Lauren Sausser, Author at ��ýҕ�l Health News

Listen: With Little Federal Regulation, States Are Left To Shape the Rules on AI in Health Care

Lauren Sausser — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000

LISTEN: Quashing innovation or risking a patient’s health? Lauren Sausser told WAMU’s Health Hub on April 15 why the White House and some states are at odds over how to regulate AI in health care.

Speed, efficiency, and lower costs. Those are the traits artificial intelligence supporters celebrate. But the same qualities worry physicians who fear the technology could lead to insurance denials with humans left out of the loop.

With scant federal regulation, states are left to shape the rules on AI in health care. For residents in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, a divide is playing out on opposite sides of the Potomac River. Maryland and Virginia have taken very different approaches to regulating AI in health insurance.

��ýҕ�l Health News correspondent Lauren Sausser joined WAMU’s Health Hub on April 15 to explain why where you live may determine how much of a role AI plays in your coverage.

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

This article/health-industry/wamu-health-hub-ai-state-regulation-april-15-2026/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2228242&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

After Man’s Death Following Insurance Denials, West Virginia Tackles Prior Authorization

Lauren Sausser — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 16:01:34 +0000

Eric Tennant with his wife, Becky, and daughter, Amiya. (Becky Tennant)

Six months after a West Virginia man died following a protracted battle with his health insurer over doctor-recommended cancer care, the state’s Republican governor signed a bill intended to curb the harm of insurance denials.

West Virginia’s Public Employees Insurance Agency enrolls nearly 215,000 people — state workers, as well as their spouses and dependents. The new law, which will take effect June 10, will allow plan members who have been approved for a course of treatment to pursue an alternative, medically appropriate treatment of equal or lesser value without the need for another approval from the state-based health plan.

“This legislation is rooted in a simple principle: if a treatment has already been approved, patients should be able to pursue a medically appropriate alternative without being forced to start the process over again — especially when it does not cost more,” Gov. Patrick Morrisey said in a statement after signing the bill into law on March 31.

“This is about common sense, compassion, and trusting patients and their doctors to make the best decisions for their care,” he said.

Becky Tennant (left) and West Virginia Delegate Laura Kimble discuss Eric Tennant’s insurance denial. (NBC News)

Delegate Laura Kimble, the Republican from Harrison County who introduced the legislation, told ��ýҕ�l Health News the measure offers “a rational solution” for patients facing “the most irrational and chaotic time of their lives.”

From Arizona to Rhode Island, at least half of all state legislatures have taken up bills this year related to prior authorization, a process that requires patients or their medical team to seek approval from an insurer before proceeding with care. These state efforts come as patients across the country await relief from prior authorization hurdles, as promised by dozens of major health insurers in a pledge announced by the Trump administration last year.

The West Virginia law was inspired by Eric Tennant, a coal-mining safety instructor from Bridgeport who died on Sept. 17 at age 58. In early 2025, the Public Employees Insurance Agency of a $50,000 noninvasive cancer treatment, called histotripsy, that would have used ultrasound waves to target, and potentially shrink, the largest tumor in his liver. His family didn’t expect the procedure to eradicate the cancer, but they hoped it would buy him more time and improve his quality of life. The insurer said the procedure wasn’t medically necessary and that it was considered “experimental and investigational.”

Becky Tennant, Eric’s widow, told members of a West Virginia House committee in late February that she submitted medical records, expert opinions, and data as part of several attempts to appeal the denial. She also reached out to “almost every one of our state representatives,” asking for help.

Nothing worked, she told lawmakers, until ��ýҕ�l Health News and NBC News got involved and posed questions to the Public Employees Insurance Agency about Eric’s case. Only then did the insurer reverse its decision and approve histotripsy, Tennant said.

“But by then, the delay had already done its damage,” she said.

Within one week of the reversal in late May, Eric Tennant was hospitalized. His health continued to decline, and by midsummer he was no longer considered a suitable candidate for the procedure. “The insurance company’s decision did not simply delay care. It closed doors,” his wife said.

Had the new law been in effect, Kimble said, Tennant could have undergone histotripsy without preapproval, because it was a less expensive alternative to chemotherapy, which his insurer had already authorized. The bill was passed unanimously by the state legislature in March.

A new West Virginia law would have allowed Eric Tennant to undergo histotripsy without the need to obtain preapproval from his health insurer, because the treatment was less expensive than chemotherapy, which had already been authorized. (NBC News)

U.S. health insurers argue that most prior authorization requests are quickly, if not instantly, approved. AHIP, the health insurance industry trade group, says prior authorization in preventing potential harm to patients and reducing unnecessary health care costs. But denials and delays tend to affect patients who need expensive, time-sensitive care, .

The practice has come under intense scrutiny in recent years, particularly after the in New York City in late 2024. Americans rank prior authorization as their biggest burden when it comes to getting health care, according to a by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ��ýҕ�l Health News.

Samantha Knapp, a spokesperson for the West Virginia Department of Administration, would not answer questions about the law’s financial impact on the state. “We prefer to avoid any speculation at this time regarding potential impact or actions,” Knapp said.

In a fiscal note attached to the bill, Jason Haught, the Public Employees Insurance Agency’s chief financial officer, said the law would cost the agency an estimated $13 million annually and “cause member disruption.”

West Virginia isn’t an outlier in targeting prior authorization. By late 2025, 48 other states, in addition to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, already had some form of a prior authorization law — or laws — on the books, according to a by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Many states have set up “gold carding” programs, which allow physicians with a track record of approvals to bypass prior authorization requirements. Some states establish a maximum number of days insurance companies are allowed to respond to requests, while others prohibit insurance companies from issuing retrospective denials after a service has already been preauthorized. There are also a crop of new state laws seeking to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in prior authorization decision-making.

Meanwhile, prior authorization bills introduced this year across the country, including in Kentucky, Missouri, and New Jersey, have been supported by politicians from both parties.

“Republicans in conservative states see health care as a vulnerability for the midterm elections, and so, unsurprisingly, you’ll see some action on this,” said Robert Hartwig, a clinical associate professor of risk management, insurance, and finance at the University of South Carolina. “They realize that they’re not really going to get much action at the federal level given the degree of gridlock we’ve already seen.”

When her husband, Eric Tennant, was denied doctor-recommended cancer treatment by their health insurer, Becky Tennant (right) of Bridgeport, West Virginia, reached out to state lawmakers for help appealing the decision. A Republican delegate, Laura Kimble (left), later introduced a bill to curb harms tied to prior authorization for patients covered by West Virginia’s Public Employees Insurance Agency. (Catherine Lyon)

Last summer, the Trump administration announced a pledge signed by dozens of health insurers vowing to reform prior authorization. The insurers promised to reduce the scope of claims that require preapproval, decrease wait times, and communicate with patients in clear language when denying a request.

Consumers, patient advocates, and medical providers that companies will follow through on their promises.

Becky Tennant is skeptical, too. That’s why she advocated for the West Virginia bill.

“Families should not have to beg, appeal, or go public just to access time-sensitive care,” she told lawmakers. Tennant, who sees the bill’s passage as bittersweet, said she thought her husband would have been proud.

During Eric’s final hospital stay, Tennant recalled, right before he was discharged to home hospice care, she asked him whether he wanted her to keep fighting to change the state agency’s prior authorization process.

“‘Well, you need to at least try to change it,’” she recalled her husband saying. “‘Because it’s not fair.’”

“I told him I would keep trying,” she said, “at least for a while. And so I am keeping that promise to him.”

NBC News health and medical unit producer Jason Kane and correspondent Erin McLaughlin contributed to this report.

Do you have an experience with prior authorization you’d like to share? to tell ��ýҕ�l Health News your story.

This article/health-industry/prior-authorization-insurance-delays-coverage-denials-state-laws-west-virginia/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2172747&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Families Scramble To Pay Five-Figure Bills as Clock Ticks on Promised Preauthorization Reforms

Lauren Sausser — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Sheldon Ekirch is used to being disappointed by her health insurance company.

That’s why Ekirch, 31, of Henrico, Virginia, was stunned when she learned Anthem would finally have to pay for life-changing medical treatment.

For two years, she had battled the company to cover blood plasma infusions called intravenous immunoglobulin, or IVIG. The treatment has been shown, in some cases, to improve symptoms associated with small-fiber neuropathy, a condition that makes Ekirch’s limbs feel like they’re on fire.

But Anthem had repeatedly denied coverage for IVIG, which costs about $10,000 per infusion. Then, in February, an external review of her case conducted for the Virginia Bureau of Insurance overturned Anthem’s denial. It meant her parents would no longer need to withdraw money from her father’s retirement savings to pay out-of-pocket. Already, they’d spent about $90,000.

“My mom was sobbing. My dad was on his knees, sobbing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him cry like that,” said Ekirch, describing her parents’ reaction to the reversal.

“I think I’m in shock from it all,” she said.

In a prepared statement, Stephanie DuBois, a spokesperson for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, said IVIG did not “align with our evidence-based standards.” But she said the company respects “the external reviewer’s decision” to overturn the denial.

Meanwhile, each year millions of patients like Ekirch continue to face denials through the prior authorization process, which requires many patients or their doctors to seek preapproval from health insurers before proceeding with medical care. And despite promises of reform from insurance companies, denials remain a frustrating hallmark of the American health care system.

Last June, Trump administration officials announced in a press conference that health insurance leaders had pledged to simplify prior authorization by taking steps such as “” subject to preapproval. The insurers also promised faster turnaround times and “clear, easy-to-understand explanations” of their decisions.

Yet in February, when ��ýҕ�l Health News contacted more than a dozen major insurers that signed the pledge, half of them failed to provide specifics about health care services for which they no longer require prior authorization.

A said the industry remains committed to the effort. But physicians, consumers, and patient advocates are pessimistic about the insurers’ willingness to follow through with these voluntary changes.

“They have no desire to do what’s in the best interest of the patient if it’s going to hurt their pockets,” said Matt Toresco, CEO of Archo Advocacy, a patient advocacy and consulting company.

“In the insurance world, the fiduciary responsibility is not to the patient,” he said. “It’s to the Street,” he said, referring to Wall Street.

Meaningful Change?

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions for this article. The few updates the federal government has issued since June on prior authorization reform include a about ensuring clinicians can submit requests electronically.

AHIP, the health insurer trade group that issued the January press release, did not provide information about specific treatments, codes, medications, or procedures that its members have released from prior authorization since signing the pledge.

“We will have additional progress updates coming out later this spring,” said Kelly Parsons, a spokesperson for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which represents 33 independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies. She also offered no specifics.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies that cover patients in Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee either did not respond to questions for this article or deferred to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

By contrast, other insurers cited specific examples of change.

Aetna CVS Health began “bundling” prior authorizations for musculoskeletal procedures, as well as for lung, breast, and prostate cancer patients, spokesperson Phil Blando said. This practice allows providers to file one authorization request for a patient’s treatment instead of several.

And Humana removed prior authorization requirements for “diagnostic services across colonoscopies,” among other changes, spokesperson Mark Taylor said.

UnitedHealthcare, which came under intense scrutiny for its use of prior authorization following the of one of its executives in late 2024, removed prior authorization requirements on Jan. 1 for “certain nuclear imaging, obstetrical ultrasound and echocardiogram procedures,” among other changes, spokesperson Matthew Rodriguez said.

Yet some health care insiders doubt these changes will amount to much.

“Insurers have made similar promises before and failed to deliver meaningful change,” said Bobby Mukkamala, president of the American Medical Association, which represents U.S. physicians and medical students.

In 2018, , including AHIP and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, announced a partnership “to identify opportunities to improve the prior authorization process.” Yet, in response to the June pledge, the process remains “costly, inefficient, opaque, and too often hazardous for patients.”

“Transparency is essential so everyone can see whether real reforms are happening,” he told ��ýҕ�l Health News.

Curbed Enthusiasm

Prior authorization may be getting more political attention, but data shows patients — particularly those with chronic conditions that require ongoing medical treatment — continue to face barriers to doctor-recommended care.

Among patients in that group, 39% said prior authorization is “the single biggest burden” in receiving care, according to a by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ��ýҕ�l Health News.

I was fighting to survive, and then I was fighting to convince someone that I deserved to survive.
Anna Hocum

That’s true for Payton Herres, 25, of Dayton, Ohio, who in 2012 received a heart transplant, which requires her to take an antirejection prescription medication for the rest of her life.

But last year, she said, Anthem denied coverage for the expensive drug. She’d been taking it for more than 10 years.

“I’ve been with Anthem my entire life, and then, all of a sudden — I don’t know what happened — they just started denying me over and over,” she said. “I almost ran out of medication.”

DuBois, the Anthem spokesperson, confirmed the company has approved the medication. It had not taken Herres’ treatment history into account when it denied coverage for the drug, DuBois said.

But Herres said the company will require her to obtain a new authorization for the medication in September.

“Are they going to deny other things, too?” she asked. “I hope I don’t have to keep fighting like this for the rest of my life.”

Anna Hocum, 25, is preparing for a similar fight. In 2024 and 2025, her insurer repeatedly denied coverage for expensive treatment used to slow the progression of a rare genetic condition that destroys her lung function.

“I just thought I was going to die,” said Hocum, of Milwaukee. “I was fighting to survive, and then I was fighting to convince someone that I deserved to survive.”

Like with Ekirch, Hocum’s parents paid while they waited for her insurance company to overturn the initial denials. Friends and family donated more than $30,000 through a GoFundMe campaign to help defray the costs.

Then last spring, Hocum said, her insurer reversed the denial without an apparent explanation. But the approval is valid for only 12 months, so she will need another prior authorization approval this year.

“It is scary,” she said. “It’s not guaranteed that it’ll be accepted.”

They fought me tooth and nail every step of the way, to the point that they made my life a living hell.
Sheldon Ekirch

Even though it’s a “huge relief” that Anthem is now obligated to cover Ekirch’s treatment, her mother doesn’t know if or how the family will recoup the money it has already paid.

In a letter to Ekirch confirming the external reviewer’s decision, Anthem explained that the authorization would be valid for a year beginning on Sept. 25, 2025. “We are pleased we can provide a favorable response in this case,” a grievance and appeals analyst for Anthem wrote.

Ekirch said the letter highlighted the company’s hypocrisy.

“They act as though they are a benevolent organization doing me a favor.” In reality, she said, “they fought me tooth and nail every step of the way, to the point that they made my life a living hell.”

Now, Ekirch’s access to IVIG may be in jeopardy again. Her COBRA coverage through Anthem expires in late March. In April, she will need to transition to a new insurance plan — and she’s bracing herself for another round of prior authorization.

“I just am so afraid that I don’t have the strength to go through and do what it takes,” Ekirch said, “to fight this battle again.”

Do you have an experience with prior authorization you’d like to share? to tell ��ýҕ�l Health News your story.

This article/health-care-costs/prior-authorization-insurer-pledge-awaiting-reforms-patients-families-bills/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2166041&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Red and Blue States Alike Want To Limit AI in Insurance. Trump Wants To Limit the States.

Darius Tahir — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

It’s the rare policy question that unites Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and the Democratic-led Maryland government against President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom of California: How should health insurers use AI?

Regulating artificial intelligence, especially its use by health insurers, is becoming a politically divisive topic, and it’s scrambling traditional partisan lines.

Boosters, led by Trump, are not only pushing its integration into government, as in in prior authorization, but also trying to stop others from building curbs and guardrails. A December seeks to preempt most state efforts to govern AI, describing “a race with adversaries for supremacy” in a new “technological revolution.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” Trump’s order said. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Across the nation, states are in revolt. At least four — Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska, and Texas — enacted legislation last year reining in the use of AI in health insurance. Two others, Illinois and California, enacted bills the year before.

Legislators in Rhode Island plan to try again this year after a bill requiring regulators to collect data on technology use failed to clear both chambers last year. A bill in North Carolina requiring insurers not to use AI as the sole basis of a coverage decision attracted significant interest from Republican legislators last year.

DeSantis, a former GOP presidential candidate, has rolled out an “AI Bill of Rights,” include restrictions on its use in processing insurance claims and a requirement allowing a state regulatory body to inspect algorithms.

“We have a responsibility to ensure that new technologies develop in ways that are moral and ethical, in ways that reinforce our American values, not in ways that erode them,” DeSantis said during his State of the State address in January.

Ripe for Regulation

Polling shows Americans are skeptical of AI. A from Fox News found 63% of voters describe themselves as “very” or “extremely” concerned about artificial intelligence, including majorities across the political spectrum. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats and just over 3 in 5 Republicans said they had qualms about AI.

Health insurers’ tactics to hold down costs also trouble the public; from KFF found widespread discontent over issues like prior authorization. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes ��ýҕ�l Health News.) Reporting and in recent years has highlighted the use of algorithms to rapidly deny insurance claims or prior authorization requests, apparently with little review by a doctor.

Last month, the House Ways and Means Committee hauled in executives from Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and other major health insurers to address concerns about affordability. When pressed, the executives either denied or avoided talking about using the most advanced technology to reject authorization requests or toss out claims.

AI is “never used for a denial,” Cigna CEO David Cordani told lawmakers. Like others in the health insurance industry, the company is being sued for its methods of denying claims, as spotlighted by ProPublica. Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the company’s claims-denial process “is not powered by AI.”

Indeed, companies are at pains to frame AI as a loyal servant. Optum, part of health giant UnitedHealth Group, announced Feb. 4 that it was rolling out tech-powered prior authorization, with plenty of mentions of speedier approvals.

“We’re transforming the prior authorization process to address the friction it causes,” John Kontor, a senior vice president at Optum,

Still, Alex Bores, a computer scientist and New York Assembly member prominent in the state’s legislative debate over AI, which culminated in a comprehensive bill governing the technology, said AI is a natural field to regulate.

“So many people already find the answers that they’re getting from their insurance companies to be inscrutable,” said Bores, a Democrat who is running for Congress. “Adding in a layer that cannot by its nature explain itself doesn’t seem like it’ll be helpful there.”

At least some people in medicine — doctors, for example — are cheering legislators and regulators on. The American Medical Association “supports state regulations seeking greater accountability and transparency from commercial health insurers that use AI and machine learning tools to review prior authorization requests,” said John Whyte, the organization’s CEO.

Whyte said insurers already use AI and “doctors still face delayed patient care, opaque insurer decisions, inconsistent authorization rules, and crushing administrative work.”

Insurers Push Back

With legislation approved or pending in at least nine states, it’s unclear how much of an effect the state laws will have, said University of Minnesota law professor Daniel Schwarcz. States can’t regulate “self-insured” plans, which are used by many employers; only the federal government has that power.

But there are deeper issues, Schwarcz said: Most of the state legislation he’s seen would require a human to sign off on any decision proposed by AI but doesn’t specify what that means.

The laws don’t offer a clear framework for understanding how much review is enough, and over time humans tend to become a little lazy and simply sign off on any suggestions by a computer, he said.

Still, insurers view the spate of bills as a problem. “Broadly speaking, regulatory burden is real,” said Dan Jones, senior vice president for federal affairs at the Alliance of Community Health Plans, a trade group for some nonprofit health insurers. If insurers spend more time working through a patchwork of state and federal laws, he continued, that means “less time that can be spent and invested into what we’re intended to be doing, which is focusing on making sure that patients are getting the right access to care.”

Linda Ujifusa, a Democratic state senator in Rhode Island, said insurers came out last year against the bill she sponsored to restrict AI use in coverage denials. It passed in one chamber, though not the other.

“There’s tremendous opposition” to anything that regulates , she said, and “tremendous opposition” to identifying intermediaries such as private insurers or pharmacy benefit managers “as a problem.”

In a , AHIP, an insurer trade group, advocated for “balanced policies that promote innovation while protecting patients.”

“Health plans recognize that AI has the potential to drive better health care outcomes — enhancing patient experience, closing gaps in care, accelerating innovation, and reducing administrative burden and costs to improve the focus on patient care,” Chris Bond, an AHIP spokesperson, told ��ýҕ�l Health News. And, he continued, they need a “consistent, national approach anchored in a comprehensive federal AI policy framework.”

Seeking Balance

In California, Newsom has signed some laws regulating AI, including one requiring health insurers to ensure their algorithms are fairly and equitably applied. But the Democratic governor has vetoed others with a broader approach, such as a bill including more mandates about how the technology must work and requirements to disclose its use to regulators, clinicians, and patients upon request.

Chris Micheli, a Sacramento-based lobbyist, said the governor likely wants to ensure the state budget — consistently powered by outsize stock market gains, especially from tech companies — stays flush. That necessitates balance.

Newsom is trying to “ensure that financial spigot continues, and at the same time ensure that there are some protections for California consumers,” he said. He added insurers believe they’re subject to a welter of regulations already.

The Trump administration seems persuaded. The president’s recent executive order proposed to sue and restrict certain federal funding for any state that enacts what it characterized as “excessive” state regulation — with some exceptions, including for policies that protect children.

That order is possibly unconstitutional, said Carmel Shachar, a health policy scholar at Harvard Law School. The source of preemption authority is generally Congress, she said, and federal lawmakers twice took up, but ultimately declined to pass, a provision barring states from regulating AI.

“Based on our previous understanding of federalism and the balance of powers between Congress and the executive, a challenge here would be very likely to succeed,” Shachar said.

Some lawmakers view Trump’s order skeptically at best, noting the administration has been removing guardrails, and preventing others from erecting them, to an extreme degree.

“There isn’t really a question of, should it be federal or should it be state right now?” Bores said. “The question is, should it be state or not at all?”

Do you have an experience navigating prior authorization to get medical treatment that you’d like to share with us for our reporting? .

This article/insurance/artificial-intelligence-ai-health-insurance-companies-state-regulation-trump/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2154202&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

‘Abortion as Homicide’ Debate in South Carolina Exposes GOP Rift as States Weigh New Restrictions

Lauren Sausser — Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:00:00 +0000

COLUMBIA, S.C. — When a trio of Republican state lawmakers introduced a bill last year that would subject women who obtain abortions to decades in prison, some reproductive rights advocates feared South Carolina might pass the “” abortion ban in the United States.

Now, though, it seems unlikely to become state law. In November, a vote to advance beyond a legislative subcommittee failed. Four out of six Republicans on the Senate Medical Affairs Committee subpanel refused to vote on the measure.

Republican state Sen. Jeff Zell said during a November subcommittee hearing that he wanted to help “move this pro-life football down the field and to save as many babies as we can.” Still, he could not support the bill as written.

“What I am interested in is speaking on behalf of the South Carolinian,” he said, “and they’re not interested in this bill right now or this issue right now.”

While that bill stalled, it signals that abortion will continue to loom large during 2026 legislative sessions. More than three years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, measures related to abortion have already been prefiled in several states, including Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia.

Meanwhile, the South Carolina bill also exposed a rift among Republicans. Some GOP lawmakers are eager to appeal to their most conservative supporters by pursuing more restrictive abortion laws, despite the lack of support for such measures among most voters.

Until recently, the idea of charging women who obtain abortions with a crime was considered “politically toxic,” said Steven Greene, a political science professor at North Carolina State University.

Yet introduced “abortion as homicide” bills during 2024-2025 legislative sessions, many of which included the death penalty as a potential sentence, according to Dana Sussman, senior vice president of Pregnancy Justice, an organization that tracks the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes.

Even though none of those bills was signed into law, Sussman called this “a hugely alarming trend.”

“My fear is that one of these will end up passing,” she said.

Less than a month after the bill stalled in South Carolina, — which would create criminal penalties for “coercion to obtain an abortion” — was prefiled ahead of the Jan. 13 start of the state’s legislative session.

“The issue is not going away. It’s a moral issue,” said state Sen. Richard Cash, who introduced the abortion bill that stalled in the subcommittee. “How far we can go, and what successes we can have, remain to be seen.”

Protesters gather in November outside the South Carolina State House in Columbia as a Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee meets to discuss a bill that would establish a near-total abortion ban in the state. (Sabriya Rice/��ýҕ�l Health News)

Protest signs sit outside the State House in Columbia. Republican state lawmakers are divided about a measure that would impose criminal penalties on women who undergo abortions. (Sabriya Rice/��ýҕ�l Health News)

‘Wrongful Death’

Florida law already bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. But a Republican lawmaker introduced for the “wrongful death” of a fetus. If enacted, the measure will allow parents to sue for the death of an unborn child, making them eligible for compensation, including damages for mental pain and suffering.

The bill says neither the mother nor a medical provider giving “lawful” care could be sued. But anyone else deemed to have acted with “negligence,” including someone who helps procure abortion-inducing pills or a doctor who performs an abortion after six weeks, could be sued by one of the parents.

In Missouri, a constitutional amendment to legalize abortion passed in 2024 with 51.6% of the vote. In 2026, state lawmakers are asking voters to repeal the amendment they just passed. A new proposed amendment would effectively reinstate the state’s ban on most abortions, with new exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and medical emergencies.

“I think that’s a middle-of-the-road, common sense proposal that most Missourians will agree with,” said , a Republican state representative who to put the measure on the ballot.

Lewis said the 2024 amendment went too far in allowing a all of Missouri’s abortion restrictions, sometimes called “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” or TRAP, laws. Even before Missouri’s outright ban, the number of abortions recorded in the state had dropped from to .

Meanwhile, Lewis backed another proposed constitutional amendment that will appear on the 2026 ballot. That measure would make it harder for Missourians to amend the state constitution, by requiring any amendment to receive a majority of votes in each congressional district.

One analysis suggested as few as any ballot measure under the proposal. Lewis dismissed the analysis as a “Democratic talking point.”

The abortion bill that brought demonstrators out to the South Carolina State House in November stalled, failing to advance beyond a legislative subcommittee that month. But another bill — which would create criminal penalties for “coercion to obtain an abortion” — was prefiled ahead of the Jan. 13 start of the state’s legislative session. (Sabriya Rice/��ýҕ�l Health News)

‘Gerrymandered’ Districts

Republican lawmakers aren’t necessarily aiming to pass abortion laws that appeal to the broadest swath of voters in their states.

Polling conducted ahead of Missouri’s vote in 2024 showed 52% of the state’s likely voters supported the constitutional amendment to protect access to abortion, a narrow majority that was consistent with the final vote.

In Texas, state law offers no exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest, even though a 2025 survey found 83% of Texans believe the procedure should be legal under those conditions.

In South Carolina, a 2024 poll found only 31% of respondents supported the state’s existing six-week abortion ban, which prohibits the procedure in most cases after fetal cardiac activity can be detected.

But Republicans hold supermajorities in the South Carolina General Assembly, and some continue to push for a near-total abortion ban even though such a law would probably be broadly unpopular. That’s because district lines have been drawn in such a way that politicians are more likely to be ousted by a more conservative member of their own party in a primary than defeated by a Democrat in a general election, said Scott Huffmon, director of the Center for Public Opinion & Policy Research at Winthrop University.

The South Carolina legislature is “so gerrymandered that more than half of the seats in both chambers were uncontested in the last general election. Whoever wins the primary wins the seat,” Huffmon said. “The best way to win the primary — or, better yet, prevent a primary challenge at all — is to run to the far right and embrace the policies of the most conservative people in the district.”

That’s what some proposals, including the “abortion as homicide” bills, reflect, said Greene, the North Carolina State professor. Lawmakers could vote for such a measure and suffer “very minimal, if any,” political backlash, he said.

“Most of the politicians passing these laws are more concerned with making the base happy than with actually dramatically reducing the number of abortions that take place within their jurisdiction,” Greene said.

Yet the number of abortions performed in South Carolina has dropped dramatically — by 63% from 2023 to 2024, when the state enacted the existing ban, according to data published by the state’s Department of Public Health.

Kimya Forouzan, a policy adviser with the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion legislation throughout the country and advocates for reproductive rights, said South Carolina’s attempt to pass “the most extreme bill that we have seen” is “part of a pattern.”

“I think the push for anti-abortion legislation exists throughout the country,” she said. “There are a lot of battles that are brewing.”

��ýҕ�l Health News correspondent Daniel Chang and Southern bureau chief Sabriya Rice contributed to this report.

This article/courts/abortion-ban-republican-lawmakers-prosecuting-women-south-carolina/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2134960&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

South Carolina’s Measles Outbreak Shows Chilling Effect of Vaccine Misinformation

Lauren Sausser — Wed, 26 Nov 2025 10:00:00 +0000

BOILING SPRINGS, S.C. — Near the back corner of the local library’s parking lot, largely out of view from the main road, the South Carolina Department of Public Health opened a pop-up clinic in early November, offering free measles vaccines to adults and children.

Spartanburg County, in South Carolina’s Upstate region, has been fighting a measles outbreak since early October, with more than 50 cases identified. Health officials have encouraged people who are unvaccinated to get a shot by visiting its mobile vaccine clinic at any of its several stops throughout the county.

But on a Monday afternoon in Boiling Springs, only one person showed up.

“It’s progress. That progress is slow,” Linda Bell, the state epidemiologist with the Department of Public Health, said during a recent press briefing. “We had hoped to see a more robust uptake than that in our mobile health units.”

As South Carolina tries to contain its measles outbreak, public health officials across the nation are concerned that the highly contagious virus is making a major comeback. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has tallied and 45 outbreaks in 2025. The largest started in Texas, where hundreds of people were infected and two children died.

For the first time in more than two decades, the United States is poised to lose its measles , a designation indicating that outbreaks are rare and rapidly contained.

South Carolina’s measles outbreak isn’t yet as large as those in other states, such as , , and . But it shows how a confluence of larger national trends — including historically low vaccination rates, skepticism fueled by the pandemic, misinformation, and “health freedom” ideologies proliferated by conservative politicians — have put some communities at risk for the reemergence of a preventable, potentially deadly virus.

“Everyone talks about it being the canary in the coal mine because it’s the most contagious infectious disease out there,” said Josh Michaud, associate director for global and public health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ��ýҕ�l Health News. “The logic is indisputable that we’re likely to see more outbreaks.”

Schools and ‘Small Brush Fires’

Spartanburg’s vaccination rate is among the lowest of South Carolina’s 46 counties. And that was true “even before covid,” said Chris Lombardozzi, a senior vice president with the Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System.

Nearly 6,000 children in Spartanburg County schools last year — 10% of the total enrollment — either received an exemption allowing them to forgo required vaccinations or did not meet vaccine requirements, according to data published by the state.

Lombardozzi said the county’s low vaccination rate is tied to misinformation not only published on social media but also spread by “a variety of nonmedical leaders over the years.”

The pandemic made things worse. Michaud said that fear and misinformation surrounding covid vaccines “threw gasoline on the fire of people’s vaccine skepticism.” In some cases, that skepticism transferred to childhood vaccines, which historically have been less controversial, he said.

This made communities like Spartanburg County with low vaccination rates more vulnerable. “Which is why we’re seeing constant, small brush fires of measles outbreaks,” Michaud said.

In Spartanburg, the overall percentage of students with required immunizations fell from 95.1% to 90% between the 2020-21 and 2024-25 academic years. Public health officials say a minimum of 95% is required to prevent significant spread of measles.

Children who attend public and private schools in South Carolina are required to show that they’ve received some vaccinations, including the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, but religious exemptions are relatively easy to obtain. The exemption form must be notarized, but it does not require a doctor’s note or any disclosure about the family’s religious beliefs.

The number of students in South Carolina who have been granted religious exemptions has increased dramatically over the past decade. That’s particularly true in the Upstate region, where religious exemptions have increased sixfold from a decade ago. During the 2013-14 school year, 2,044 students in the Upstate were granted a religious exemption to the vaccine requirements, according to . By fall 2024, that number had jumped to more than 13,000.

Some schools are more exposed than others. The beginning of the South Carolina outbreak was largely linked to one public charter school, Global Academy of South Carolina, where only 17% of the 605 students enrolled during the 2024-25 school year provided documentation showing they had received their required vaccinations, according to data published by the Department of Public Health.

No one from Global Academy responded to interview requests.

‘Health Freedom’

In April, after visiting a Texas family whose daughter had died from measles, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote on social media that the “most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine.” He made a similar statement during an interview on “Dr. Phil” later that month.

But these endorsements stand at odds with other statements Kennedy has made that cast doubt on vaccine safety and have falsely linked vaccines with autism. The CDC, under his authority, now claims such links “have been ignored by health authorities.”

“What would I do if I could go back in time and I could avoid giving my children the vaccines that I gave them?” he said on a podcast in 2020. “I would do anything for that. I would pay anything to be able to do that.”

Throughout 2025, he has made other . During a congressional hearing in September, Kennedy defended his past claims that he was not anti-vaccine but affirmed his stated position that no vaccines are safe or effective.

Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, told ��ýҕ�l Health News that Kennedy is “pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-accountability.” Hilliard said HHS is working with “state and local partners in South Carolina” and in other states to provide support during the measles outbreaks.

Meanwhile, Kennedy has frequently championed the idea of health freedom, or freedom of choice, regarding vaccines, a talking point that has taken root among Republicans.

That has had a “chilling effect all the way down through state and local lawmakers,” Michaud said, making some leaders hesitant to talk about the threat that the ongoing measles outbreaks poses or the effectiveness and safety of the MMR vaccine.

Brandon Charochak, a spokesperson for South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, said the governor was not available to be interviewed for this article but referenced McMaster’s comment from October that measles “is a dangerous disease, but in terms of diseases, it’s not one that we should panic about.”

On a separate occasion that month, the Republican governor said he does not support vaccine mandates. “We’re not going to have mandates,” he said, “and I think we are responding properly.”

Even though the South Carolina Department of Public Health has repeatedly encouraged measles vaccines, the push has been notably quieter than the agency’s covid vaccine outreach efforts.

In 2021, for example, the agency partnered with breweries throughout the state for a campaign called “Shot and a Chaser,” which rewarded people who got a covid vaccine with a free beer or soda. By contrast, the pop-up measles vaccine clinic at the Boiling Springs Library featured no flashy signage, no freebies, and wasn’t visible from the library’s main entrance.

Edward Simmer, interim director of the Department of Public Health, would not speak to ��ýҕ�l Health News about the measles outbreak. During a legislative hearing in April, Republican state lawmakers voted against his permanent confirmation because of his past support for covid vaccines and masking. One lawmaker specifically criticized the agency during that hearing for the Shot and a Chaser campaign.

Public health officials in other states also have been blocked from new roles because of their covid response. In Missouri, where among kindergartners since 2020 and measles cases have been reported this year, Republican lawmakers in 2022 after vaccine opponents protested his appointment.

In South Carolina, Simmer, lacking lawmakers’ confirmation, leads the public health agency in an interim capacity.

South Carolina Sen. Tom Davis of Beaufort was the only Republican on the Senate Medical Affairs Committee who voted to confirm Simmer in April. He told ��ýҕ�l Health News that his Republican colleagues raised valid questions about Simmer’s past support for covid vaccines.

But, Davis said, it would be “tremendously unfortunate and not beneficial from a public health perspective” if the Republican Party just took a stance against vaccines “as a matter of policy.”

The Department of Public Health had administered 44 doses of the MMR vaccine through its mobile health unit from October to mid-November. The last mobile vaccine clinic was scheduled for Nov. 24. But health officials are encouraged that patients are seeking vaccines elsewhere. The agency’s tracking system shows that providers across Spartanburg County administered more than twice as many measles vaccines in October as they did a year ago.

As of mid-November, more than 130 people remained in quarantine, most of them students at local elementary and middle schools. Cases have also been linked to a church and Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport.

“We’re reminding people that travel for the upcoming holidays increases the risk of exposures greatly,” said Bell, the state epidemiologist. “Due to that risk, we’re encouraging people to consider getting vaccinated now.”

��ýҕ�l Health News correspondent Amy Maxmen contributed to this report.

This article/news/measles-outbreak-south-carolina-vaccine-misinformation-kennedy-rfk/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2122955&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

After Series of Denials, His Insurer Approved Doctor-Recommended Cancer Care. It Was Too Late.

Lauren Sausser — Fri, 21 Nov 2025 10:00:00 +0000

For nearly three years, Eric Tennant endured chemotherapy infusions, rounds of radiation, biopsies, and hospitalizations that left him weak and depleted.

“It’s good to be home,” he said after one hospital stay in early June, “yet I’m tired and ready to get on with things.”

In 2023, Tennant, of Bridgeport, West Virginia, was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma, a rare cancer of the bile ducts that had spread throughout his body.

None of the initial treatments prescribed by his doctors had eradicated the cancer. But a glimmer of hope came in early 2025, when Tennant was recommended for histotripsy, a relatively new procedure that would use ultrasound waves to target, and potentially destroy, the largest tumor in his body — in his liver.

“My dad was a little nervous because it was something new, but it definitely gave us some hope that he would be around a little bit longer,” said Tennant’s daughter, Amiya.

There was just one hitch: His insurer wouldn’t pay for it.

Tennant, 58, died of cancer on Sept. 17. His story illustrates how a bureaucratic process called prior authorization .

Becky Tennant thinks her husband might have lived longer if their health insurer had not repeatedly denied a new treatment recommended by his doctor early this year. “It may not have changed the outcome,” she says, “but they took that away from us to know.” (Rebecca Tennant)

For months, Eric Tennant’s health insurer refused to cover a cancer treatment recommended by his doctor, claiming the procedure was “not medically necessary,” a common reason used by insurers to deny care. (A portion of this photo is digitally blurred to protect patient privacy.) (NBC News)

It’s infeasible to count the people harmed by this , which, by delaying or denying care, helps drive health insurers’ profits. No government agency or private group tracks such data.

That said, ��ýҕ�l Health News has heard from hundreds of patients in recent years who claim that they or someone in their family has been harmed by prior authorization. More than 1 in 4 physicians in December said that prior authorization had led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. And 8% responded that prior authorization led to a disability, birth defect, or death.

In June, the Trump administration , signed by dozens of private insurers, to streamline prior authorization, which often requires patients or their medical teams to ask insurers for permission before proceeding with many types of care. It remains unclear when patients can expect to see improvement.

The commitments “depend on the full cooperation of the private insurance sector” and will “take time to achieve their full effect,” said Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services. But the pledge exists, he said, “to prevent tragic deaths like Eric’s from occurring at the hands of an inefficient system.”

Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP, a health insurance industry trade group, said he could not speak to any specific insurer’s prior authorization policies. Broadly, though, he said prior authorization “acts as a guardrail” to make sure medicines and treatments are not used inappropriately.

At the same time, he said, insurers recognize that patients can be frustrated when their doctor-recommended care is denied. That’s why “there is a dedicated effort across the industry to make the process more straightforward, faster, and simpler for patients and providers,” Bond said.

In the meantime, the process continues to take its toll on people like Eric Tennant, whose often require expensive health care services.

“Eric is gone,” his widow, Becky, said. “He’s not coming back.”

Eric and Becky Tennant rest in Eric’s hospice bed with their dog, Molly. Eric died at home of cancer on Sept. 17. (Amiya Tennant)

Tennant was a safety instructor for the West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health Safety and Training and insured by the state’s Public Employees Insurance Agency, which contracts with UnitedHealthcare to administer benefits for state employees, their spouses, and dependents.

In February and March, UnitedHealthcare, the Public Employees Insurance Agency, and an outside reviewer issued a series of denials that concluded Eric’s benefits would not cover histotripsy, claiming the treatment was not medically necessary. Becky Tennant estimated the procedure would cost the family about $50,000 out-of-pocket.

Although the treatment wasn’t guaranteed to work, it was worth a shot, the Tennants thought, so they considered withdrawing money from their retirement savings. But then, in May, after ��ýҕ�l Health News and NBC News posed a series of questions to UnitedHealthcare and the Public Employees Insurance Agency about Eric’s case, the agency reversed course. PEIA decided to cover his treatment.

Notably, the agency contacted ��ýҕ�l Health News about the approval hours before it notified the Tennant family of the decision.

But the approval came too late. Eric was hospitalized in late May and prescribed medication that prevented him from undergoing histotripsy at that time. His family held out hope that his health would improve and he would qualify for the procedure that summer.

In July, they took a family vacation to Marco Island, Florida. It would be their last. Two days after they returned home, a scan revealed Eric’s cancer had continued to spread. Histotripsy was out of the question.

In July, Eric Tennant took one last vacation with his family to Marco Island, Florida: (from left) his daughter, Amiya; wife, Becky; daughter-in-law, Jaimee; and son, Arryn. (Jaimee Tennant)

“I’m sad for what we will miss out on,” Becky said. “I’m sad at the unfairness of it.”

She said if Eric had been able to undergo histotripsy in February, as originally recommended by his doctor, it might have destroyed the tumor in his liver that ultimately killed him.

“We’ll never know. That’s the thing. Any lawyer for the insurance will say, ‘Well, you don’t know it would have helped.’ No. You took that chance away from us,” she said.

In October, Samantha Knapp, a spokesperson for the West Virginia Department of Administration, told ��ýҕ�l Health News that the Public Employees Insurance Agency has not changed its policies related to prior authorization for histotripsy and continues to follow UnitedHealthcare’s guidelines.

UnitedHealthcare declined to answer questions for this article.

On Sept. 17, in a hospice bed set up in their dining room, Eric was surrounded by his family and their dogs as he died. Becky held his hand as his heart rate began to drop.

“He wasn’t afraid to die, but he didn’t want to die,” she said. “And you could tell the last day that he was fighting it big time.”

At the very end, she whispered in his ear: “You know I love you. You have been the best husband and the best dad, and you’ve always taken such good care of us,” Becky recalled.

And then, she said, he gasped. His eyebrows seemed to shoot up in wonder. During his last moment alive, she said, he smiled.

“The look on his face was pure, total amazement,” she said. “I still can’t believe he’s not here.”

In their week on Marco Island, the family played card games and lounged by the water. “He slept a lot. He was very, very tired,” Eric’s daughter, Amiya, recalls. (Jaimee Tennant)

Do you have an experience with prior authorization you’d like to share? to tell ��ýҕ�l Health News your story.

This article/health-industry/prior-authorization-denials-cancer-treatment-west-virginia-death/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2110687&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Ticked Off Over Preauthorization: Walk-In Patient Avoided Lyme Disease but Not a Surprise Bill

Lauren Sausser — Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:00:00 +0000

Leah Kovitch was pulling invasive plants in the meadow near her home one weekend in late April when a tick latched onto her leg.

She didn’t notice the tiny bug until Monday, when her calf muscle began to feel sore. She made an appointment that morning with a telehealth doctor — one recommended by her health insurance plan — who prescribed a 10-day course of doxycycline to prevent Lyme disease and strongly suggested she be seen in person. So, later that day, she went to a walk-in clinic near her home in Brunswick, Maine.

And it’s a good thing she did. Clinic staffers found another tick on her body during the same visit. Not only that, one of the ticks tested positive for Lyme, a bacterial infection that, if untreated, can affecting the nervous system, heart, and joints. Clinicians prescribed a stronger, single dose of the prescription medication.

“I could have gotten really ill,” Kovitch said.

But Kovitch’s insurer denied coverage for the walk-in visit. Its reason? She hadn’t obtained a referral or preapproval for it. “Your plan doesn’t cover this type of care without it, so we denied this charge,” a document from her insurance company explained.

Health insurers have long argued that prior authorization — when health plans require approval from an insurer before someone receives treatment — reduces waste and fraud, as well as potential harm to patients. And while insurance denials are often associated with high-cost care, such as cancer treatment, Kovitch’s tiny tick bite exposes how prior authorization policies can apply to treatments that are considered inexpensive and medically necessary.

Kovitch and her partner often work in the garden at home and in an adjacent meadow. “We have chickens, so I’m just outside a lot,” she says. “In the springtime, we’re pulling ticks off us every day.” (Brianna Soukup for ��ýҕ�l Health News)

Pledging To Fix the Process

The Trump administration that dozens of private health insurers agreed to make sweeping changes to the prior authorization process. The pledge includes releasing certain medical services from prior authorization requirements altogether. Insurers also agreed to extend a grace period to patients who switch health plans, so they won’t immediately encounter new preapproval rules that disrupt ongoing treatment.

Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said during a June press conference that some of the changes would be in place by January. But, so far, the federal government has offered few specifics about which diagnostic codes tagged to medical services for billing purposes will be exempt from prior authorization — or how private companies will be held accountable. It’s not clear whether Lyme disease cases like Kovitch’s would be exempt from preauthorization.

Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP, the health insurance industry’s main trade group, said that insurers have committed to implementing some changes by Jan. 1. Other will take longer. For example, insurers agreed to answer 80% of prior authorization approvals in “real time,” but not until 2027.

Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told ��ýҕ�l Health News that the changes promised by private insurers are intended to “cut red tape, accelerate care decisions, and encourage transparency,” but they will “take time to achieve their full effect.”

Meanwhile, some health policy experts are skeptical that private insurers will make good on the pledge. This isn’t the first time major health insurers have vowed to reform prior authorization.

, president of the American Medical Association, that the promises made by health insurers in June to fix the system are “nearly identical” to those the insurance industry .

“I think this is a scam,” said Neal Shah, author of the book “.”

Insurers signed on to President Donald Trump’s pledge to ease public pressure, Shah said. Collective outrage directed at insurance companies was particularly intense following the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December. Oz specifically said that the pledge by health insurers was made in response to “violence in the streets.”

Shah, for one, doesn’t believe companies will follow through in a meaningful way.

“The denials problem is getting worse,” said Shah, who co-founded , a company that helps patients appeal insurance denials by using artificial intelligence. “There’s no accountability.”

Cracking the Case

After Kovitch sought care at a walk-in clinic for a tick bite, she learned her insurer would not cover the cost of the visit because it said she had not obtained a referral or preapproval. She tried appealing the insurer’s decision to no avail, eventually paying $238 out-of-pocket for the care she received at the clinic. (Brianna Soukup for ��ýҕ�l Health News)

Kovitch’s bill for her clinic appointment was $238, and she paid for it out-of-pocket after learning that her insurance company, Anthem, didn’t plan to cover a cent. First, she tried appealing the denial. She even obtained a retroactive referral from her primary care doctor supporting the necessity of the clinic visit.

It didn’t work. Anthem again denied coverage for the visit. When Kovitch called to learn why, she said she was left with the impression that the Anthem representative she spoke to couldn’t figure it out.

“It was like over their heads or something,” Kovitch said. “This was all they would say, over and over again: that it lacked prior authorization.”

Jim Turner, a spokesperson for Anthem, later attributed Kovitch’s denials to “a billing error” made by MaineHealth, the health system that operates the walk-in clinic where she sought care. MaineHealth’s error “resulted in the claim being processed as a specialist visit instead of a walk-in center/urgent care visit,” Turner told ��ýҕ�l Health News.

He did not provide documentation demonstrating how the billing error occurred. Medical records supplied by Kovitch show MaineHealth coded her walk-in visit as “tick bite of left lower leg, initial encounter,” and it’s not clear why Anthem interpreted that as a specialist visit.

After ��ýҕ�l Health News contacted Anthem with questions about Kovitch’s bill, Turner said that the company “should have identified the billing error sooner in the process than we did and we apologize for the confusion this caused Ms. Kovitch.”

Caroline Cornish, a spokesperson for MaineHealth, said this isn’t the only time Anthem has denied coverage for patients seeking walk-in or urgent care at MaineHealth. She said Anthem’s processing rules are sometimes misapplied to walk-in visits, leading to “inappropriate denials.”

She said these visits should not require prior authorization and Kovitch’s case illustrates how insurance companies often use administrative denials as a first response.

“MaineHealth believes insurers should focus on paying for the care their members need, rather than creating obstacles that delay coverage and risk discouraging patients from seeking care,” she said. “The system is too often tilted against the very people it is meant to serve.”

Meanwhile, in October, Anthem sent Kovitch an updated explanation of benefits showing that a combination of insurance company payments and discounts would cover the entire cost of the appointment. She said a company representative called her and apologized. In early November, she received her $238 refund.

But she recently found out that her annual eye appointment now requires a referral from her primary care provider, according to new rules laid out by Anthem.

“The trend continues,” she said. “Now I am more savvy to their ways.”

After ��ýҕ�l Health News approached Anthem with questions for this article, Kovitch’s insurer apologized and said she owed nothing for the clinic visit. (Brianna Soukup for ��ýҕ�l Health News)

This article/health-care-costs/prior-authorization-walk-in-clinic-tick-bite-coverage-denial/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2112652&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

AI Will Soon Have a Say in Approving or Denying Medicare Treatments

Lauren Sausser — Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:00:00 +0000

Taking a page from the private insurance industry’s playbook, the Trump administration will launch a program next year to find out how much money an artificial intelligence algorithm could save the federal government by denying care to Medicare patients.

The pilot program, designed to weed out wasteful, “low-value” services, amounts to a federal expansion of an unpopular process called prior authorization, which requires patients or someone on their medical team to seek insurance approval before proceeding with certain procedures, tests, and prescriptions. It will affect Medicare patients, and the doctors and hospitals who care for them, in Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Texas, and Washington, starting Jan. 1 and running through 2031.

The move has raised eyebrows among politicians and policy experts. The traditional version of Medicare, which covers adults 65 and older and some people with disabilities, has mostly eschewed prior authorization. Still, it is widely used by private insurers, especially in the Medicare Advantage market.

And the timing was surprising: The pilot was , just days after the Trump administration unveiled a voluntary effort by private health insurers to revamp and reduce their own use of prior authorization, which causes care to be “significantly delayed,” said Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“It erodes public trust in the health care system,” Oz told the media. “It’s something that we can’t tolerate in this administration.”

But some critics, like Vinay Rathi, an Ohio State University doctor and policy researcher, have accused the Trump administration of sending mixed messages.

On one hand, the federal government wants to borrow cost-cutting measures used by private insurance, he said. “On the other, it slaps them on the wrist.”

Administration officials are “talking out of both sides of their mouth,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat. “It’s hugely concerning.”

Patients, doctors, and other lawmakers have also been critical of what they see as delay-or-deny tactics, which can slow down or block access to care, causing irreparable harm and even death.

“Insurance companies have put it in their mantra that they will take patients’ money and then do their damnedest to deny giving it to the people who deliver care,” said Rep. Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican and a urologist. “That goes on in every insurance company boardroom.”

Insurers have long argued that prior authorization reduces fraud and wasteful spending, as well as prevents potential harm. Public displeasure with insurance denials dominated the news in December, when the shooting death of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO led many to anoint his alleged killer as a folk hero.

And the public broadly dislikes the practice: Nearly three-quarters of respondents thought prior authorization was a “major” problem in , a health information nonprofit that includes ��ýҕ�l Health News.

Indeed, Oz said during his June press conference that “violence in the streets” prompted the Trump administration to take on the issue of prior authorization reform in the private insurance industry.

Still, the administration is expanding the use of prior authorization in Medicare. CMS spokesperson Alexx Pons said both initiatives “serve the same goal of protecting patients and Medicare dollars.”

Unanswered Questions

The , WISeR — short for “Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction” — will test the use of an AI algorithm in making prior authorization decisions for some Medicare services, including skin and tissue substitutes, electrical nerve stimulator implants, and knee arthroscopy.

The federal government says such procedures are particularly vulnerable to “fraud, waste, and abuse” and could be held in check by prior authorization.

Other procedures may be added to the list. But services that are inpatient-only, emergency, or “would pose a substantial risk to patients if significantly delayed” would not be subject to the AI model’s assessment, according to the federal announcement.

While the use of AI in health insurance isn’t new, Medicare has been slow to adopt the private-sector tools. Medicare has historically used prior authorization in a limited way, with contractors who aren’t incentivized to deny services. But experts who have studied the plan believe the federal pilot could change that.

Pons told ��ýҕ�l Health News that no Medicare request will be denied before being reviewed by a “qualified human clinician,” and that vendors “are prohibited from compensation arrangements tied to denial rates.” While the government says vendors will be rewarded for savings, Pons said multiple safeguards will “remove any incentive to deny medically appropriate care.”

“Shared savings arrangements mean that vendors financially benefit when less care is delivered,” a structure that can create a powerful incentive for companies to deny medically necessary care, said Jennifer Brackeen, senior director of government affairs for the Washington State Hospital Association.

And doctors and policy experts say that’s only one concern.

Rathi said the plan “is not fully fleshed out” and relies on “messy and subjective” measures. The model, he said, ultimately depends on contractors to assess their own results, a choice that makes the results potentially suspect.

“I’m not sure they know, even, how they’re going to figure out whether this is helping or hurting patients,” he said.

Pons said the use of AI in the Medicare pilot will be “subject to strict oversight to ensure transparency, accountability, and alignment with Medicare rules and patient protection.”

“CMS remains committed to ensuring that automated tools support, not replace, clinically sound decision-making,” he said.

Experts agree that AI is theoretically capable of expediting what has been a cumbersome process marked by delays and denials that can harm patients’ health. Health insurers have argued that AI eliminates human error and bias and will save the health care system money. These companies have also insisted that humans, not computers, are ultimately reviewing coverage decisions.

But some scholars are doubtful that’s routinely happening.

“I think that there’s also probably a little bit of ambiguity over what constitutes ‘meaningful human review,’” said Amy Killelea, an assistant research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

A 2023 found that, over a two-month period, doctors at Cigna who reviewed requests for payment spent an average of only 1.2 seconds on each case.

Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions told ��ýҕ�l Health News that the company does not use AI to deny care or claims. The ProPublica investigation referenced a “simple software-driven process that helped accelerate payments to clinicians for common, relatively low-cost tests and treatments, and it is not powered by AI,” Sessions said. “It was not used for prior authorizations.”

And yet class-action lawsuits filed against major health insurers have alleged that flawed AI models undermine doctor recommendations and fail to take patients’ unique needs into account, forcing some people to shoulder the financial burden of their care.

Meanwhile, a by the American Medical Association in February found that 61% think AI is “increasing prior authorization denials, exacerbating avoidable patient harms and escalating unnecessary waste now and into the future.”

Chris Bond, a spokesperson for the insurers’ trade group AHIP, told ��ýҕ�l Health News that the organization is “zeroed in” on implementing the commitments made to the government. Those include reducing the scope of prior authorization and making sure that communications with patients about denials and appeals are easy to understand.

‘This Is a Pilot’

The Medicare pilot program underscores ongoing concerns about prior authorization and raises new ones.

While private health insurers have been opaque about how they use AI and the extent to which they use prior authorization, policy researchers believe these algorithms are often programmed to automatically deny high-cost care.

“The more expensive it is, the more likely it is to be denied,” said Jennifer Oliva, a professor at the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington, whose work focuses on AI regulation and health coverage.

Oliva explained in a recent that when a patient is expected to die within a few years, health insurers are “motivated to rely on the algorithm.” As time passes and the patient or their provider is forced to appeal a denial, the chance of the patient dying during that process increases. The longer an appeal, the less likely the health insurer is to pay the claim, Oliva said.

“The No. 1 thing to do is make it very, very difficult for people to get high-cost services,” she said.

As the use of AI by health insurers is poised to grow, insurance company algorithms amount to a “regulatory blind spot” and demand more scrutiny, said Carmel Shachar, a faculty director at Harvard Law School’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation.

The WISeR pilot is “an interesting step” toward using AI to ensure that Medicare dollars are purchasing high-quality health care, she said. But the lack of details makes it difficult to determine whether it will work.

Politicians are grappling with some of the same questions.

“How is this being tested in the first place? How are you going to make sure that it is working and not denying care or producing higher rates of care denial?” asked DelBene, who to Oz with other Democrats demanding answers about the AI program. But Democrats aren’t the only ones worried.

Murphy, who co-chairs the House GOP Doctors Caucus, acknowledged that many physicians are concerned the WISeR pilot could overreach into their practice of medicine if the AI algorithm denies doctor-recommended care.

Meanwhile, House members of both parties recently supported a , a Florida Democrat, to block funding for the pilot in the fiscal 2026 budget of the Department of Health and Human Services.

AI in health care is here to stay, Murphy said, but it remains to be seen whether the WISeR pilot will save Medicare money or contribute to the problems already posed by prior authorization.

“This is a pilot, and I’m open to see what’s going to happen with this,” Murphy said, “but I will always, always err on the side that doctors know what’s best for their patients.”

This article/aging/ai-medicare-prior-authorization-trump-pilot-program-wiser/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2091468&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Fighting a Health Insurance Denial? Here Are 7 Tips To Help

Lauren Sausser — Thu, 04 Sep 2025 09:00:00 +0000

When Sally Nix found out that her health insurance company wouldn’t pay for an expensive, doctor-recommended treatment to ease her neurological pain, she prepared for battle.

It took years, a chain of conflicting decisions, and a health insurer switch before she finally won approval. She started treatment in January and now channels time and energy into helping other patients fight denials.

“One of the things I tell people when they come to me is: ‘Don’t panic. This isn’t a final no,’” said Nix, 55, of Statesville, North Carolina.

To control costs, nearly all health insurers use a system called prior authorization, which requires patients or their providers to seek approval before they can get certain procedures, tests, and prescriptions.

Denials can be appealed, but nearly half of insured adults who received a prior authorization denial in the past two years reported the appeals process was either somewhat or very difficult, according to , a health information nonprofit that includes ��ýҕ�l Health News.

“It’s overwhelming by design,” because insurers know confusion and fatigue cause people to give up, Nix said. “That’s exactly what they want you to do.”

The good news is you don’t have to be an insurance expert to get results, she said. “You just need to know how to push back.”

Here are tips to consider when faced with a prior authorization denial:

1. Know your insurance plan.

Do you have insurance through your job? A plan purchased through healthcare.gov? Medicare? Medicare Advantage? Medicaid?

These distinctions can be confusing, but they matter a great deal. Different categories of health insurance are governed by different agencies and are therefore subject to different prior authorization rules.

For example, federal marketplace plans, as well as Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, are regulated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Employer-sponsored plans are regulated by the Department of Labor. Medicaid plans, administered by state agencies, are subject to both state and federal rules.

Learn the language specific to your policy. Health insurance companies do not apply prior authorization requirements uniformly across all plans. Read your policy closely to make sure your insurer is following its own rules, as well as regulations set by the state and federal government.

2. Work with your provider to appeal.

Kathleen Lavanchy, who retired in 2024 from a job at an inpatient rehabilitation hospital in the Philadelphia area, spent much of her career communicating with health insurance companies on behalf of patients.

Before you contact your health insurer, call your provider, Lavanchy said, and ask to speak to a medical care manager or someone in the office who handles prior authorization appeals.

The good news is that your doctor’s office may already be working on an appeal.

Medical staffers can act as “your voice,” Nix said. “They know all the language.”

You or your provider can request a “peer-to-peer” review during the appeals process, which allows your doctor to discuss your case over the phone with a medical professional who works for the insurance company.

3. Be organized.

Many hospitals and doctors use a system called MyChart to organize medical records, test results, and communications so that they are easily accessible. Similarly, patients should keep track of all materials related to an insurance appeal — records of phone calls, emails, snail mail, and in-app messages.

Everything should be organized, either digitally or on paper, so that it can be easily referenced, Nix said. At one point, she said, her own records proved that her insurance company had given conflicting information. The records were “the thing that saved me,” she said.

“Keep an amazing paper trail,” she said. “Every call, every letter, every name.”

Linda Jorgensen, executive director of the Special Needs Resource Project, a nonprofit offering online resources for patients with disabilities and their families, has advised patients who are fighting a denial to specifically keep paper copies of everything.

“If it isn’t on paper, it didn’t happen,” she said.

Jorgensen, who serves as a caregiver to an adult daughter with special needs, created you can print to help guide you when taking notes during phone calls with your insurance company. She advised asking the insurance representative for a “ticket number” and their name before proceeding with the conversation.

(Oona Zenda/��ýҕ�l Health News)

4. Appeal as soon as possible.

The silver lining is that most denials, if appealed, are overturned.

Medicare Advantage in January found that nearly 82% of prior authorization denials from 2019 through 2023 were partially or fully overturned upon appeal.

But the clock is ticking. Most health plans give you only six months to appeal the decision, according to in the Affordable Care Act.

“Don’t dillydally,” Jorgensen advised, especially if you’re sending a paper appeal, or any supporting documents, through the U.S. Postal Service. She recommends filing quickly, and at least four weeks before the deadline.

For the sake of speed, some people are for help crafting customizable appeal letters.

5. Ask your HR department for help.

If you get your health insurance through an employer, there’s a good chance your health plan is “self-funded” or “self-insured.” That means your employer contracts with a health insurance company to administer benefits, but your employer shoulders the cost of your care.

Why does that matter? Under self-funded plans, decisions about what is or isn’t covered ultimately rest with your employer.

Let’s say, for example, your doctor has recommended that you undergo surgery, and your insurer has denied prior authorization for it, deeming the procedure “not medically necessary,” a phrase commonly used. If your plan is self-funded, you can appeal to the human resources department at your job, because your employer is on the hook for your health care costs — not the insurer.

Of course, there’s no guarantee your employer will agree to pay. But, at the very least, it’s worth reaching out for help.

6. Find an advocate.

Many states operate free , available by phone or email, which can help you file an appeal. They can explain your benefits and may intervene if your insurance company isn’t complying with requirements.

Beyond that, some nonprofit advocacy groups, such as the Patient Advocate Foundation, might help. On the foundation’s website is . For those battling severe disease, foundation staffers can work with you one-on-one to fight a denial.

7. Make noise.

We’ve written about this before. Sometimes, when patients and doctors shame insurers online, denials get overturned.

The same holds when patients contact lawmakers. State laws regulate some categories of health insurance, and when it comes to setting policy, state lawmakers have the power to hold insurance companies accountable.

Reaching out to your legislator isn’t guaranteed to work, but it might be worth a shot.

Finally, if you’re interested in sharing your experiences with a journalist, . We’d like to hear from you.

This article/health-care-costs/health-insurance-denial-prior-authorization-7-tips-to-file-appeal/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2078398&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">