled child is entitled to in the state. In Florida, Medicaid rates below the median for quality of care when compared with other states.
“They said our son was going to be taken care of. All his medical care would be taken care of,” Benitez said of NICA. “Then, every little thing my son needed, we had to fight for it.”
The bill adopted by Florida legislators in April attempts to make life easier for families like the Benitezes. The legislation raises the one-time benefit to families from $100,000 to $250,000, boosts the payment when a child dies from $10,000 to $50,000 and requires for the first time that at least one member of the NICA board of directors be the parent of a child in the program.
A proposal to raise the $5,000 OB-GYN dues and the $250 annual fee for all others doctors by up to 3% a year, starting in 2022, was shelved.
Lawmakers left for a later date the issue of whether NICA can keep sending families to Medicaid first for their care.
During hearings, Florida lawmakers proposed adding a statutory requirement that NICA repay Medicaid for the care it has provided to children since the program began and going forward. NICA’s administrators beseeched them not to do it.
“I would just plead with you not to take action that could potentially cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the NICA program, potentially put it in financial jeopardy, and really derail where we’re trying to go with all of these positive benefits,” said Steve Ecenia, general counsel for NICA.
“This amendment causes us great concern and we would ask you not to adopt it,” said Ecenia, who is also a lobbyist for one of Florida’s largest for-profit hospital chains, HCA Healthcare.
The proposal was dropped.
NICA did not respond to a question about Ecenia’s characterization given that Florida data shows Medicaid has spent less than $5 million a year on these children over a recent nine-year stretch.
In the final bill, lawmakers directed Florida’s Medicaid agency to tally the “extent and value” of NICA’s potential liability for Medicaid spending and make recommendations about whether the state should recover those funds.
Whatever the Legislature does, NICA’s reliance on Medicaid may be doomed because of the lawsuit filed in Fort Lauderdale federal court.
NICA asked that the case be dismissed, raising a defense in court filings that the program is a state agency that cannot be sued.
In a 14-page order issued Sept. 18, U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas rejected the argument, finding that NICA is not a state agency and that federal and state laws make NICA legally responsible for paying health care claims before those costs can be passed on to taxpayers. NICA has asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to reverse Dimitrouleas’ ruling.
In a 2019 email, Shipley, NICA’s executive director, acknowledged the risk that a judge might rule the program must pay first, with Medicaid serving only as a backup. She called this the “Sword of Damocles,” referring to the myth of the king who had to sit beneath a sword hanging by a thread.
The only other program like NICA, in Virginia, was forced to stop sending children to Medicaid for their care in 2018 and paid millions of dollars back to the federal government after being sued by the same whistleblower who filed suit in Florida.
"Always Denying Me"
As Alexandra Benitez drifted in and out of consciousness during her son’s chaotic delivery, she tried first to console her husband. Everything will be OK, she said, “because we are in the hospital after all.” Bleeding heavily from what she later learned was a tear between her uterus and her baby’s placenta, Benitez later bargained with her doctors.
“I told them to forget about me,” Benitez said. “Just take my son, and save him.”
Born with a severe brain injury, Jay Alexander Benitez was approved for NICA coverage in December 2001.
Alexandra Benitez, now 48, said she was told that NICA would cover a lifetime of care for Jay but not that she would have to get denials from Medicaid first.
“This was a constant thing, because my son always needed something,” Benitez said.
Medicaid, like NICA, did cover nursing care. Initially it agreed to pay for eight hours daily, allowing Benitez time to sleep, cook or clean the house. To remain eligible, Benitez had to reapply every six months and meet the low-income requirements.
If a family’s bank account crept over $2,000, Medicaid would terminate the nursing care for exceeding the program’s low-income requirements. Currently, a Florida household of three cannot earn more than $29,207 a year to qualify for Medicaid. Denials, delays, reductions in care and terminations can be appealed.
For years, the Benitez family lived on a razor’s edge of poverty, one roof leak or car repair away from ruin.
“They were always denying me,” Benitez said.
Benitez said she wishes NICA knew how Jay’s profound disabilities affected the entire family and how dedicated she and her husband were to his well-being.
“He was a happy soul,” Benitez said. “Even though his body was in constant pain he would fight through it.”
Jay died at home on Jan. 29, 2015, after suffering a massive seizure. He was 15. Benitez said she did whatever she could to make Jay’s life better. Having to slog through repeated requests, denials and appeals with Medicaid before NICA would pay depleted her.
“When you have a child you have hopes and dreams. You see them in the future. You don’t look forward to burying your own child,” she said. “It’s a hard, long road. A long fight. ... My son’s life, my family’s life, was not easy at all.”
Perpetuating Poverty
Although NICA and Medicaid cover a limited amount of in-home nursing care — and NICA even pays parents to watch their own children — some families are forced to patch together caregiving plans with nurses who don’t show up for work, sleep on the job, relocate unexpectedly or simply leave midshift, records show.
Pat Wear, who helped oversee a disability advocacy group in Florida before becoming commissioner for mental health and developmental disabilities in Kentucky, said low reimbursement rates are “at the heart of” Medicaid’s — and therefore NICA’s — inability to provide reliable, let alone high-quality, in-home nursing care.
“There’s a direct correlation between the reimbursement rates and quality of care,” said Wear, who is now retired. “Generally speaking, you get what you pay for.”
Even when NICA covers expenses that Medicaid won’t, it is NICA policy that the program will pay at the same reimbursement rate as Medicaid — which critics say ensures that the quality of care seldom exceeds what Medicaid can provide.
Florida’s Medicaid program spent less per enrollee to provide care for people with disabilities than almost any other state, ranking 44th out of 50 states in 2018, the most recent year reported in federal data.
In 2014, a Florida federal judge found that Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates relegated impoverished children to an inferior health care system.
Dr. Rex Northup, a retired critical care specialist who headed the Florida Panhandle region of another taxpayer-funded program, Children’s Medical Services, testified before the judge at the time. He described how some Pensacola families on Medicaid had to travel almost 350 miles to the University of Florida’s Shands Hospital in Gainesville to find a specialist willing to treat a medically complex child — not because the specialty was that rare, but because many doctors simply weren’t willing to accept Medicaid reimbursement rates.
Medicaid was “supposed to provide care equal to other insurance,” Northup said. Except in extremely rare cases, it didn’t, he added.
Then-U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan found that Florida’s Medicaid reimbursement rates were so low that children in the state’s program did not have adequate or reasonable access to medical and dental care as required by federal law. The case settled, with health regulators vowing to improve reimbursement rates and access to care. (Jordan was elevated to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals while the lawsuit was still pending.)
As part of the settlement, Florida’s Medicaid agency instituted an incentive plan that raised reimbursement rates for pediatricians who met certain requirements. Some are now paid the Medicare rate for elders, which is higher.
NICA administrators reject the claim that any children in the program who are insured by Medicaid are given inferior health care.
“NICA families receive care from some of the best, most specialized doctors in the United States — and no doctor has refused to care for a NICA patient, in Florida or elsewhere, due to reimbursement rates,” the program said in answer to a series of emailed questions from the Herald. “Not one.”
“If they, for some reason, do not accept a specific reimbursement rate for medically necessary and reasonable treatment, then NICA will pay whatever is necessary to make sure its families do not incur out-of-pocket expenses.”
NICA case management logs, obtained by the Herald under Florida’s public records law, are filled with references to parents calling the program, sometimes in tears over losing their jobs, and falling deeper into poverty, because of nursing-care issues:
Mother “states that there is no way she can work because nursing care is not dependable and many times she has to go to work and then come home to care for [her child] as well or can’t go to work at all because nurses don’t show up.”
“Nurses are calling off frequently and mother is having a hard time performing her job from home.”
“Mother called, lots of problems with keeping a nurse, one left for a different job, one sleeps on duty and parent did not want her back.”
That mother called NICA to complain that her “husband had to come home from work to take care of [their] child. Work told him he was missing too much time re sick child, if he left don’t come back.”
Later — the exact dates are redacted — the log noted the father’s employer followed through with the threat. “Last week, father was let go because he had to go home to care for child.”
The log noted the father could be paid $15 an hour to give care to his disabled child when he’s forced to leave work. But if the father quit his job for good or was fired, his caregiving pay from NICA would drop to $10 an hour.
Showdown in Federal Court
NICA’s current legal reckoning is being driven by the parents of a severely disabled boy named Cody Arven. In July 2015, they challenged the policies of the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program. It was the model for NICA.
There are some differences between the two programs. Florida’s soon-to-be-expanded board of directors consists of doctors, hospital representatives and insurers. Virginia’s board already includes two members who represent people with “special needs,” as well as a plaintiffs’ attorney. In Virginia, parents have up to 10 years after a baby’s birth to file a claim, compared with five years in Florida. And while Virginia does not offer a one-time $100,000 award, it pays lost wages annually to the injured child once he or she turns 18. The pay is equal to 50% of the average private, non-agricultural wage. The benefit amounted to about $29,000 in 2020.
In their federal lawsuit, Veronica and Theodore Arven, the latter now deceased, accused Virginia’s birth injury fund of illegally dumping its costs on taxpayers through Medicaid. Cody Arven was accepted into the Virginia fund after his 2003 birth left him severely disabled.
In 2018, the Virginia program settled by paying $20.7 million to the U.S. government and agreeing to stop shifting costs to Medicaid in the future. For filing the whistleblower lawsuit, the Arvens received $4.1 million of that.
That same month, Virginia’s program started buying private health insurance for all of its covered children who had relied primarily on Medicaid, said George Deebo, the director. Deebo said the change caused about a 20% increase in spending for the program.
“It changed the order of how we pay for services,” he said of the settlement. “Essentially, we reversed position with Medicaid.”
Florida NICA took notice.
“This is a terrible outcome,” one of the Florida program’s lawyers, Paul R. Monsees, wrote in a January 2019 email to Shipley and NICA’s general counsel. “What is to stop” a family from filing such a whistleblower suit in Florida? Monsees asked.
Three months later, on April 25, 2019, the Arvens did exactly that. Under a federal law, any person can bring a civil lawsuit against companies or people who allegedly defraud the U.S. government.
Whistleblower lawsuits are initially sealed so potential wrongdoers aren’t tipped off and complaints can be investigated. The Arven lawsuit was unsealed in September 2020 when Dimitrouleas rejected NICA’s attempts to dismiss it.
Although the issues are similar to Virginia, the stakes are higher. Florida’s NICA program has accepted more claims — 433 compared with about 255 for Virginia.
Virginia’s fund holds $500 million, about one-third of NICA’s assets.
"Stealing From Medicaid"
Florida and federal law require AHCA to claw back payment whenever Medicaid covers medical services that could have been paid for by a so-called third party, such as a health insurance plan or NICA.
The few exceptions to this rule are named in state and federal guidance and include state health agencies and federally designated benefits, such as the Indian Health Service, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and the Women, Infants and Children program.
NICA is not on the list of exceptions — despite requests to state lawmakers and state and federal health regulators from NICA’s attorneys to be included.
When the Herald asked AHCA for records showing whether the agency has made any attempts to recover any money from NICA, the agency refused to answer, citing the pending federal lawsuit.
But while NICA’s attorneys failed to persuade AHCA to alter its policy on Medicaid liability, they have argued successfully thus far in state courts that NICA has no obligation to repay Medicaid.
Administrative law judges who preside over NICA petitions and claims at the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings have ruled repeatedly that the program is not liable for Medicaid spending.
That’s what happened in the case of Fatema Shakir, who entered the world when no one was looking. No doctor or nurse was in the delivery room, and her mom, Allyson Williams, was so numbed by pain blockers that she didn’t realize she had given birth in her hospital bed. Fatema, severely brain damaged, was found under the covers with no heartbeat.
Although revived that day in June 2007, Fatema would be left with profound brain damage rendering her unable to eat or breathe without tubes.
“What happened to Fatema shouldn’t have ever happened,” Williams said. “That shouldn't have ever happened.”
Fatema’s parents fought NICA compensation at first, arguing that there was no doctor present when she was born on June 3, 2007. Staying out of NICA might have enabled the parents to pursue a malpractice suit they filed in 2008.
But the NICA statute only requires a participating doctor — one who paid the $5,000 annual premium — to have provided obstetrical services any time during labor, delivery or resuscitation immediately after birth in order for the case to qualify for compensation.
In August 2013, Fatema’s parents abandoned their suit and accepted NICA benefits. As the case dragged on in administrative court, and Fatema’s needs grew more intense, Williams said she felt pressured to accept NICA and was relieved to get help no matter where it came from. Williams was a single mom, unable to keep a job, she said, with other young children at home.
“It wasn’t Fatema’s fault, but I couldn’t work because she had all these doctors’ appointments, and if she got sick she couldn’t go to [out-of-home daytime nursing care], and that just took a lot.”
But the month after Williams had accepted NICA, Florida’s Medicaid program slapped Fatema’s parents with a $1.4 million lien for Medicaid benefits that covered Fatema’s long stay in the neonatal intensive care unit after delivery and her subsequent care.
Nearly four years later, Fatema died at the age of 9 on April 15, 2017. Her father, Muhammad Shakir, died later that year.
Prior to Fatema’s death, Williams asked an administrative judge to order that NICA pay off the lien. The judge said no, stating that NICA was not responsible for past expenses paid by Medicaid. Williams appealed the denial to Florida’s First District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the administrative judge’s decision.
Ronald Gilbert, an Orlando attorney who represented Williams, said that after his client accepted the NICA benefits, AHCA never enforced the lien. Williams did not pay the lien, Gilbert said, and there is no record that NICA paid it.
“The lien went away, which is just stealing from Medicaid, in my opinion,” Gilbert said, “particularly if the NICA program has [$1.5] billion in financial reserves.”
Fatema continued to rely on Medicaid after being accepted into NICA. Williams said she does not recall who paid for Fatema’s care — NICA or Medicaid — but that the costs were covered. She said both NICA and Medicaid treated Fatema fairly, but that she would have preferred to sue for her daughter’s injuries.
“No amount of money in the world can replace the amount ... my daughter should have been awarded,” said Williams, who is now 42.
Federal regulators say they have not issued any legal opinions, letters or other written guidance with respect to NICA or the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Program.
Rosenbaum, the health law professor at George Washington University, said programs like NICA are in theory beneficial, but only if you “take the step of aligning it with Medicaid policy.”
If DeSantis signs the legislative reform bill adopted by lawmakers in April, then the state’s Medicaid agency will begin a review of NICA’s potential liability. The legislation requires AHCA to deliver a report of its findings by Nov. 1.
Elective genetic screenings before and during pregnancy are safer and more available than ever.
Tests, known as noninvasive prenatal tests, or NIPTs, involve a draw of the expectant parent’s blood. Other tests, called carrier tests, are done before a person gets pregnant to screen for genetic abnormalities. Some common NIPT companies include Progenity, Natera and Harmony. Providers promise to predict the risk for chromosomal abnormalities, without risk to the fetus.
These tests can also be very expensive.
A number of expectant and new mothers have suggested that we look into the effectiveness, cost and transparency of these tests. We want to understand more about the billing process and communication following positive test results. If you have taken or given one of these tests, either as an expectant parent or a provider who works in maternal health, please fill out the brief questionnaire here.
Since the Trump administration deregulated the health insurance industry, there's been an explosion of short-term plans that leave patients with surprise bills and providers with huge revenue.
This article was published on Saturday, May 8, 2021 in ProPublica.
In the spring of 2019, Cory Dowd suddenly found himself without health insurance for the first time. A self-employed event planner, he had just finished a Peace Corps stint that provided health benefits, but he was still more than a year away from starting a graduate program that would provide coverage through his university.
So, like countless others in an online world, he went insurance shopping on the internet.
But the individual insurance market he was about to enter was one dramatically changed under President Donald Trump's push to dismantle Obamacare, offering more choices at cheaper prices.
Dowd is well-educated and knew more than most about how traditional health insurance works. But even he did not understand the extent to which insurers could offer plans that looked like a great deal but were stuffed with fine print that allowed companies to deny payment for routine medical events.
Not bound by the strict coverage rules of the Affordable Care Act, the short-term plans that Dowd signed up for have been dubbed "junk insurance" by consumer advocates and health policy experts. The plans can deny coverage for people with preexisting conditions, exclude payments for common treatments and impose limits on how much is paid for care.
Dowd, like millions of other Americans who have flocked to such plans in the past three years, only saw what looked like a great deal: six-month coverage offered through an agency called Pivot Health, whose website touts the company as a "fast-growing team obsessed with helping you find the right insurance for your needs."
Monthly premiums for the two short-term plans he bought were surprisingly cheap at around $100 a month each, with reasonable co-pays for routine doctor visits and treatments. Best of all, the first plan he bought promised to cover up to $1 million in claims, the second up to $750,000. That should more than do it, he thought. Dowd was 31 and healthy but wanted protection in case of a medical emergency. He signed up and began paying his premiums without closely reading the details.
Then he was hit with the very kind of emergency he had feared. And he wasn't protected after all.
Short-term plans have been around for decades, and are meant to temporarily bridge coverage gaps. Under the Affordable Care Act they were limited to three months. But when the Trump administration allowed them to be extended to nearly a year, they became a fast-growing and lucrative slice of the insurance industry.
Because these plans are not legally bound by the strict rules of the ACA, not only do they come with hefty restrictions and coverage limitations, but insurers can search through patients' past medical histories to find preexisting conditions.
All companies selling short-term plans have to do is acknowledge that they are not ACA-compliant and may not cover everything — a disclosure the insurers insist they do.
Still, the Biden administration faces a challenge on what to do about the proliferation of such plans.
Once in office, President Joe Biden quickly moved to make enrolling in comprehensive ACA coverage easier and make plans more affordable. On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced 940,000 people had signed up for ACA plans this spring after enrollment was reopened in February. In many states, enrollment will run through the summer.
Yet, while health policy experts say ACA expansion is important, it does not specifically address those who remain in plans outside the healthcare law and could be at risk for financial ruin.
"The Biden administration is going to have to find a way to put the genie back in the bottle," said Stacey Pogue, a health policy analyst for Every Texan, an Austin-based advocacy group.
True numbers of how many people have noncompliant plans remain elusive, as such plans often fly under regulatory radar and industry tracking. Still, an investigation last year by the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded that at least 3 million consumers had short-term limited duration plans in 2019, the last year for which information was available. That was a 27% jump from the previous year, when deregulation began in earnest, the investigation found.
"I would not be surprised if the numbers increased even more last year," said committee chair Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., in an emailed statement. He and others worry that people who lost employer-sponsored health coverage during the pandemic may have been drawn to short-term and other noncompliant insurance without fully understanding what they were buying.
Short-term insurers also do not have to adhere to the ACA rule on how much money they can take for overhead and profit — which means they can pay out less in claims.
Under the healthcare law, insurers are generally allowed to keep only about 15 to 20 cents of every premium dollar collected, or else be forced to offer rebates to customers. The rule was created to ensure most of the money collected under the ACA went to member claims and quality improvement.
But a ProPublica analysis of 2020 insurance company financial filings found that insurers offering plans outside the law typically kept higher percentages of premiums collected, sometimes much higher.
For instance, Golden Rule, a United Healthcare subsidiary and the nation's largest issuer of short-term plans, collected $1.6 billion in premiums in 2020 from its various offerings, up from $1.47 billion the previous year. Of that, the company paid roughly 58% toward members' medical claims in 2020, according to year-end financial statements submitted to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a regulatory organization. In 2019, about 62% went to claims, the filing showed.
Companion Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina that underwrites plans sold by Pivot Health, including the one Dowd bought, paid out about 67% in health and accident claims from the $294 million in premiums it collected last year, according to its filing.
One notable filing was that of Florida-based American Financial Security Life Insurance Company, which underwrites short-term and other noncompliant plans. Last year, according to its filings, AFSLIC paid just 26% in health and accident claims out of the $31 million it collected in premiums. It is nearly the exact opposite of what the ACA demands of insurers.
"That is simply outrageous. No other word for it," said Ken Janda, former CEO of a Houston-based regional insurance company who is now an adjunct professor in population health at the University of Houston College of Medicine and who reviewed the financial filings for ProPublica. "It's a breach of trust."
Mike Camilleri, CEO of AFSLIC, dismissed the criticism and said it is misleading to base his company's loss ratio on its premiums collected versus claims paid. He said those reported numbers do not reflect the full financial picture by taking into account financial reserves or claims submitted but not yet paid. A truer percentage would be "in the mid-50s," he told ProPublica.
Companies offering noncompliant plans also say it is inaccurate and unfair to compare their plans to those offered under the ACA. Because the narrower plans are typically cheaper, insurers say, they need to take a higher percentage of consumer premiums to cover administrative costs per policy.
"Short term insurance provides an important and affordable option for many consumers in need of temporary and flexible coverage lengths," Maria Gordon Shydlo, a UnitedHealthcare spokesperson, said in an emailed statement regarding Golden Rule.
While short-term plans are not for everyone, she said, limiting access to them "may have unintended consequences in increasing the number of uninsured."
BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina did not respond to multiple email and phone requests for comment.
Last July, Cory Dowd's nagging abdominal pain was getting worse. At the emergency room at Mather Hospital in Port Jefferson, New York, near where he was temporarily living with his mother during the pandemic, he was diagnosed with appendicitis and had a routine appendectomy.
He assumed his insurance would cover the cost. Then he started getting notices of overdue medical bills. The initial hospital bill totaled more than $41,000.
By November 2020, a final hospital statement showed insurance had paid just $1,682 and Dowd still owed $33,600. By then, he was at Duke University pursuing graduate degrees in business and public policy and had no idea what to do.
When the hospital's billing office urged Dowd to file an insurance appeal, he dug into his policy paperwork. As he read through a long list of exclusions and disclaimers, he found one addressing surgical services that limited coverage to "usual and customary charges, not to exceed $2,500 per surgery."
"I do have to wonder exactly what kind of surgical procedure can be had for $2,500," he said in a mix of fury and frustration.
When told of Dowd's experience, Jeff Smedsrud, Pivot's CEO, said he was surprised and advised Dowd to appeal directly to Pivot. He criticized the hospital for billing Dowd what insurance did not pay.
"They should accept the amount," he said of the $1,682 insurance payment.
Mather countered that the insurer is at fault for not living up to its contract with the hospital to pay 85 percent of charges. The hospital appealed the insurance payment but lost, a hospital spokesperson said in an email.
The hospital spokesperson added that the insurer had told the hospital Dowd was responsible for any balance because his short-term plan did not fully cover the treatment. Dowd recently applied to the hospital's financial assistance program, which put a hold on further bills while his case is considered.
On Friday Dowd said he received an email from Pivot saying his outstanding hospital bill would be covered after all.
The whole thing has left Dowd reeling. He knew to look at deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums and payment caps to ensure he would be protected, but he's still on the hook.
"It's one thing for a company to create a cheap plan designed to cover some basic expenses," he said. "It's another to market these plans with maximum benefits as high as $750,000. I am hard-pressed to imagine them ever getting close to those maximums with restrictions like $2,500 for a surgery. It seems these insurance policies are not created and sold in good faith but are designed to look like legitimate plans that don't cover what the policy holders expect."
In late 2017, the Republican-led Congress slipped into its sweeping tax reform bill a provision to eliminate the penalty for failing to have health insurance that meets the ACA's criteria. While the individual mandate remained — a cornerstone of the law requiring most everyone to have comprehensive coverage — the deterrent for violating it disappeared.
Then, just weeks later, the Trump administration proposed a new rule to extend short-term plans to just shy of one year, with the option to renew for up to three years. The new rule also allowed short-term insurers to retain medical underwriting, an industry practice of basing coverage and price on the insured's medical history. It is illegal in ACA-compliant plans.
The short-term plan expansion was quickly challenged by critics but went into effect in the fall of 2018; it was upheld by a federal judge the year after and an appeals court panel last year. Some individual states, however, have since acted to limit the plans' duration and scope.
The Trump White House vigorously defended its deregulatory actions as friendly to both consumers and taxpayers. Eliminating the penalty for having a non-ACA-compliant plan "will enable consumers to decide for themselves what value they attach to purchasing insurance," according to a 2019 White House Council of Economic Advisers report on deregulation.
The report did, however, acknowledge pitfalls: "Some consumers who choose not to have ACA-compliant coverage might have higher healthcare expenditures than they expected and lack coverage. This would not necessarily mean these consumers were unwise in their choice of insurance; they were unfortunate."
"This isn't a coincidence," said Dania Palanker, assistant research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. "The administration loudly signaled that short-term plans should be sold as cheap long-term coverage. The telemarketers and lead generating websites heard the signal loud and clear."
Complaints to consumer advocacy groups and state regulatory offices began to surface of vague if not outright fraudulent coverage promises, including assurances that the narrower plans were as good as or better than individual plans offered on the ACA exchange.
Shopping online has proven especially tricky. Paid advertisements often appear atop searches for health insurance, with names that imply ACA compliance, such as obamacare-plan.com or HealthCare.com.
The 2020 congressional investigation found that broker enrollment for short-term plans rose 120% toward the end of 2019 ACA open enrollment, which suggests the marketers were especially aggressive as people searched for coverage.
Pushing the plans was also lucrative, the investigation found. Brokers selling noncompliant plans earned on average a 23% commission on every plan sold. The average commission rate for an ACA-compliant plan was 2%.
In March 2020, just as the pandemic took hold, Brookings Institution researchers launched a "secret shopper" experiment to gauge how those selling noncompliant plans answered questions about COVID-19 coverage.
Posing as an uninsured 36-year-old single woman with no preexisting conditions, senior research assistant Kathleen Hannick called nine brokers or agents in three states to ask about short-term plans. Hannick declined to name the companies or the states.
When asked if the plans covered COVID-19 treatment, the salespeople were quick to offer reassurance, she said. But once the pitches were checked against plan documents, the majority of the answers were false, unclear or misleading. Similarly, five of six salespeople gave inaccurate or misleading answers about when COVID-19 would be considered a preexisting condition that could limit future coverage.
"Not until a doctor says you got it," Hannick said one broker replied. "You can have symptoms all day long; you don't know what that is. That could be the flu." The broker encouraged getting a policy "now, before that happens."
Such advice contradicts plan terms defining a preexisting condition and also fails to disclose possible scrutiny of past medical conditions or coverage waiting periods.
"Going into the calls I was not prepared for receiving information that was just false," Hannick told ProPublica. "It's startling to think how many people might have gone into the pandemic with a false sense of security regarding how much coverage they actually had."
Katrina Black, who graduated from Harvard Law School in 2019, began looking for health insurance that summer. Then 26, she had just moved from Boston to Austin, Texas, after undergoing endometriosis surgery in Massachusetts while covered under a student plan.
Her new job as a nonprofit lawyer provided health benefits but didn't start until fall, and she needed coverage immediately to continue post-surgical treatment. She typed "healthcare.gov" into her computer, hoping to find an ACA plan with a subsidy to lower the cost. A pop-up appeared asking for her zip code and phone number. She entered both, not knowing she was being steered away from the government site.
Within minutes, her phone began ringing. It rang continuously for days as brokers tried to sell her health plans, many of which she had never heard of before.
One broker even apologized for the telemarketing bombardment. "What do you need?" she recalled the broker asking.
Black explained she wanted a thorough, affordable plan to briefly cover costs of ongoing care, including several physical therapy sessions a week, medical tests and specialist appointments.
When told that she would be covered, Black said she and her husband enrolled with AdvantHealth, which sells short-term plans underwritten by American Financial Security Life Insurance. Together they paid $490 per month. To enroll, she answered health eligibility questions, including if she was pregnant, undergoing fertility treatment or in the process of adopting a child.
The questionnaire also asked if in the past five years she or her husband had been diagnosed or treated for, or had taken medication for, about two dozen conditions, including cancer, stroke, heart disease and diabetes. It asked if they had mental health issues or alcohol or drug dependency, and if she or her husband were obese.
Black marked "no" to all. Endometriosis was not on the list. Yet one day at a physical therapy session, she was told the bills for her visits were not being paid. Black said the insurer told her it was probably a clerical error.
But then Black got a benefits explanation showing that her plan had indeed paid nothing. When she called again, she said, she was told all her claims had been denied because her endometriosis was not covered. "It never occurred to me to specify I had had endometriosis. I said I had just had surgery for it, and I was told I would be covered," Black said, adding that she was dumbfounded that a preexisting condition could be denied. "I didn't think they could do that anymore."
Between premiums and uncovered care, Black faced more than $4,000 in out-of-pocket costs from the few months she had her policy. She caught a break when the employer-sponsored plan at her new job agreed to pay about half of the previous claims. She filed a complaint with the Texas Department of Insurance against the short-term insurance company and the broker who sold coverage to her, alleging deceptive marketing and failure to pay claims.
She lost. The state agency wrote to Black in July 2020 and said, "The claims were denied correctly due to non-covered services."
The letter further said TDI could not intervene between Black and the broker and suggested she hire a lawyer.
AdvantHealth did not respond to email and phone requests for comment.
On March 11, President Joe Biden signed into law a massive $1.9 trillion economic package known as the American Rescue Plan. Tucked inside was an extension of the special enrollment period to sign up for ACA-compliant plans, subsidizing COBRA payments that could help people keep their existing health coverage after leaving or losing jobs, and expanding the federal assistance that lowers ACA plan premiums.
But will it be enough to transition people out of non-ACA-compliant plans?
Some health policy experts worry that many who have short-term and other noncompliant plans do not yet realize those plans' limits and, even if they do, may be reluctant to switch.
Just having the option to change plans may be insufficient. "It will take the same level of intentionality that got people on these plans to get them off of them," said Dorianne Mason, director of health equity for the National Women's Law Center.
Smedsrud, the Pivot Health CEO, said he recently sent emails to his short-term plan members to tell them they might now be eligible for a subsidy that could help them afford a more comprehensive plan and should consider switching — even if it meant he lost customers.
He insisted short-term plans have a place but said they should never be sold as or considered a substitute for comprehensive coverage. He also acknowledged there were some industry "bad apples" who are taking advantage of the confusion.
"I would not be opposed to reforms in short-term plans," he said, including reinstating limits on duration. "Shame on all of us if some people feel tricked."
Did you receive high medical bills for COVID-19 testing, treatment or lasting complications that your insurance did not cover? We want to hear from you. Fill out the questionnaire below or email jenny.deam@propublica.org to get in touch.
Teresa Ruvalcaba lay on a bed in the emergency room of Chicago's Mount Sinai Hospital, her right breast swollen to nearly twice the size of her left, the skin so thick and dimpled that the doctor examining her would note that it resembled an orange peel.
Ojalá que sólo sea una infección, she thought, as she struggled to catch her breath, not knowing she had a partially collapsed lung. I hope it's just an infection.
For more than six months, the 48-year-old factory worker had tried to ignore the pain and inflammation in her chest. She was afraid of visiting a doctor during the pandemic, afraid of missing work, afraid of losing her job, her home, her ability to take care of her three children. She kept working until she couldn't, until the pain forced her to ask her son to drive her to the hospital on this cold, cloudy night in January.
Seven miles away, 24-year-old Sergio waited in his cramped childhood bedroom, clothes scattered on the floor and his medical school entrance-exam books untouched on a shelf, his eyes locked on his phone. Sergio usually accompanied his mother anywhere she might need help with her limited English, but because of the pandemic, he hadn't been allowed past hospital security. After two and a half hours of silence, he texted her in Spanish, "How's it going?"
"My son they are doing all the checkups they are going to put me in a machine right now for the checkup," she typed back, also in Spanish.
The page from the hospital caught oncologist Dr. Paramjeet "Pam" Khosla in her kitchen in the southwest suburbs, where she, her husband and their two adult daughters had lingered to talk after dinner. Although she had been in practice for more than 20 years, Khosla's heart still jumped a little whenever the phone buzzed on the nights she was on call.
A chest X-ray showed a large mass in the chest of a woman complaining of pain in her breast, the emergency room doctor told her. Concerned, Khosla told him to order an immediate biopsy. They agreed she would see the patient as soon as she could.
Here we go again, she thought.
In the shadows of COVID-19, another crisis has emerged. With the pandemic in its second year and hope intermittently arriving along with vaccine vials, it's as if a violent flood has begun to recede, exposing the wreckage left in its wake. Amid the damage is an untold number of cancers that went undiagnosed or untreated as patients postponed annual screenings, and as cancer clinics and hospitals suspended biopsies and chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Across the country, preventive cancer screenings plummeted by as much as 94% during the first four months of last year. At Mount Sinai, the number of mammograms dropped by 96% during that same period. By July, screenings had started to rebound, both nationally and at Mount Sinai, but still trailed pre-COVID-19 numbers. Fewer screenings led to a decline in new diagnoses, which one study found fell by more than 50% for some cancers last year. But people didn't stop getting cancer; they stopped getting diagnosed.
As patients return to their doctors, the toll of those dark months is becoming visible. The National Cancer Institute has predicted almost 10,000 excess deaths over the next decade from breast and colorectal cancer alone because of pandemic-related delays in diagnosing and treating these two cancers, which often can be detected early through screening and account for about 1 in 6 cancer deaths. Like the pandemic itself, the impact is expected to hit communities of color particularly hard. Black Americans already die of all cancers combined at a higher rate than any other racial group. And cancer is the leading cause of death among Latinos, with breast cancer outranking other cancers for women.
After almost five hours at the hospital, Teresa left that night without a diagnosis but with instructions to call Khosla. Sergio picked her up outside the emergency room door. On the way home, they talked about all the tests she had undergone. Neither of them mentioned the word cancer.
Last summer, as her right breast began to swell, Teresa stuffed the left side of her bra with paper towels, embarrassed that someone at work might notice.
A solidly built woman with deep brown eyes and tattoos weaving up her neck and down her arms, Teresa had worked nearly half her life at the same candy manufacturing factory on Chicago's West Side. She immigrated to the United States from Mexico almost on a whim at the age of 21, settled in Chicago, became a permanent resident, and got hired at "los dulces," as she calls it. Over time, the factory's owners changed — Kraft, Kellogg, Ferrara Candy — but Teresa remained. She eventually became a machine operator, earning $21 an hour.
The factory was more than a job to her. It was where she made friends, told jokes to pass the long hours, and blasted music, especially the upbeat cumbia songs of her teenage years, in the locker room. Her colleagues had a hard time keeping up with her energy, but they knew she would pick up the slack if someone on the line slowed down or cover for them if they were out, because Teresa never said no to work. The income allowed her to support her children on her own and, in 2008, accomplish something she had not thought possible: put $5,000 toward buying a century-old, Cape-Cod style home in a largely Latino Chicago neighborhood where the roar of airplanes from nearby Midway Airport regularly interrupted the quiet.
The tentative grasp on stability came at a price. She usually worked the overnight shift, often arriving early and staying late, then rushed home to get Aurora, Sergio and Roberto off to school. When they were young, the children enjoyed the lollipops and gummies she brought from work; it wasn't until they were older that they noticed her bruised knees and bloodied fingers.
As the pandemic struck, Teresa didn't slow down, even as it hit essential workers particularly hard. She had come close to losing her house in 2018 after falling behind on her mortgage payments. She couldn't risk it happening again.
She worked overtime and filled in for co-workers who were sick with COVID-19. Between shifts, she picked up groceries for that night's dinner, then collapsed on the living room couch for a few hours, only to wake up and do it all over again. She had created a plan to protect herself from the virus, wearing two masks and latex gloves on her hourlong commute on the train and bus. Even though her chest felt as if it was on fire, she kept working. She didn't want to get COVID-19 at a doctor's office or the emergency room, and she was so busy she didn't have much time to think about her symptoms.
"I didn't pay a lot of attention to it because I have to be both a mother and a father to my children," she said.
Her tattoos mapped her life, its struggles and devotions. A lion for León, the city in Mexico where she grew up; a Chicago flag for her home since; her mother's face to mark her death, a loss that still makes Teresa's breath catch eight years later. When she faced losing her home, she pledged to memorialize Santa Muerte — Saint Death, a Mexican folk saint — in a tattoo if she could save it. Her prayers were answered when she was able to refinance her mortgage, and Teresa, resolute, had the saint inked on her neck. At an ornate altar in her dining room, she made offerings of flowers and apples and lit candles to Santa Muerte. As she felt herself getting sick, she prayed for her health, and for joy and protection for her family.
Finally, when her chest, raw and warm to the touch, hurt too much for her to work, she asked for time off and scheduled a virtual appointment at a nearby clinic in early January. The doctor, viewing her breast through a computer screen, thought Teresa had an infection and prescribed antibiotics.
The pills didn't help. Still, less than a week later, Teresa sat on the worn living room couch, making plans to return to work the next day. Then, unable to tolerate the burning any longer, she wept. Her daughter, Aurora, hearing the sobs, came to check on her. Teresa agreed to let Sergio take her to the ER.
Sergio was in college before he learned there was a term for what he had been doing for as long as he could remember: language brokering.
When his family went to the neighborhood clinic, 6-year-old Sergio explained to the doctor that he and his siblings needed their school physicals. He negotiated a payment plan with the utility company when he was 9. And throughout his childhood, at parent-teacher conferences, he proudly translated his teachers' comments: exemplary student, near-perfect attendance, excels at exams.
Those achievements eventually won him a full-tuition scholarship to Pomona College in California, making him the first in his family to leave home for college. Even there, his responsibilities followed him. He monitored his mother's bank account on his phone, watching anxiously when the balance dipped near zero. When, during his junior year, the mortgage company filed for foreclosure on their home, his family emailed him the documents to translate, which he did, late at night, alone in his dorm room.
Sergio's freshman year at college had nearly broken him. The classes were rigorous, the pace accelerated, and the lower his grades sank, the more he felt like an imposter. Worse, if he flunked out, he wouldn't be able to get a good job, and he knew his family was counting on his support. His sister, Aurora, 26, has developmental delays and has not worked consistently although she has an associate's degree in graphic arts. His 21-year-old brother, Roberto, dropped out of high school a few months shy of graduation with what the family believes is undiagnosed depression. His 2017 honor roll certificate still hangs on the refrigerator.
Sergio didn't resent the pressure, but he felt engulfed by it. "Everything was relying on me to succeed, and I wasn't succeeding," he said. "It got to the point where I didn't want to be the one solely responsible for improving the lives of my family. I wanted out of that responsibility."
At points, he even contemplated suicide. But with the help of a therapist, he regained his footing and sense of purpose. He found work at a research lab focused on improving mental health in Latino and other marginalized communities, and he volunteered as a translator for Spanish-speaking patients at a local hospital. He began dating another pre-med student, Ayleen Hernandez, after he offered to help her study for biology and she accepted even though she already knew the material. And he discovered a way to understand his own experience. One day in class, when a professor discussed language brokering, Sergio was captivated. He ended up writing his undergraduate thesis on the topic, citing research showing that Latino communities often place the needs of the family above those of the individual.
In the acknowledgements, he addressed his mother: "The resilience and strength you've exhibited during our family's most difficult and trying moments have not gone unnoticed," he wrote. "I hope to one day ameliorate these stressors, so that you don't have to anymore."
After graduating in 2019 with a degree in cognitive science and a minor in Chicana/o-Latina/o studies, Sergio moved back home to work for a year and help with the bills before applying to medical school. Even though he had hoped to find a job in healthcare, he felt he needed to accept the first offer he got, confirming prices with suppliers for a company that sells industrial products online. He told himself it was only temporary and, in the interim, he would study for the MCAT and volunteer as a Spanish interpreter at a free clinic in Chicago.
Then came the pandemic, and after that, he noticed his mother getting tired and weak. He urged her to go to the doctor, and she kept promising she would as soon as she had a day off. He decided to stay home a little longer.
Pam Khosla knew the answer to the question before she asked it. Turning to the patient on the exam table, a 53-year-old Black woman in jeans and metallic blue boots, she said, "You missed your mammogram. What happened?"
"COVID," the woman answered.
Khosla, a white lab coat enveloping her slight frame, rolled closer in her chair. She pointed to an image of the patient's right breast on the desktop computer screen.
"See that starlike structure?" she asked, her voice gentle but assured. "It's cancer."
Khosla, the hospital's chief of hematology oncology, had delivered a cancer diagnosis almost a dozen times that week. At 56, she was used to giving people bad news, offering them tissues and holding their hands as she did. But the fallout from the pandemic made her feel inadequate. Patients were showing up with more neglected bodies and more advanced cases of cancer than she usually saw, which, at Mount Sinai, was already more than many oncologists did.
Located in Chicago's North Lawndale community, where almost half the residents earn less than $25,000 a year, Mount Sinai serves a population that is primarily Black and Latino and that relies on Medicaid, government-funded insurance for the poor. Patients here are more likely to visit an emergency room than a primary care doctor for non-urgent conditions, and they experience disproportionately high rates of hypertension, asthma, diabetes and cancer.
Khosla joined the hospital in 2005, persuaded by her husband, a doctor who had recently transferred to the cardiology department there, that at Mount Sinai she would be able to help some of Chicago's poorest and sickest patients. For Khosla, who had earned her medical degree in India and carried memories of mothers and children camped out on hospital floors for hours, the sense of mission was appealing. At Rush University Medical Center, where she previously worked, patients had the time and the resources to seek her out for second or third opinions. At Mount Sinai, patients often had neither.
That only worsened during the pandemic.
Cancer care in the United States has never seen a disruption of this magnitude. Advances in prevention, increased early detection, improved treatment and new drugs fueled a 31% drop in cancer death rates from 1991 to 2018. But the pandemic has left many patients, particularly those from disadvantaged communities like those served by Mount Sinai, sicker and with fewer treatment options.
It may be another year or two before the cancer death toll begins to rise, in part because treatment can delay death for years after diagnosis, said Dr. Norman E. "Ned" Sharpless, director of the National Cancer Institute. Some cancers also may be slow-growing and are treatable despite a later diagnosis, but others are not. The aftermath of the pandemic may turn one public health crisis into many, endangering people's lives and risking decades of progress in cancer research and care, Sharpless said.
"The longer the pandemic continues," he said in an email, "the more significant the impact of the pandemic on cancer outcomes will be."
Late last year, Khosla helped Mount Sinai launch a program to persuade reluctant patients to come in for cancer screenings by touting the hospital's COVID-19 safety precautions on every outreach call. But as the oncology department's eerie quiet began to give way to a rush of patients in January, she saw patients whose health had deteriorated so much they needed help breathing or swallowing.
Recently, she counted at least 10 cases of advanced cancer in one four-week period. She saw one patient with a grapefruit-sized mass on his neck. Another, whose tumor had pushed his brain dangerously close to the skull, was transferred to hospice. "He never got to see the light of treatment," Khosla said. All of these patients had been afraid to seek treatment at the hospital during the pandemic.
While her family slept at night, she read medical journals, learning about the latest drug approvals and newest guidelines, and she sometimes sent herself texts in the early morning hours about a test to order or a treatment option to explore.
"Cancer doesn't give you the satisfaction ever of having done a 100% job because the results lie in the future," she said. "You're always questioning yourself, especially with my patient population."
Teresa's case exemplified so much of what Khosla saw go wrong during the pandemic. The fear, the delays, the demands on essential workers, the limitations of telehealth.
Three days after Teresa's emergency room visit, Khosla met her for a follow-up appointment. Teresa and Sergio had arrived early. He turned away before Khosla lifted the hospital gown. Shocked at the extent of the inflammation, Khosla quickly gathered herself, hoping Teresa hadn't noticed her alarm. It had been a decade since she had seen such a severe case. The biopsies confirmed her suspicions: advanced inflammatory breast cancer.
"If she would have come six months earlier, it could have been just surgery, chemo and done," Khosla said later. "Now she's incurable."
The Ruvalcaba family's living room had long doubled as Teresa's bedroom because she wanted to give each of her children their own room. But after her cancer diagnosis, she spent almost all her time there, sitting in the oversized chair her sons set up for her after her swollen breast made it too uncomfortable to sleep on the couch.
She passed the endless hours texting friends and watching old Spanish-language movies and cartoons, supporting the weight of her right breast with her left hand. She sat with her dogs — Bagel, a black pug, and a white poodle mix named Max — at her feet, rarely leaving the house except to walk them or go to her medical appointments.
Sergio, who is the only person in the family who can drive, took her to and from the hospital, having gotten permission from his supervisor to make up the time. The route sometimes took them past the factory, flooding Teresa with sorrow as she asked herself, "When am I going to be able to go back?"
Sergio and Teresa rarely spoke about anything beyond the day's logistics during these trips, each determined to protect the other from their thoughts. One day in late February they were driving to a physical therapy appointment for her swollen hand, a side effect of the tumor. It was the first time Teresa had left the house after Roberto shaved off most of her hair, which had begun to fall out from the chemotherapy. She thought about her family, her job, her hair as she gazed at the overcast sky and, before Sergio could see, wiped away the tears.
"I don't want him to feel equally sad," she said later. "I don't want him to take on my pain."
Even with health insurance from her job, the medical bills, past due and seemingly insurmountable, kept coming. Some days she directed Aurora to toss them unopened in a Ziploc bag on the floor of the living room. She received disability payments following her cancer diagnosis and Sergio contributed what he could, but the money wasn't enough to cover the family's expenses. Delinquent utility bills alone topped $1,600.
Sergio was driving his mother home from another physical therapy appointment in February when traffic stopped for a train. Sergio, beginning to fall behind at work and thinking about all the unanswered emails and Slack messages waiting for him, bounced his knee and checked the time. Ever since that night at the ER, he had ricocheted from his mother's medical appointments to his job, to the grocery store, to dinner duty, to filling Teresa's prescriptions, to picking up the cake for Aurora's birthday. He thought he might erupt.
"I try to be honest with myself and transparent and aware of my own capacities," he said. "But I just started feeling the weight of everything at once."
He waited until he had dropped his mother off at home, circled the block to find a parking space, shut the door to his room and signed off from work for the day. Then he looked up to make sure his door was closed and, to muffle the sound, cried into his sleeves.
Khosla met with Teresa every three weeks, seeing her in between Teresa's chemotherapy infusions down the hall at Mount Sinai.
At their mid-March appointment, the doctor turned around after washing her hands at the sink and was immediately struck by the dramatic change in Teresa's appearance.
"The swelling is going down," she said. An interpreter stood by to translate her words into Spanish, but Teresa understood these words on her own.
"Sí. Mucho," she responded.
The chemotherapy was working. Teresa's breast had returned to almost its normal size. She felt lighter and, with the fluid in her lung drained, like she could breathe again. Before she left, she found the confidence to ask the doctor for help with transportation so she wouldn't interrupt Sergio's workday. She climbed into the cab, with the winter's last snow falling around her, and for the first time in months, Teresa felt hopeful.
"[I will] be done with this and find a part-time job in the mornings, too," she said later, "to get out of debt and help my children."
That morning, as they sat in the exam room, Khosla knew the tumor in Teresa's breast had responded well to treatment, but not for the reason Teresa wished.
The more aggressive a cancer — and inflammatory breast cancer is both aggressive and rare — the more quickly it tends to shrink. Chemotherapy attacks growing cells, and advanced tumors with rapidly growing cells, like Teresa's, initially may be easier to target but ultimately harder to eliminate.
The oncologist told Teresa that her stage 4 cancer had metastasized, infiltrating her lymph nodes, sternum, skin, hip and rib. She would need to meet with a surgeon to discuss treatment options. But Khosla chose her words carefully. She wanted Teresa to stay strong enough to get through her treatment, and Khosla herself was an optimist who liked to look beyond published survival rates. She could sense that Teresa was focused on the improvement she could see and feel, and the doctor wrestled with how much more to say.
I want her to have some peace for a little bit, she decided.
She would wait until the next month's appointment.
As Aurora pushed the cart through Cermak Fresh Market this busy Sunday afternoon in April, Sergio trailed a few steps behind, letting his sister lead the way.
When she confused the parsley and cilantro, he pointed out the signs above the dewy herbs. He didn't intervene when she panicked next to the pasta, unsure of which sauce to get for the lasagna she planned to make.
"Try to figure it out," he coaxed, nodding when she returned with the chunky marinara.
The outing would have been inconceivable a few months ago, given Aurora's disability and severe anxiety around crowds. But Sergio was trying to help his siblings become more independent. He supervised Aurora as she made dinner, and he arranged to teach Roberto to drive. He was trying to prepare them to make their way without him by their side.
Sergio was making plans, again, to pick up the threads of his life. Ayleen, now a first-year student at Baylor College of Medicine, was waiting for him in Houston.
He didn't regret his decision to stay in Chicago. Early on, he worried he would grow complacent and abandon his aspirations to become a doctor, but seeing COVID-19 ravage communities of color and witnessing his mother's cancer strengthened his determination. He felt better prepared for medical school, even if the years at home had threatened to derail his plans.
Sergio tried not to think about the gap widening between him and Ayleen. He celebrated when she was accepted to multiple medical schools and profiled on the college website. And they still had date nights on the weekends, curling up in front of their laptops — him in Chicago, her in Houston — to eat pizza and watch "Superstore" together.
Some nights they fell asleep to the glow of the computer screens, and others they stayed up late talking about what would happen after Sergio got to Houston, whether he would end up leaving if he got accepted to medical school somewhere else or had to return to Chicago for his family. Life could go in a lot of directions from Houston, but he had to get there first.
In the kitchen, Sergio stood next to the refrigerator, watching Aurora and Roberto put away the groceries. Roberto held up the chicken patties. "What should I do?"
"Keep them out," Sergio responded. Aurora was going to bake them for that night's dinner.
Teresa watched from the back porch. "They are doing the things I once did for them," she said. "The sacrifices I made are serving them now."
She rested her hands across her chest, the pink blossoms of the apple tree behind her beginning to open, and listened to her children inside.
Eight days later, the family gathered in the living room, with Teresa in her chair, the TV playing in the background and the children scattered around her.
Teresa had left the doctor's appointment with her head spinning. She had expected the oncologist would tell her she was getting better and could return to work. Instead, Khosla told her that, though she would do everything she could, Teresa likely would be on some form of treatment indefinitely. She had patients who had made it as long as six or seven years with this cancer, Khosla said, and she would still fight for a cure. Teresa didn't ask any questions, just nodded her head and cried.
Credit: Alex Garcia, special to ProPublica
Now, when Roberto asked her what had happened at the appointment, she didn't answer. Then, as Sergio pressed, she began.
"Right now I'm not going to work," she said. "They are going to keep giving me chemo."
She paused between sentences, sobbing as she struggled to get the words out. Afterward, she would say she almost couldn't bear to put this burden on them, that she had wanted to shoulder the anguish alone. But they asked, so she told them about the surgery and radiation, pointing to her hip as she explained where the cancer had reached her bones.
Sergio stood a few feet away, his feet planted in the doorway. "Yes," he said reassuringly, whenever she disclosed another detail.
She would know more once she met with the surgeon, she explained.
"They're going to be in touch about what can be done now," she said, "They are trying to not let it spread."
She finished speaking and looked at the floor.
In a gesture his brother and sister would repeat moments later, Sergio walked across the room and, without saying a word, wrapped his arms around his mother. He bowed down to kiss her head. Then he went to his room and closed the door.
Jackie Thomas was $29,134 in debt and in trouble with state regulators. She hadn’t slept in days. If a judge ruled against her, she’d fail the mothers who could only keep their jobs thanks to the 24-hour child care she offered.
This article was published on Saturday, May 1, 2021 in ProPublica.
Jackie Thomas pulled up to her child care center, Damion’s Place, picked up the mail and stretched out beside a baby on a giraffe-printed playmat. She opened a letter from state regulators who had sent over a motion in their case to shut her down. In the chaos of the past year, they’d found Jackie’s center in Overland Park, Kansas, out of compliance in small ways, like having a trash can without a lid, and larger ones, like being understaffed. A hearing was scheduled for Feb. 17, three weeks away.
As Jackie held the letter, a teacher delivered more bad news: She was planning to leave for nursing school, adding herself to the long list of staff Jackie had lost. Jackie ran a separate day care in her home, just across the border in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, but she relied on employees to operate Damion’s Place. If she didn’t hire new teachers fast, she’d be down to only one who was approved by the state: her 71-year-old mom, Bonnie, who’d stepped in to help.
“Good Lord, can y’all just throw one punch at a time?” Jackie said.
“For real,” Bonnie laughed from the other room. “They’re hitting you in the face.”
“Forget it,” Jackie sighed. She wore a blue T-shirt with the words “Don’t Try Me,” matching her spiky blue bob.
She’d barely settled into her wooden rocking chair when her phone rang. It was a mother, saying she’d tested positive for COVID-19 and was withdrawing her kid from the center. Jackie was used to hearing from parents who’d gotten sick or lost jobs. At the start of the pandemic, Jackie had 112 kids; now, she was down to 26. Before she could process the call, her phone rang again. It was another mom who’d been diagnosed with the virus; three more kids gone. In an instant, Jackie calculated, she was out $3,200 that month.
Jackie had run her home child care for nearly a decade when she’d opened Damion’s Place in February 2020. The center, which was awaiting its license, was her chance to present a quality option to working-class parents, who could usually only afford to leave their kids with relatives or in caregivers’ homes. She was proud to provide its amenities, with activities and curricula and meals, at prices families could pay. One day, if she could get enough kids, she hoped that her center would offer what most others didn’t: round-the-clock care that matched the rhythm of the modern workforce.
At 53 years old, Jackie was so confident in her vision, in her ability to meet the high demand, that she imagined herself on the verge of a big break. It seemed the need was everywhere: Most Americans live in child care deserts, where licensed facilities, if they exist at all, have little or no capacity for new kids. Jackie pictured her centers stretching across Kansas City, then the region, and eventually the country, with 24-hour services for the parents who needed them most. It was the legacy she planned to pass on to her own children, leaving a profit for them to live on. “This mind was created to generate income,” she said. “They can’t stop this seven-figure mind.”
It would have been a difficult business proposition even during normal times, in an industry plagued by thin profit margins and high staff turnover. Many families couldn’t afford to pay much, and government subsidies didn’t begin to cover the costs. The pandemic pushed providers to the edge: about 13% of day cares across the country have shuttered in the past year. President Joe Biden was promising a one-time injection of $39 billion in relief funds for the industry, and he was preparing to pitch the most ambitious reform in decades, aimed at creating affordable, quality child care that capped costs for parents and raised wages for providers. But since the details were still emerging, Jackie wasn’t sure how much of the hopeful talk coming out of Washington would translate into real support for businesses like hers.
Around 5 p.m., once the center had emptied of children, Jackie locked the doors, settled into her Nissan Versa and began to drive home. She was exhausted; she’d been caring for an infant overnight. She turned up some urban gospel, but it couldn’t quiet her rushing mind. She’d depleted her savings. She’d wracked up $29,134 in credit card debt. The center was hemorrhaging money every day. Even if she could avoid bankruptcy, there was still the matter of the hearing. If the judge ruled against her, she’d fail the parents, many of them single mothers, who told her they would lose their jobs without the flexible care she offered.
Under a darkening sky, she merged onto Interstate 435. She usually managed to find confidence in the future even during the most trying of times, and that optimism had propelled her for as long as she could remember. The primary ingredients of success, in Jackie’s view, were sweat and an entrepreneurial spirit. Plus, according to numerology, her “angel number” was 819, a sign of prosperity. Ten minutes into her drive, by the fast-food lights on Metcalf Avenue, Jackie fell asleep in the driver’s seat.
She found herself jolted awake, cars whooshing by. She clutched her wheel and swerved toward an exit. When her heartbeat finally slowed and she’d rolled down the windows, she was grateful she didn’t have children in the car but certain that something had to change. “Jesus, come on, come on,” she said, rocking in her seat. “I need your help.” She was becoming more aware by the day that she couldn’t keep this going much longer. Just give up, she told herself. It’s not going to hurt you. But Jackie couldn’t bear to let go.
It was one of Jackie’s twin grandsons, Damion Thomas, who inspired her child care business. She’d raised eight children and two grandkids when Damion and his twin brother, Trayvion, were born, filling her home with a thrilling ruckus. Trayvion revealed himself to be a cuddler, always wanting to be held, and Damion was a quiet, crawling explorer. Each night, when Jackie came home from work, she swung open the door and called out for her “dump trucks.”
In September of 2008, after Jackie’s son and the twins’ mom split up, Jackie was awakened by a phone call: Damion, who was 2, was in critical condition. By the time Jackie arrived at the hospital, he had died. His forehead was bruised, his eyes were blackened and his neck was scored with scratches. His mom had gone to work that Saturday and left the kids with her new boyfriend, DeWhite Cameron. He was sentenced to life in prison for beating Damion to death.
Jackie didn’t like to talk about her grief or wear it on her face. She’d learned to cope with distress by throwing herself into work. When a fire had destroyed her house, when she’d left an unsafe relationship, Jackie had burrowed into her jobs, ascending from a Price Chopper cashier to a regional manager at Church’s Chicken. After the death of her grandson, she resolved to venture into an industry she knew nothing about, opening a home day care that would welcome kids whose parents worked all hours. In 2010, she started by watching her own grandchildren in her house, and by 2014, “Mrs. Jackie’s” was open to the public. The “Mrs.” was aspirational. She wasn’t married, but she believed in the aphorism “Fake it ’til you make it.”
Once again, her house filled with the cries and squeals of new life. She loved watching the infants take their first steps, say their first sentences, expand their vocabularies; she grew most attached to the kids who started with her young. She had a knack for teaching them to spell their names, to say “please” and “thank you.” She was particularly proud that she’d taught one boy, at 9 months old, to kiss a girl’s hand as a way to say, “I’m sorry.”
But it wasn’t long before Jackie grew frustrated with what she saw as a two-tiered system. Working-class parents, she realized, were sending their kids to home day care, with varying degrees of oversight. More well-off people had the option to send their children to licensed centers, with highly trained staff and regimented schedules. On balance, kids in informal home settings are less likely to get reading and counting instruction and more likely to watch hours of TV. Though the federal government doesn’t monitor safety in child care, the most comprehensive national study of the subject, from 2005, found that the death rate, though low, was more than 14 times higher in providers’ homes than in centers.
Child care in America has long been divided along class lines. The first “day nurseries” were developed by philanthropic women in the late 19th century to provide minimal protection for poor children, whose mothers had no choice but to work while wealthier moms stayed home. The service was designed merely to keep them alive, not to educate them. The first “nursery schools,” on the other hand, were created in the early 20th century for middle-class families who could afford to spend money on the social and developmental growth of their kids.
Federal policy entrenched the divide. The only universal child care legislation ever to pass Congress was vetoed in 1971 by President Richard Nixon, who denounced its “family-weakening implications.” Many conservatives had also opposed the program on the grounds that it would further racial integration. Republican congressman John Ashbrook said that one of the worst elements of the bill was that “the socioeconomic and race mix of students would reach its greatest potential under this legislation.” Instead, Nixon signed into law a child care credit, allowing parents who paid enough in taxes to claim a modest deduction. The policy primarily benefited middle- and upper-class families.
By 1990, low-income parents could receive slim child care subsidies, but President Bill Clinton dramatically changed the program in 1996. In response to fears of welfare dependency, Clinton signed legislation that made employment a condition of receiving the assistance. But the subsidies were too low. Soon after, struggling parents began taking on more second-shift, third-shift and weekend jobs just to get by.
Jackie found that many of her parents were spending a third of their income on care. Some weren’t getting subsidies; though federal guidelines allowed anyone earning up to 85% of their state’s median income to receive the aid, it gave states latitude to restrict access. The Missouri program usually accepted new parents who made under 45% of the median income, or $29,976 for a family of three. States calculate their subsidies based on market rates, but providers like Jackie tend to set prices based on what nearby parents can afford. For some of Jackie’s kids, the government pays as little as $7.70 a day.
Jackie knew the finances would be hard, but she found herself dreaming of opening a licensed center for kids like hers as a bid to equalize care. Typical centers are open weekdays, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., but Jackie figured that if she ran hers at all hours, she could bring in enough kids to set bargain prices for her parents. They were delivery drivers and nurses, waiters and cashiers, and their employers often required them to take on early-morning or late-night shifts. She’d charge $200 a week for toddlers and $265 for infants, but she was willing to accept a sliding-scale fee based on income.
By 2019, more than a decade after Damion died, Jackie had saved $60,000. She found a little schoolhouse in Kansas that used to be a Montessori academy, and she poured half of her savings into fixing it up: mulch for the playground, gates for the infants, costumes for dramatic play. She installed cameras to film every inch of the center so parents could tune in to check on their children. She advertised as “Mrs. Jackie’s Christian Daycare,” but she called it Damion’s Place. The center opened a month before COVID-19 was detected in Kansas.
After Jackie fell asleep at the wheel this winter, she tried not to think about the upcoming hearing, which would determine if she could keep the center open. The only person she’d told was her mother, Bonnie, who occasionally relayed guidance she’d found on the internet. “Sometimes God will slow you down so that the evil ahead of you will pass before you get there,” Bonnie read aloud one afternoon at Damion’s Place. “Your delay could mean your protection.” Lying on her stomach, Jackie nodded as two young boys took turns sliding across her back.
Jackie had never been in trouble like this with regulators, and she believed the pandemic had caused this mess. Last spring, as the virus spread across the Midwest, more and more mothers lost work in the shutdowns. The government pumped money into the subsidy program, but still, Jackie couldn’t enroll enough kids at Damion’s Place to make ends meet; she compensated by packing her home child care all day and all night. Because of the unpredictable schedules of her parents, who were now deemed “essential workers,” Jackie needed to rotate kids between locations depending on where she had the capacity. She hired staff to shuttle them back and forth in her green Dodge Caravan and she slept two or three hours each night, when her daughter, Yolanda, who lived in her basement, relieved her.
Jackie was so stretched, in part, because she couldn’t find the right people to run Damion’s Place. She posted positions online, offered shifts to out-of-work moms and extended job offers to cashiers at her local Save-A-Lot. But those who had chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension didn’t want to risk exposure; others had to stay home with their own kids who were attending school remotely. Jackie paid up to $12 an hour, but Walmart and Target offered similar wages, and they included benefits. Child care staffers — almost all women, and disproportionately women of color — were some of the lowest-paid workers in the country; more than a quarter quit their jobs each year.
With the feeding, diapering and teaching duties falling more squarely on Jackie, she couldn’t keep up with the many rules that centers must follow. Child-safety advocates, prompted by day care deaths, have spearheaded regulations at the federal and state levels over the past decade. But advocates for providers say that the only way operators can reasonably meet the evolving rules is if the government supplies them with the money and technical support to do so. Instead, states almost always ask child care operators to cover the costs — of buying softer furniture, or bringing on consultants, or taking new training. When providers fall out of compliance, the primary response is to punish them.
By June, Jackie’s business was starting to fall apart. On a humid Tuesday morning, a Missouri inspector named Romena Fox showed up at Jackie’s home day care, unannounced. Romena rapped on the front door, but no one answered. All she could hear were the high-pitched screams of children. After 15 minutes, she called the police, who pounded on the door for another 10 minutes. When they peered through a window, they noticed a young girl climbing in and out of a playpen and two others jumping on the floor. They couldn’t see an adult.
Once they called her phone, Jackie answered and let them in. She said she’d been doing paperwork while sitting in her bedroom entryway so that she could see kids napping in each of the three rooms. She had separated the children by sibling groups for social distancing, but she’d broken the rules by using a bedroom that hadn’t passed inspection. She apologized. Romena and another inspector noted that Jackie had too many infants in her home and that a playpen was broken. A young boy told them that Jackie had been sleeping.
Jackie knew she could do better, and she hated that her competence had been called into question. Embarrassed, she wrote Romena an email. “I thought I told you that sometimes when I am in the back I cannot hear the door,” she said. She explained that she had too many infants because a mom had shown up and asked Jackie to watch her kids while she ran errands. She hated turning down those requests; she’d already learned that one mom, who could no longer afford Jackie’s care, was leaving her young kids home unattended. As required by law, Jackie had reported her to authorities.
When Romena started calling parents, none complained about the quality of Jackie’s care. Mallory Talbott, who manages a barbecue restaurant, said parents knew to call the house phone if no one answered a knock. Emily Smiley, who works for Walmart, said, “You got to multitask with kids. When is she supposed to have time? She’s 24 hours a day.”
Neither mother’s schedule or slim budget left them with other options for nearby child care. Emily had found Jackie after the state of Missouri decided that her boyfriend wasn’t a safe guardian for her three kids. Jackie’s hours were what had allowed Emily to take a management promotion at Walmart’s bakery, a job that required night and weekend shifts. She was convinced that, without Jackie, she’d lose her job, which meant that next would come her car.
Brittney Fleming was equally reliant on Jackie; when she worked the night shift loading packages for FedEx, her two boys slept at Jackie’s home. She also took community college courses during the day, and sometimes her boys went to Damion’s Place. She wanted a degree, and ultimately a job with reasonable hours. With so few 24-hour child cares around, she saw Jackie’s support as key to getting there.
As a result of the bad inspection, Missouri proposed placing Jackie’s home day care license on probation. “A slap on the wrist,” Jackie called it.
Across the border that summer, Kansas inspectors kept showing up at Damion’s Place as well. They found a rusty nail in the wooden fence, which was also three inches shorter than the state-mandated minimum height. They discovered a new program director whose paperwork had yet to be filed with the state; Jackie had requested the form a couple of days earlier, but she hadn’t gotten around to mailing it. She wasn’t staying up to date on the documentation, and on two occasions, for brief periods of time, she wasn’t staffed at the right ratio. She needed one teacher for every three infants or every five toddlers. Jackie had been operating on a temporary permit, and in August, regulators submitted their formal intent to deny her license.
If the administrative law judge charged with Jackie’s case ruled against her, she would lose her kids at Damion’s Place and the revenues that came with them. She’d still have to pay rent. And she’d have to turn away parents like Brittney who depended on her.
Four days before her Kansas hearing, Jackie pulled up to a rundown child care facility in Independence, Missouri, which hadn’t been used in years. She’d worked out a deal with its owner: If she handled the repairs, he’d start charging rent after she opened for business. She’d found it last summer, as a backup center in case Damion’s Place was shut down. Now, she was hoping that her contractors could get it done before the end of the week.
Jackie climbed the stairs to the boxy building, gripping the candy-striped railing. She grimaced at the pastel-colored bricks on the exterior. She wanted to paint the walls her favorite color, green, which meant “money” and “go.” She pushed open the heavy door and stepped into the foyer, where trash was heaped around her. “A lot of stuff,” she said. “We got a lot of work to do.”
Jackie had estimated the construction would cost about $6,000, but by now, it had snowballed into more than $30,000, the rest of her savings. She’d paid contractors to pour cement for the parking lot, lower the sinks to child height, lay a deck and patch the leaking roof. It was hard to keep track of everything left to do, and there wasn’t a simple list to follow. In the city of Independence, she needed approval from the building inspector, the health department, the fire department, the power and light department, the water department, the zoning department. It was one reason that child care experts didn’t expect new centers would pop back up once the economy recovered: They’re expensive to build and the bureaucracy overseeing them is a maze.
It was 7 degrees outside, and Jackie’s breath hung in the air as she fiddled with the thermostat, which didn’t seem to be working.
“Good morning,” said a man named Darrion Clark, whom Jackie had hired to fix up the place.
“You know something about furnaces?” Jackie asked, burying her hands in her pockets.
She walked around the center with purpose, in tall leather boots over red sweats. She glanced at the cracked paint on the hallway ceiling, mindful of inspections to come. “What do we do about this here?”
“You can just spray that shit with the texture,” said Darrion, miming it as he spoke. “Then you ain’t gotta worry about making sure it’s straight.”
Jackie rubbed the back of her head. She wondered whether the doors were wide enough.
“Thirty-five and three-quarters,” Darrion said, as he measured the entryway to the toddler room.
“I need 36 true and true,” Jackie replied. “When they come in here, you know they’ll be nitpicking.”
The afternoon sun cast long shadows down the main room.“The kids are gonna have a flippin’ good time,” Jackie said. “It’s gonna be real nice. Once I get it done.”
The problem, it appeared, was that the building was nowhere near done. She still needed a grease trap, emergency lights, a mop sink, a bottle sink and a prep sink for food, even though the city of Independence had told her that she wasn’t allowed to make food for her kids without a commercial kitchen. Jackie now wanted to get Yolanda to run a new business she’d start, Mrs. Jackie’s Catering Company, with a commercial kitchen and freezer trucks.
Yolanda, who was helping her mom ferry appliances, walked in, shivering. “It’s crazy out there,” she said, laughing about the cold.
Yolanda was worried about the project. She’d tried to warn her mother about taking on too much. One thing at a time, Yolanda repeated. At 35, she didn’t think she could move out of her mother’s basement; her mother didn’t know her limits, and Yolanda felt compelled to take on some of her mom’s load, “so her limit is part of my limit, too.” Even her 20-year-old son, Willie, had moved in to help them watch kids, and he was sleeping on an air mattress in the basement. Yolanda barely had any time. She worked 35 hours a week at Amazon, took high school courses online, and was learning to start a podcast, Spit Shit, so that one day, she, too, could be her own boss. Whatever hours were left she gave to her mom.
After Yolanda drove home, Jackie stood in silence in the shell of the defunct center she was hoping to resurrect. It began to dawn on her that she wouldn’t be able to open by her hearing date. Her backup plan wouldn’t be a backup at all.
“I think I’ll be all right,” she said.
Two days before her hearing, in her shaded home office, Jackie sat at her desk, which was strewn with fuzzy pens, an oversized calculator and several cell phones. They kept buzzing with notifications. A few moms texted saying they wanted to enroll their kids, and the fresh interest buoyed her spirits. She didn’t let on that Damion’s Place was on the line. She wanted to believe that she could make it work, that even if the center were shuttered, she’d find a way. Annette Ligon, whose daughter, S’Aniyah, was on Jackie’s weekend shift, called to explain that she now needed weekday care.
“Bring her back to me,” Jackie interrupted. “Boom, kick, bah.”
Annette had found Jackie in the middle of the night a couple of years earlier. She was a single mom with a Ph.D. in psychology, teaching at a university, and she had nearly lost her second job on the late shift at a Harley Davidson factory after her child care fell through. Now, she was counseling front-line medical professionals during the crisis. She sometimes pulled 90-hour weeks, and when she traveled to hot spots, she left S’Aniyah at Jackie’s for days on end.
“I’ll bring her to you tomorrow,” Annette said. “I don’t know what the rest of the week is going to look like.”
Jackie hung up and walked over to Mallory Talbott’s daughter, McKenna, who was standing in a playpen in her dim living room. McKenna had unzipped her footie pajamas and taken them off. “What are you doing?” Jackie asked her. “Haven’t we had this discussion? You can’t be showing your goods. You cannot. You are a lady.” McKenna stared at her blankly. Jackie gently pulled her pajamas back on as a Humpty Dumpty cartoon played on one of three TVs.
On the day before her hearing, Jackie didn’t bother to dress. In her floral nightgown, she typed out a new sleep observation form for Damion’s Place, an employee log, an updated menu. She designed and ordered new scrubs, emblazoned with her logo, for her staffers. She admired the uniforms like they were the future.
Jackie had been reading about Biden’s intentions to save the industry. They would take clearer shape in the spring with his American Families Plan, the most comprehensive proposal in the 50 years since Nixon’s veto. It would limit child care costs for working- and middle-class families to 7% of their income, ensure that subsidies covered the true cost of quality care and help fund higher wages for child care workers. The $1.8 trillion package, including landmark spending on universal pre-K and community college, would likely face challenges in Congress, and on the issue of child care, it hadn’t nailed down states’ roles in determining how the money would be spent. Another temporary aid bill would offer rescue funds to providers like Jackie and, for one year, increase tax credits for eligible parents, but it wasn’t enough to overhaul the system.
Once night fell, Jackie left her computer and sprawled across her living room’s leather sofa. She video-chatted with her youngest son, Isaiah, and marveled at the big house he shared with his brother.
“And I’m gonna go to the firefighter academy, so the next house is gonna be even better!” Isaiah said.
“You’ll buy me a big, beautiful house,” she teased. “What am I gonna do with the $600,000 house you buy me?”
She called her son Sedrick next and asked to hear his latest track. He was trying to make it in music, and Jackie had no qualms giving unsolicited advice.
“You need a different beat,” she said.
“Don’t want one,” Sedrick shot back.
“Not what you want, it’s what’s gonna sell,” Jackie said.
A little before 11 p.m., the doorbell rang. Jackie pushed herself off the couch and walked over to the entrance, where a UPS driver named Tannette Avery said, “Here’s the man.”
Jackie pulled 6-month-old Tommy in from the winter chill. She took off his jacket and set him in a playpen by her couch. Sucking his pacifier, he rolled over onto his stomach. Jackie flicked off the light, sat down and pulled a fleece over her legs. She had 10 hours until her hearing. But just as she rested her head back, Tommy started to whimper.
“Tommy Tom,” Jackie said into the dark night, “please don’t start.”
The following morning, Jackie let two kids into her house, passed them off to Willie, and then sat at her desk for her hearing on Zoom, wearing the same floral nightgown. Without money for a lawyer, she was representing herself, and she hadn’t prepared witnesses or questions. For two hours, the state’s lawyer walked through each inspection of Damion’s Place in precise detail. Regulators described a pattern of noncompliance, and as Jackie listened, she sucked back tears. She held her brief remarks until the end.
“I just want to say that I try my best,” Jackie said. “I have had a struggle with getting people employed because of the pandemic.” She explained that she was in the process of hiring a whole new staff, and she believed that they would be good. “Gotta admit, this is my first center, a lot of things I didn’t know. But rest assured, I am not trying to be out of compliance, and right now, feel I am in compliance. I enforce the rules better, made forms to enforce the rules better. There’s not much more for me to do.”
The judge concluded by saying that he wouldn’t make a decision straight away, but he promised to deliver one soon. Jackie signed off and lay her head in her hands. From the tenor of the call, she figured that the state would shut down her center. She’d just renewed her lease at Damion’s Place, and now she couldn’t get out of it. “Oh Jesus, I’m tired,” she said. “Two years of paying for a building I cannot use. Two years.” In the privacy of her office, behind a closed door, she allowed herself to sob, letting out a deep moan.
Her doorbell rang. A mother who worked at a grocery store had come to pick up her son. “Everybody have a good day?” she asked, as she wiped her feet at the door.
Jackie wasn’t prepared to say aloud what she was just beginning to understand.
“Mhhmmm,” she replied.
It would be another seven weeks before the judge would issue his decision. On April 7, he would deny Jackie’s Kansas license for Damion’s Place. Her backup center would not be ready. Jackie’s capacity would be limited to 18 children at her home child care in Missouri — six kids on each of her three shifts. She wouldn’t have room for Brittney, the community college student and nighttime FedEx worker, to bring her kids. Brittney would end up leaving her job to watch her children, after what she’d come to see as an “extended stay” in employment. Jackie would be too nervous to ask other parents how they’d fared in her shutdown. She would wonder if it was even possible to build an enterprise for these families.
For now, though, as the evening light waned in her office on the day of the hearing, Jackie got to work planning her next move. Her mind traveled to the future, its most comfortable place. Even though COVID-19 was surging, she believed that enrollment would soon improve. That the 3 million women who had lost jobs in the pandemic would return to work. That if she found just one more location, a backup for her backup center, she could keep all of her kids. Then, even more parents would come running.
She opened Zillow and traced her mouse down the border between Missouri and Kansas. She zoomed in on 46th street, on a stretch of rentals on the Missouri side. “These would be perfect,” she said. $2,700 a month. $1,750 a month. $2,200 a month. “Too much money. That won’t be happening.” She hit on a new listing, for $1,050 a month. A gray one-story on Liberty Street. “Hardwood floors. One bath.” She clicked her tongue. “This one’s doable.”
She started answering Zillow’s questions to request a tour for the following morning. Desired lease? 12 months. Household size? She laughed. Credit score? “Really?” Her credit was down from 750 to 631. “This is gonna be harder than I thought.”
She called a friend who worked in real estate. When he picked up, she put on a bright, commanding voice.
“Heyyy, Will Amazing,” she started. “I need you to find me a house.”
The vaccine rollout was meant to prioritize vulnerable communities, but four months of data shows healthier — and often wealthier — counties have been faster to vaccinate.
This article was published on Friday, April 30, 2021 in ProPublica.
As the U.S. rushes to vaccinate its population against the coronavirus, most counties with the sickest residents are lagging behind and making only incremental progress reaching their most vulnerable populations.
A ProPublica analysis of county data maintained by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that early attempts to prioritize people with chronic illnesses like heart disease, diabetes and obesity have faltered. At the same time, healthier — and often wealthier — counties moved faster in vaccinating residents, especially those 65 and older. (Seniors are a more reliable measure of vaccination progress than younger adults, who are less likely to have been eligible long enough to receive their second shots.) Counties with high levels of chronic illnesses or "comorbidities" had, on average, immunized 57% of their seniors by April 25, compared to 65% of seniors in counties with the lowest comorbidity risk.
A similar gap has also opened for all other adults. The one-third of counties with the highest chronic illness risk have on average finished shots for 15% of their 64-and-under residents, four percentage points below the average for the healthiest one-third of counties.
In counties with high rates of chronic disease, residents are more likely to die prematurely from heart or pulmonary diseases, diabetes or illnesses related to smoking or obesity. Those conditions also increase a person's risk of developing severe COVID-19.
People with chronic illnesses are especially important to vaccinate because their coronavirus infections are more likely to end in hospitalization and death, said Janet Baseman, an epidemiology professor at the University of Washington. If counties with high comorbidities remain behind, she said, "then we are not accomplishing our objective, as communities or as a nation, of saving lives."
In the four months since public vaccinations began, clear disparities have emerged in how quickly the richest and poorest counties have delivered shots to their residents. Multiple health experts and officials say the numbers underscore a key strategic misstep under the Trump administration, which asked state and local governments to prioritize people with illnesses that would increase their chances of hospitalization or death, but provided no additional funding to support the efforts.
Many states chose a simpler approach, opening vaccine appointments to everyone 65 and older with minimal on-the-ground outreach to people with chronic illnesses. "It made some states go a little bit faster," said Dr. Grace Lee, a member of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and an infectious diseases physician at Stanford Children's Health. "But I think it really increased the inequities early on."
When vaccinations started in December and January for the general population, the federal Department of Health and Human Services distributed free doses and supplies, but almost no money or staffing to administer the shots. State and local health officials had to decide who would first be eligible for the small amounts of vaccine then available and how to get doses into arms. They also had to watch for interlopers — many of them young, white and from other locations — who booked appointments they didn't qualify for.
In counties with more chronic illness, identifying the neighborhoods and housing complexes where residents or critical workers most need the shots — and then actually getting them to accept vaccinations — can be complicated, time-consuming work. Health officials in several counties with high rates of chronic illness said they are making slow progress by focusing resources on small events and mobile teams instead of on sprawling mass vaccination sites.
ProPublica focused on comorbidities because they are directly related to increased risk of developing severe COVID-19. People with lower incomes are more likely to have comorbidities; urban counties with high average incomes tend to have fully immunized a larger share of their older residents than other counties. In addition to income, the analysis looked at the urban and rural divide, age demographics and differences between states' overall vaccination rates.
While communities of color have disproportionately high rates of chronic illness nationally, the analysis found no relationship between counties' racial demographics and coronavirus vaccination rates.
The rollout has largely relied less on government outreach than on individual initiative. People with flexible schedules, transportation and regular access to the healthcare system have been better able to get appointments on their own or with help from family and friends. Those with less support have fallen behind.
Separately, surveys by the CDC last year indicated that adults with underlying medical conditions were less interested in getting the vaccine than healthier adults. People surveyed who said they were unlikely to get vaccinated most often cited concerns about side effects and safety.
To date, more than 98 million people in the U.S. — including 37 million seniors — are fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, while another 150 million adults have yet to receive a shot. During an address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, President Joe Biden heralded the vaccination effort as "one of the greatest logistical achievements" in the country's history.
The push continues even as demand for shots appears to be declining, said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
Providers injected more than 21.7 million doses during the second week of April, according to CDC data, as the supply of vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson increased significantly. That number declined to 19.2 million shots the next week, and preliminary figures indicate immunizations dropped even more sharply last week. (Federal authorities temporarily paused use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine for 10 days to study a small number of blood clot cases potentially related to the shot. It has since been cleared for use.)
There probably aren't yet enough fully vaccinated people in the U.S. to protect against another surge, Osterholm said, especially with the more transmissible coronavirus variants now prevalent. In Michigan, new cases again soared in April, setting records for daily COVID-19 hospitalizations.
"We're not out of the woods yet in this country," Osterholm said. "What happened in Michigan could still happen in a number of other states out there. Even with the level of vaccination they've had and the previous infections, look what still happened."
Reaching the most vulnerable has been a top concern for many of the poorest cities and counties since vaccinations began.
In Baltimore, COVID-19 caused far more severe illness and death in the majority-Black city's communities of color, where people with chronic illnesses are more common, according to Dr. Letitia Dzirasa, the city health commissioner. During the first month of the vaccine rollout, the Baltimore health department realized it needed different tactics for immunizing its seniors.
The city of Baltimore has the highest rates of diabetes, smoking and obesity of the seven counties in its metro area, and its premature death rate is nearly double that of its neighboring counties, data from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences shows. It ranks among the nation's most at-risk jurisdictions from chronic illness. Other parts of the region, like the more affluent nearby Howard County, are among the healthiest.
CDC data shows just 55% of Baltimore City's seniors were fully vaccinated as of April 25, 15 percentage points lower than the rate for residents 65 and older in larger Baltimore County, which surrounds the city.
Counties in the Baltimore Metro Area With the Lowest Vaccination Rates Among Seniors Have Some of the Highest Health Risks
Within Baltimore, Dzirasa said, the pandemic hit hardest in Black neighborhoods on the city's east and west sides, where residents have long struggled against discrimination, poverty and chronic illnesses. "Unfortunately, we've seen the same thing again with vaccination rates," she said.
The city health department knew that many of its most vulnerable seniors would have no transportation to vaccination sites, and that their senior living centers were less likely than facilities in wealthier communities to have relationships with pharmacies to secure doses.
In January, Dzirasa said, her staff partnered with hospitals and pharmacies to create mobile vaccine teams that could deliver shots directly to those most at risk of severe COVID-19.
The first step was to win residents' trust with visits to centers from community health workers, who explained the vaccines, provided reassurance and scheduled appointments. The teams identified 117 senior living centers and have immunized residents one by one at almost every facility over the past three months.
"It's definitely a slower approach," Dzirasa said. "At these events, we're doing anywhere from 75 to 150 people, tops."
Baltimore has multiple mass vaccination sites that can each provide from hundreds to thousands of shots a day. A couple of months ago, all site appointments were booked, and ineligible people had to be weeded out, Dzirasa said. Now, those spots are increasingly unfilled, and Dzirasa expects gradual progress going forward.
The disparity in vaccination rates between counties with high rates of chronic illness and the rest of the country is partly the result of the Trump administration's decision not to invest federal dollars in vaccine sites at the beginning, argues Lee.
"They launched this massive campaign and were like, 'Good luck, you're on your own,'" Lee said. "And not only do you have to deliver a very complicated series of vaccines, but on top of that we expect you to address inequities, all without any additional support."
The Biden administration set up several mass vaccination sites in high-risk communities in February and has now sent federal workers, equipment or funds to operate more than 400 vaccination sites nationwide. But many counties with high rates of comorbidity are still working to make up for a slow start.
The winter COVID-19 surge was peaking when vaccine doses started to arrive in Wyandotte County, part of Kansas City's urban core. Small deliveries containing about 2,000 doses arrived each week from the federal government, said Dr. Erin Corriveau, the county's deputy medical officer.
At first, only healthcare workers and nursing home residents qualified to be vaccinated. Then, on Jan. 21, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly opened eligibility to everyone 65 and older, including more than 20,000 seniors in Wyandotte County.
"We're going, 'Oh my God, that's a huge number of people,'" Corriveau recalled. The county decided to set its own eligibility rules, since it was still receiving just 2,000 doses a week.
Most new COVID-19 cases at the time were young adults. To help drive down case numbers, Corriveau said, the county temporarily narrowed eligibility to just residents 85 and older while adding critical workers whose jobs exposed them to greater infection risk.
Wyandotte County opened the shots to all seniors a few weeks later as case numbers dropped. But the demand for shots was modest, Corriveau said, especially compared to the clamor in other parts of the country, where older Americans struggled to find providers with available doses.
The county now runs three mass vaccination sites located on bus routes, with assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It keeps pharmacies stocked with vaccines, and dispatches "drop teams" to administer shots at small neighborhood operations. Doses are plentiful, but willing recipients are scarce. Corriveau said many of the county's seniors are wary about the vaccines' safety and have been unwilling to get the shots at large, impersonal sites.
"We've tried to make this vaccine as available as humanly possible," she said. "We're incentivizing vaccines with giveaways and food boxes and we're doing Saturday hours and expanding our evening hours."
Despite those efforts, only 56% of seniors in Wyandotte County were fully vaccinated as of April 25. A few miles south, in Johnson County, more than 83% were immunized.
The neighboring jurisdictions have little in common with each other. Wyandotte, meanwhile, stands out as being more diverse, with residents who suffer from far more chronic illness. Wyandotte's rate of premature death is double Johnson's rate, according to NIH data.
Tami Gurley, associate professor of population health at the University of Kansas Medical Center, said Johnson County has longstanding advantages that likely helped its residents get vaccinated so quickly.
"You have people with time, who can get on computers and sign up for multiple lists," Gurley said. "They all have their own transportation, nobody's relying on public transportation, it's all private cars out here."
The university medical center where Gurley works is located in Wyandotte and cares for its residents, she said. But many of its health workers live in other parts of Kansas City, including Johnson County. "That is where the doctors live, and the professors, and the people who tend to be more pro-vaccine to start with," she said.
Wyandotte's health officials are trying to reassure residents that the shots are safe and that communities of color can trust the county health department. "Frankly, there have been major, major issues of trust," Corriveau said of residents' view of local agencies, "which are warranted."
She and her colleagues are increasingly asking trusted community leaders to stand in for epidemiologists. Throughout the pandemic, Rev. Tony Carter, Jr., senior pastor of Salem Missionary Baptist Church, has encouraged his congregation to test for the virus, follow health protocols and, in recent months, get vaccinated.
Carter's church volunteered to host a Saturday neighborhood vaccine event on April 17, and nearly 50 people signed up for appointments to get the Johnson & Johnson shot. But several days before the event, federal authorities paused use of that vaccine as they investigated six cases of serious blood clots among the 6.8 million people who had received it. (The U.S. resumed use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine without limitations on April 23.)
The county switched to another vaccine, but half of the recipients canceled their appointments. Carter reassured his congregants that the vaccine would offer a way of eventually reuniting with family. About two dozen people kept their appointments and received their first vaccine dose. "Most of those people stayed because of their connection to the church," he said.
A Note on Methodology:
ProPublica analyzed county-level vaccination data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, looking for disparities in immunization between jurisdictions at high risk of severe COVID-19 and those with comparatively lower risk.
ProPublica used the comorbidities measure from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences's Pandemic Vulnerability Index to classify counties' level of chronic illness. The one-third of counties with the lowest comorbidity values were categorized as "low comorbidity" and the one-third with the highest comorbidity values as "high comorbidity."
The analysis used data on counties' per capita income and racial demographics from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year estimates and the National Center for Health Statistics' Urban-Rural Classification Scheme to categorize counties as urban or rural and to identify counties within metropolitan statistical areas.
The CDC only releases county data on completed vaccinations — people who have received both shots of a two-dose series, or one shot of Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The data does not include the number of people with comorbidities who have completed vaccinations. ProPublica focused its analysis on the 65 and older population because it has been eligible longest. The completed vaccination rate for seniors is a more reliable measure than for younger adults, which includes many people who have not been eligible long enough to receive their second shot. Further, seniors are more likely to have chronic illness and elevated risk of severe COVID-19.
The CDC does not provide county-level data for Texas and Hawaii, and ProPublica excluded Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, Virginia, Vermont and West Virginia from its analysis because more than a quarter of those states' immunization records were incomplete.
Florida is one of two states that shield doctors and hospitals from most legal actions arising from births that go catastrophically wrong.
This article was published on Monday, April 26, 2021 in ProPublica.
By Carol Marbin Miller and Daniel Chang, Miami Herald
Ashley Lamendola was still a teen when medical staff at St. Petersburg General Hospital delivered the awful news that would change her life forever: Her newborn son, Hunter, had suffered profound brain damage and would do little more than breathe without help.
"It was like an atomic bomb went off in my life," she said.
Lamendola believed the hospital was partly responsible for Hunter's birth injuries. But Florida is one of two states that shield doctors and hospitals from most legal actions arising from births that go catastrophically wrong. Lamendola filed a lawsuit against St. Petersburg General anyway, and when it appeared she was gaining traction, the hospital advanced an extraordinary argument.
It suggested that Hunter's mother was not acting in her son's best interest and that a critical decision about his future care should be put in the hands of an independent guardian and a judge. Lamendola, attorneys said, was pursuing her own self-interest by refusing to participate in the quasi-government program that compensates the families of children injured at birth.
Under the program, known as the Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, or NICA, the state provides $100,000 upfront and pays for "medically necessary" care for the child's lifetime. In exchange, parents give up their right to sue hospitals and doctors, lawsuits that can result in judgments or settlements in the tens of millions of dollars.
By choosing to "pursue her own speculative, complicated civil lawsuit" rather than permitting her son to accept his "vested" NICA benefits, Lamendola was trying to profit from Hunter's injuries, St. Petersburg General attorneys argued in a court filing. They underscored the words "her own."
Had she accepted Hunter's inclusion in NICA, "the Mother would be unable to pursue her own civil lawsuit, seeking her own separate monetary damages for the Child's injuries," the lawyers added.
"You carry a child for nine months, and then you finally get to hold them — eventually in my case," said Lamendola, who was employed as a customer service rep at an AutoZone when she gave birth. "And you take care of their every want and need, and you put a child before you. I mean, once you have a child, there is no more you. It's them. It's us. It's that baby that needs you and needs everything from you.
"I didn't understand how somebody who wasn't me could know what he wants and needs. I knew every sound, every movement, every seizure that he had," Lamendola said. "And to think that somebody thought they knew better than me. It was wild to me."
The battle between parents like Lamendola and hospitals like St. Petersburg General can seem like a gross mismatch: Lamendola was a single mom who made $10.50 an hour and lived with her mother. HCA Healthcare, which owns St. Petersburg General, is one of the nation's largest for-profit hospital chains, with 180 hospitals, 280,000 employees and revenues of $51.5 billion in 2020.
For hospitals facing stunningly high settlements or verdicts, NICA, the state's no-fault program, is a valuable legal tool — a club to bat away expensive lawsuits. At the cost of $50 per live birth, hospitals can protect themselves from multimillion-dollar judgments.
Paolo Annino, who heads the Children's Advocacy Clinic at the Florida State University College of Law, said attempts to restrict a parent's authority through the appointment of a guardian are unusual: In child welfare disputes, for example, parents must be found unfit by a judge before being stripped of their right to decide what's best for their children.
"What we have here is a scenario where there's no allegation of offending parents at all," he said. "The parent is, with very few exemptions, the one who makes the child's healthcare decisions."
NICA came under fire this month after a series of reports by the Miami Herald and the investigative reporting newsroom ProPublica. Families complained that the $100,000 grant — unchanged since 1988 — is inadequate, and that payments for medical procedures or equipment are routinely slow walked or denied entirely. After the articles were published, state leaders professed outrage and promised a comprehensive fix to the program.
Here is how NICA works: After a baby is born brain damaged, parents can file a lawsuit against the hospital and doctor. The defendants then can ask the judge to pause the suit and order the parent to file a NICA claim. That petition is heard in a separate venue by an administrative judge, who then decides if the case is "compensable." Ultimately the administrative judge determines whether NICA applies or if the parents can resume their lawsuit.
To qualify for NICA, in addition to having physical and cognitive impairments, a child must weigh at least 2,500 grams (5.5 pounds) at birth and be delivered in a hospital. When children don't fit those criteria, parents retain the ability to sue.
For the roughly 440 Florida children covered by NICA over the past 33 years, some of them now deceased, the program wasn't really a choice. It was a mandate, with a few exceptions.
One exception is when OB-GYNs fail to pay a $5,000 annual assessment. Nearly 1 in 4 licensed obstetricians statewide does not pay. Another is when a hospital doesn't pay its $50-per-birth fee.
Parents can also argue that they weren't properly notified by their hospital or doctor of their participation in NICA with enough lead time to choose another provider. When parents like Lamendola attempt to invoke these exceptions, the fight can become fierce — and expensive.
Both the hospital and Lamendola's obstetrician, Christina Shamas, declined to discuss Hunter's case with the Herald.
One of the hospital's lawyers, Jay Spengler, wrote in an email to the Herald that, for children who qualify for NICA compensation and coverage, "it is something that should be carefully considered, as it provides a child affected by severe birth-related neurological injuries a lifetime of necessary and reasonable medical services."
In a deposition, Shamas defended her performance that day, saying that, as the "difficult" delivery progressed, she believed at that point that Hunter would be born just as quickly with a vaginal delivery — and the aid of a vacuum device — as he would a C-section.
Though Hunter's heart rate declined significantly several times during the 80 or so minutes right before he was born, the fetal heart monitor also showed that it accelerated again, too, she said.
"This does not necessarily mean a compromised baby," Shamas said.
Shamas also said that Hunter's heart rate would improve when nurses administered oxygen to his mother, repositioned her in bed and gave her fluids.
Shamas said she took all the necessary steps to ensure Hunter was born healthy.
Floppy, Silent, Alive
It's unclear how often lawyers representing doctors and hospitals accuse the parents of brain-damaged children of selfishness in an effort to force them to accept NICA benefits. Requests for guardians can occur anywhere in a family's legal journey: administrative court, trial court or appeals court.
Richard Milstein, a past president of the Dade County Bar who has been appointed guardian ad litem in hundreds of disputes, said he was aware of no statutory provisions governing the appointment of guardians in NICA cases.
Generally, judges have discretion over whether to appoint a guardian, though Milstein said judges often rely on guardians to be their "eyes and ears" on matters involving litigants who can't make decisions for themselves.
But when hospitals and doctors "question the wisdom" of parents making decisions about their children, "it is an offensive concept," said Michael Freedland, a Broward attorney who represented Lamendola.
"It should send chills down the spine of every parent out there who is caring for a perfectly healthy child, or one who has special needs," he said.
In its review of 1,238 NICA claims at the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Herald examined in detail 10 such cases but did not find any in which a guardian recommended a family be required to accept NICA compensation.
In one case, an Alachua circuit judge appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of Nazyrah Jones, an Ocala child who suffered permanent brain damage when her heartbeat "essentially flat-lined" during delivery on May 13, 2008, a lawsuit alleged. Nazyrah's guardian wrote in a 2011 report that "it would be in Nazyrah Jones' best interests that this case proceed as a medical malpractice lawsuit."
A Central Florida hospital told Ninoshka Rivera, too, that it knew what was best for her son, Kevin Terron-Otero. And what was best was NICA.
Due to oxygen deprivation, Kevin was born floppy and silent, but alive, on Nov. 4, 2009. The hospital and doctors thought it was a classic NICA case, though Rivera wanted to seek compensation through a lawsuit. As the process played out, the hospital asked an Osceola County Circuit Court to appoint a guardian to weigh in.
In a court brief, the hospital said it was concerned about the well-being of the child, fretting over "the staggering potential for loss to this child" if Rivera persisted.
The judge did appoint a guardian, but the guardian did not recommend that Rivera's son be forced into NICA, freeing her to sue.
Rivera settled with the hospital's insurer for $1 million. She is still in litigation with three doctors and two medical practices that have denied wrongdoing, court records show.
Luis Jimenez and Priscilla Franco experienced a similar fight.
The couple's 2016 NICA petition was filed "under protest," arguing that NICA's lawsuit ban was unconstitutional. For its part, NICA determined the injuries to their child compensable in March 2017.
The parents continued to resist, alleging in August 2018 that son Dallas received substandard care in a manner that was "willful and wanton." That's another exception, though rarely used, to escape NICA.
In this case, it worked, enabling the parents to pursue their lawsuit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. The hospital then asked the judge to appoint a guardian, with the familiar argument that the parents had demonstrated a conflict of interest with their son by turning down NICA's guarantees. That request was rejected.
The malpractice litigation remains pending.
And when Sandra and James Shoaf spurned NICA's one-time $100,000 payment and fought to pursue their malpractice suit, a hospital pointed out that their two-year separation — divorces are common among the parents of severely disabled children — left their daughter, Raven, especially vulnerable to her parents' self-interest. The family was allowed to reject NICA benefits, and the hospital where Raven was delivered eventually settled with the family for $13 million, insurance records show.
Lucinda Finley, a University of Buffalo law professor whose expertise includes tort and equal-protection law, said accusing parents of seeking to profit from their children's injuries is a form of emotional abuse — compounded by the fact that parents and their children are the victims of someone else's potential negligence.
"Simultaneously devastating and enraging, infuriating," Finley said. "I can imagine the parent saying this hospital whose doctors are responsible for killing or seriously injuring my child now has the audacity to say I don't care about my child."
She added: "These are not parents who are suddenly seeking to improve their lifestyle. These are parents who are suddenly faced with the crushing financial needs of seriously disabled children."
Just Keep Pushing
An emergency C-section might have saved Hunter Lamendolafrom being deprived of oxygen and suffering permanent brain damage — and spared his mom from a lifetime of hardship, Lamendola said in her lawsuit. She said she had urged her obstetrician, Shamas, and the nurses who delivered Hunter on June 27, 2012, to initiate a cesarean section. Her mother, grandmother and aunt all had required C-sections to give birth.
Lamendola, then 19, soon began to suspect that Hunter was in danger, she testified in an August 2016 deposition. Nurses repositioned her several times, "propped" her up with a pillow and administered oxygen. They said they "couldn't see the baby" on a fetal heart monitor, she said.
"I was worried about Hunter," Lamendola said in the deposition.
"Every time I said I wanted a C-section, it seemed like nothing was done about it," Lamendola said. "So I didn't feel like I was really heard."
The nurses, Lamendola said, were "dismissive" of her — at one point telling her to "just look at this smiley face on the wall and forget about" her pain.
When Lamendola asked again and again for a C-section, she was told to keep pushing, she said.
"Dr. Shamas said, 'You need to continue pushing. You need to push with all your might,'" Lamendola recalled in her deposition. After Hunter emerged, Lamendola gushed blood. "Blood went all over the room," she said. "It flung everywhere."
Hunter was transferred quickly to the neonatal intensive care unit at All Children's Hospital — now Johns Hopkins All Children's — also in St. Petersburg. Lamendola did not get to touch her newborn son or catch more than a glimpse of his face behind a plexiglass incubator on wheels.
The emergency medical team from All Children's that had rushed in to transport Hunter from the St. Petersburg General Hospital delivery room asked repeatedly if Lamendola had seen him.
"They said, 'We want to bring him by your bed, so you can see him just in case it's the last time,'" Lamendola recalled in an interview, choking back tears.
Lamendola said St. Petersburg General's hospital staff moved her to a room beyond the nursery to spare her the sound of bawling babies and joyful moms.
Nurses taped a picture of Hunter to the wall, Lamendola said.
A day passed before Lamendola could see Hunter again — at All-Children's — then a week before she could hold or touch him. All Children's scheduled a meeting in a conference room adjacent to the neonatal intensive care unit, with a large wooden table surrounded by empty chairs, and a television cart and white board off to the side.
The first indication of where the meeting was going: a box of tissues on the table. The second: The hospital had arranged for a pastor to be present.
Hunter's intensive care doctor broke the news. Hunter had sustained "global brain damage."
"All the baby books don't talk about that," Lamendola said in an interview.
"Everything that I had planned or hoped. I didn't know what could or would be possible, at that point."
Hunter is blind. He cannot talk. He has reflux and cannot swallow. And he suffers almost daily seizures.
Lamendola filed the malpractice suit against Shamas and St. Petersburg General on April 24, 2013. The lawsuit was halted in July. Lamendola also was ordered to file a NICA petition.
On March 11, 2014, NICA told an administrative judge that Hunter's injury was compensable. But the following August, the judge, Susan Belyeu Kirkland, ruled that Lamendola could reject NICA benefits because St. Petersburg General had failed to give her proper notice of its participation in the program.
Such notice can't be given when a mother is already in labor and unable to choose another doctor.
"The policy of St. Petersburg General Hospital was to provide the NICA notice only when the patient [arrived] at the hospital and is admitted as an inpatient for delivery of her baby," the judge wrote. In other words: too late for a mom to find another hospital.
The ruling opened a door for Lamendola to exit NICA. St. Petersburg General promptly moved to shut it.
With the dispute now back in Pinellas Circuit Court, St. Petersburg General asked for appointment of the guardian, arguing Lamendola could take millions of the hospital's money — and then walk away from her son when he got older.
"The child is vulnerable given the Mother's limited duty to only support the Child until the age of majority," the hospital wrote. The court pleading underscored the word only.
Vivek Sankaran, director of the Child Advocacy Law Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School, noted that the hospital itself had a conflict of interest, since it would be off the hook legally and financially if Hunter became a NICA client.
"The law is clear that someone does not get to substitute judgment unless there is proof that you have fallen below a more objective standard of harming your child in some concrete, identifiable way," Sankaran said. "It can't simply be 'we disagree with your assessment of what's best for your child.'"
"The law builds in protection for us to disagree on matters of child rearing," he added. "That's what the constitutional decisions have always held."
St. Petersburg General, through its insurer, would ultimately pay Lamendola $9.5 million to settle the case — after spending nearly $1.2 million fighting her, insurance records show. Shamas' insurer paid another $250,000 to the family — after spending $400,000 in litigation.
According to her attorney Freedland, Lamendola is not allowed to discuss the settlements.
Devotion and Pediasure
Now 8, Hunter's typical day begins at 6:30 a.m., when his mother prepares his breakfast: Pediasure, a liquid mixture of vitamins, minerals and protein, pumped directly into his stomach and small intestine through a plastic tube.
At 9 a.m., Lamendola gives Hunter his meds. About a half-dozen of them, sometimes as many as nine. At 9:30 a.m., she disassembles Hunter's wheelchair and loads it into the car for occupational therapy at 10, followed by feeding therapy at 11 a.m. Lunch is at noon — more Pediasure in the pump — followed by 30 minutes in a contraption that builds muscle in Hunter's paralyzed legs. Then a half-hour listening to the television, which blindness prevents him from seeing.
Lamendola's mother takes care of Hunter when Lamendola is at work.
Hunter is more like a patient than a little boy, said Lamendola, who is more of a caregiver than a mom.
"It's hard to be a mom now, because I have to be a therapist. I have to be a nurse. I have to be a doctor. I have to be everything that I should not have to be for him," Lamendola said in a deposition. "I have to be a secretary to make all the appointments and cancel appointments when he's sick."
Hunter now has a little brother, Levi, who is a toddler.
"He is like a little Mama Bear to him," Lamendola said in an interview. "When Hunter has a seizure, he rushes over and holds his arm and checks on him. When his feed runs out, starts beeping, he runs over and points at it to tell us to turn it off. He's very protective of Hunter."
Before the birth of her second child, Lamendola insisted that her new obstetrician agree in advance to a C-section. And she found a doctor who didn't participate in NICA.
"Since I had Hunter — and I'm basically his advocate, and I am basically his words — I have learned to speak up for myself and say whatever I have to say," Lamendola said. "I honestly don't care anymore if I'm nice about it. I'm going to say my truth."
Bills in the Florida House and Senate would increase benefits for families of brain-damaged babies, add parental representation to the program’s board and create an ombudsman, following investigative stories by the Miami Herald and ProPublica.
This article was published on Thursday, April 20, 2021 in ProPublica.
By Carol Marbin Miller, Daniel Chang, and Mary Ellen Klas, Miami Herald
Florida lawmakers backed a series of sweeping reforms Monday to a controversial state program that protects doctors from medical malpractice lawsuits by limiting compensation for children born with catastrophic brain damage.
Legislation to overhaul the Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association was approved unanimously Monday afternoon by committees in both chambers of the Florida Legislature: the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. From there, the bills head to the floor of the Senate and the full House.
NICA, as the program is called, came under fire this month when the Miami Herald, in partnership with ProPublica, began publishing a series of stories detailing the plight of families in the program, some of whom say they are forced to plead for medical care and services their children need.
Parents whose children are accepted into NICA receive a lump sum of $100,000 from the program, a figure that has not changed since its inception, and a promise of “medically necessary and reasonable” care for the lifetime of the injured child. By shielding doctors and hospitals from liability for such injuries, NICA reduces malpractice insurance premiums for physicians — the law’s stated intent when Florida legislators created the program in 1988.
Among the reforms endorsed by the committees: increasing the lump-sum payment to $250,000; adding at least one parent of a covered child, as well as a children’s disability advocate, to the NICA board of directors; creating a position for an ombudsman who would advocate for families; money for mental health counseling for parents; and statutory language requiring NICA to cover doctor, hospital and other medical costs that the program currently shifts to Medicaid, the taxpayer-funded insurer for low-income and disabled Floridians.
Lawmakers in the House and Senate heard testimony from parents who expressed gratitude to NICA for helping them face hardship — as well as from parents who said the program wears them down by questioning and denying requests for care.
The obscure state program has amassed nearly $1.5 billion in assets while delaying or denying help to some families, all of whom were barred from pursuing lawsuits against the doctor or hospital that delivered their child.
Kenney Shipley, NICA’s executive director, said she supports the reforms approved by the House Judiciary Committee. But Shipley, who has led NICA since 2002, urged lawmakers to oppose one provision: a measure forcing the program to pay first for doctors, hospitals and other medical care instead of serving as the “payer of last resort” behind Medicaid.
“That particular provision will most likely impair NICA,” Shipley said.
While Shipley defended the program, parents whose injured children are covered by NICA testified about their personal experiences.
Charity Butler, the mother of a 6-year-old boy, Grit, whose care is subsidized by NICA, spoke in both legislative chambers, bringing with her a thick binder of documents she said she needed to provide to program administrators when seeking reimbursement for her son’s care.
“That is hours upon hours upon hours of tears and work and pushback,” Butler said in the House chamber as she held up the binder.
“NICA is failing families, namely by the manipulative culture of claims denial that uses bureaucracy to stymie families from access to the funds that they need,” she said.
Butler said she pays $10,000 out of pocket each year to subsidize nursing care for her son because NICA’s reimbursement rate for in-home nursing care is so low that she can’t hire qualified nurses.
Butler said she wanted the program to “operate with transparency and treat parents with dignity.” She added: “Ours is an exhausting way of life.”
Jayme O’Connell of Old Town, 40 miles southwest of Gainesville, said she is grateful for NICA but urged lawmakers to make the program more responsive to parents and families rather than the interests of doctors, hospitals and insurance companies.
O’Connell brought her 4-year-old daughter, Ivy, who is in the NICA program. Ivy’s father, Ian Kleiner, and Ivy’s brother and sister were also there.
Speaking in both chambers, O’Connell asked legislators to help make the approval process easier for families because NICA currently requires letters of medical necessity, denials from insurers and other documentation before it will approve many expenses.
“Our No. 1 ask,” she said, “is that our children become the No. 1 priority in NICA — not the doctors, not the hospitals and not the shareholders. ... Treat our children No. 1.”
Rock and Shawna Pollock of Anna Maria Island, on the Gulf Coast, spoke in defense of NICA, telling lawmakers they had learned to navigate the program.
Rock Pollock called NICA “the best thing” that ever happened to his son, Rock Jr., now a teenager, and he credited doctors and therapists with knowing “how to write” letters of medical necessity that will persuade the program to cover claims for his son’s care.
Michael Devine, whose daughter Cyra was accepted into NICA in December 2011, said many parents of catastrophically brain-injured newborns are misled by attorneys who urge parents to resist inclusion into the program, promising to seek a lucrative settlement or verdict in the courts.
Devine said the administrative process of applying for NICA is more efficient and less contentious than a civil lawsuit.
“Going through one of these litigation processes is scary,” he said in the House committee hearing. “The NICA process is not.”
Several lawmakers in both committees had done research of their own and expressed dismay — even outrage — over the way families said they had been treated.
Danny Burgess, a Republican who co-sponsored the Senate bill, said families “rely on NICA for everything from diapers and feeding tubes to beds.” And the program “failed families time and time again.”
“It is time for the Legislature to step in,” Burgess said. “We have to work together to fix these wrongs.”
Said Lauren Book, another Senate sponsor: “These parents cry every single day — not because of their child’s severe birth-related disability, but because of their dealings with NICA. Because they are having to fight tooth and nail” for care.
The despair she heard from NICA families who contacted her “reveals the utter brokenness of this program,” Book said. The legislation, she said, would ensure “what I believe is the absolute bare minimum apology we owe these families in this state.”
In advance of Monday’s hearing, Shipley provided lawmakers with a “correcting the record” memo in response to the published articles in which she said NICA has served families well. She said the agency “wholeheartedly supports” increasing the one-time payment from $100,000 to $250,000 and also favors adding a parent to the NICA board, a measure she had previously rejected.
The memo disputed that the program deprives families of benefits. Instead, it said, an average NICA family receives $4.9 million in benefits during their child’s lifetime. The money comes from dues paid by doctors and hospitals, not taxpayers.
The memo also said NICA spends far more on families than on its lawyers. The Herald and ProPublica previously reported that the program paid its lawyers $16.9 million between 1989 and 2020 — more than NICA spent, combined, on therapy and doctor and hospital visits for children during the same period, which was about $10 million. NICA said when parental expenses, nursing care and initial awards are included, it paid $244.3 million in benefits over that time period.
Also Monday, the state’s top financial regulator, Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis, issued a short statement updating several initiatives from his office designed to reform the program.
Patronis said he had issued a “directive” to his office’s consumer advocate, Tasha Carter, “to engage in advocacy efforts on behalf of” NICA families. The directive, he wrote in a statement, was to “coordinate directly with families” in the program and advocate for them before the Division of Administrative Hearings, which resolves NICA disputes.
“These families have been through so much already,” Patronis wrote, “and the idea that they need a doctor’s note for every little request” is something Carter can help fix.