Bill Of The Month Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /series/bill-of-the-month/ Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Wed, 03 Jun 2026 21:50:57 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Bill Of The Month Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /series/bill-of-the-month/ 32 32 161476233 After Her Bout of Amnesia, a $59,000 Billing Dispute Wouldn’t Go Away /health-care-costs/amnesia-arizona-hospital-prior-authorization-bill-of-the-month-may-2026/ Fri, 29 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2241524 On April 10, 2025, several hours after finishing a hike in Sedona, Arizona, Jan Anderson started repeating herself.

“Did we hike this morning?” she asked.

“Yes, we hiked,” said her husband, Steve Francks. “And you did really well.”

But 15 seconds later, she asked the same question: “Did we hike today?”

Anderson, 65, a retired finance executive, doesn’t remember any of it. She can recall what happened that afternoon only because her husband started recording her on his cellphone.

“I was just on this nonstop loop,” she said.

Almost immediately, Francks knew something was wrong. “Jan was out of it,” he said.

He took her to an emergency room in Sedona, where staff initially thought she might be having a stroke. Because the facility wasn’t fully equipped to evaluate or treat stroke patients, Francks said, she was airlifted to a Phoenix-area hospital, where she was admitted.

It turned out she wasn’t having a stroke. Her medical team eventually determined she was probably experiencing , a rare, temporary, and benign memory disorder.

The good news was that her symptoms didn’t last long, and she has suffered no long-term effects from the episode. It took about 24 hours before she was able to start forming new memories, and she was discharged the next day. Anderson and Francks, who split their time between Sedona and Edmonds, Washington, returned to the Pacific Northwest a few weeks later.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Service

The sudden confusion associated with transient global amnesia can also be a sign of a more common neurological condition, so it’s important to rule out other possible causes — such as a stroke, for which timely emergency care can spell the difference between life and death.

Anderson’s records show her care at Abrazo Health’s Arrowhead Campus in Glendale, Arizona, included an electrocardiogram, which can detect underlying cardiac abnormalities, and imaging, which would rule out any vessel blockages that might cause a stroke. She also underwent various lab tests commonly used to diagnose a stroke.

The Bill

$59,181: $35,302 for diagnostic/therapeutic imaging, $8,147 for laboratory services, $8,146 for a special care unit, $5,532 for EKG services, and $2,054 for pharmacy. Anderson’s first bill from Abrazo Health said she owed $15,312.43, citing an insurance adjustment of $43,868.57, even though her insurer had not covered any of the charges.

Anderson said her insurer covered separate charges for the ER and helicopter transfer.

The Billing Problem: Communication Breakdown

The federal No Surprises Act bans out-of-network bills for most emergency services, even if those services are received at an out-of-network facility and are not preapproved by the insurer.

That means the cost of Anderson’s hospital care should have been covered as though it were in-network. At the time, she was insured by Molina Healthcare, through a plan purchased on the federal Affordable Care Act marketplace.

But for a year, Molina declined to pay for her care in Glendale, at one point arguing that her hospital stay required authorization when, or even before, she was admitted.

“I can’t get anyone to resolve it,” Anderson said. “It’s almost $60,000 hanging over my head.”

The first problem arose about two weeks after she was discharged, when Abrazo Health sent Anderson a bill indicating she was a self-pay patient.

The hospital didn’t request her insurance information at any point during her stay, Francks said. He assumed, at the time, that his wife’s financial paperwork had been transferred from the ER in Sedona. It had not.

She called the Glendale hospital and corrected the error.

Then, in late June, Anderson received notice from the hospital indicating she was not a Molina member.

“Your insurance company notified our office that the patient was not a covered member for the services provided by Abrazo Arrowhead Campus on the above referenced service date(s),” the notice said. It showed the total charges for her stay exceeded $59,000.

But when Anderson called Molina to confirm her coverage, she said, the insurance company assured her the claim was being processed.

That didn’t mean Molina was willing to cover her hospital bill.

Anderson spent months trying to resolve the balance. She filed complaints with members of Congress, the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions, and the Office of the Insurance Commissioner in Washington state.

Jan Anderson sits at a kitchen island counter. A laptop and paperwork is in front of her. She holds paperwork in her hands.
Anderson has fully recovered from her bout of transient global amnesia, but a dispute over nearly $60,000 in hospital charges has been a source of stress for over a year. (M. Scott Brauer for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

In an October letter to Washington’s insurance commissioner, an appeal and grievance specialist for Molina wrote that the claim was denied because “inpatient stays require prior authorization, or notification at the time of admission. No notification of admission or prior authorization was received from the hospital, so the claim was denied.”

It continued: “Molina covers out of network emergency services but since this was an inpatient admission authorization is required.”

Nicole Broadhurst, who focuses on medical billing issues as CEO of a , said this dispute appears to rest between the insurer and the medical provider.

She said that Anderson’s insurance information should have been transferred between the first ER and the Glendale hospital. Since it wasn’t, Broadhurst said, Anderson shouldn’t be held liable for her hospital bill. (Broadhurst was not involved in efforts to resolve Anderson’s billing dispute.)

Unfortunately, Broadhurst said, these situations are “not uncommon, even though we have the No Surprises Act.”

The Resolution

Anderson said she was told by Abrazo Health for months that it was working with Molina to resolve the bill. She said she was also told that even if Molina did not cover the full cost of her hospital care, she would not be liable for the balance — but she never received that assurance in writing.

Meanwhile, Molina continued to uphold its decision to deny payment.

After Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News contacted the insurer and the hospital with questions about her case, Molina told Anderson it had launched an internal review of her claim, and a revenue director with Abrazo Health told her the company was “treating this as a high-priority matter,” she recalled.

Anderson said the revenue director for the health system assured her that if Molina continued to deny payment, “the balance will be written off on the hospital’s end,” she said. “I will not be responsible for any balance” — not even the $15,312.43 the hospital initially billed her after the hospitalization.

Linda Nofer, a spokesperson for Abrazo Health, would not answer questions about Anderson’s bill. In a statement, she said the hospital system is “committed to working closely with our patients to resolve billing questions and concerns.”

Molina spokesperson Caroline Zubieta would not discuss or respond to questions about Anderson’s case on the record.

The Takeaway

The flurry of insurance paperwork and medical bills patients receive after a hospital stay can be overwhelming — and may sometimes appear contradictory.

Broadhurst said it’s important for patients to focus on the “patient responsibility” portion of an insurance document called an explanation of benefits.

Patients should not pay a bill if their explanation of benefits indicates they aren’t responsible for the amount charged.

In this case, Anderson had received a bill from the hospital saying she owed money. And her explanation of benefits from Molina confirmed she’d racked up more than $59,000 in hospital charges.

But that document also indicated her patient liability was “$0.00.” Anderson said the hospital was not pressuring her to pay the $15,312.43 bill or any of the charges tied to her account, but she was worried she would eventually owe a large sum because the charges remained unresolved for more than a year.

“The question I kept asking them was, ‘How much am I going to owe?’” said Anderson, who is now insured by Medicare. “It could be anywhere from that $15,000 adjusted amount to the full balance of $59,000.”

Broadhurst said she tells patients facing similar situations to “send the hospital a copy of the EOB and ask them to correct the account to $0 patient responsibility.”

“Even if no one is actively trying to collect, I’d still push for written closure so it doesn’t keep hanging over them,” she said.

Jan Anderson stands on her porch, framed by doors on both sides.
(M. Scott Brauer for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/amnesia-arizona-hospital-prior-authorization-bill-of-the-month-may-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2241524&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2241524
Abortion Pill Politics /podcast/what-the-health-445-abortion-pill-mifepristone-makary-may-7-2026/ Thu, 07 May 2026 18:29:22 +0000 /?p=2235382&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2235382 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

A decision Friday night by a federal appeals court not only has raised new questions about the continued availability of the abortion pill mifepristone but has also thrust the abortion issue back into the spotlight. That’s something the Trump administration had hoped to avoid during the midterm elections.

Meanwhile, this week Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, the agency’s scientists, and President Donald Trump tussled over whether to approve fruit-flavored vapes, which might help adults quit smoking but also might attract youths to vaping.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann photo
Jessie Hellmann CQ Roll Call
Shefali Luthra photo
Shefali Luthra The 19th
Sandhya Raman photo
Sandhya Raman Bloomberg Law

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • It is unclear whether the abortion pill mifepristone will continue to be available through telehealth prescribing — currently the way more than a quarter of all abortions in the U.S. are obtained. The Supreme Court this week temporarily restored access after a lower court blocked it, but it remains to be seen what the high court will do next. The justices could decide to hear the case, potentially reviving abortion as a campaign issue in the midterm elections. Regardless, the case has the power to undermine not only abortion access, even in states where it is legal, but also the pharmaceutical industry’s ability to develop new drugs.
  • Makary’s job as FDA commissioner is reportedly in limbo, now over flavored vape products, after Trump reportedly pressured Makary to clear them through agency approval. Trump talked on the campaign trail about preserving the vapes — considered by some a useful smoking cessation tool — yet that perspective runs afoul of public health concerns about the risk to children of keeping fruit-flavored tobacco products on the market.
  • Also, the White House pulled Casey Means’ nomination to become U.S. surgeon general, replacing her with Nicole Saphier, a radiologist and commentator who has criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s policies. Saphier is Trump’s third nominee for the post.
  • And the United States, having pulled out of the World Health Organization under Trump’s leadership, finds itself sidelined as the global body responds to a cruise ship with a deadly hantavirus outbreak, with potentially serious ramifications for public health.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Andrew Jones, who wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about an emergency room bill for a visit that wasn’t an emergency — but could have been.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too: 

Julie Rovner: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “HHS’ Healthy Food Agenda Puts Hospitals on Notice About Patients’ Meals,” by Stephanie Armour.

Shefali Luthra: ProPublica’s “,” by Duaa Eldeib.

Sandhya Raman: The Cut’s “,” by Juno DeMelo.

Jessie Hellmann: Nature’s “,” by Max Kozlov, Alexandra Witze, and Dan Garisto.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • The Wall Street Journal’s “,” by Philip Wegmann, Liz Essley Whyte, and Jennifer Calfas.
  • The New York Times’ “,” by Christina Jewett.
  • The New York Times’ “,” by Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz.
  • CNN’s “,” by Andrew Kaczynski and Meg Tirrell.
click to open the transcript Transcript: Abortion Pill Politics

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, and, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 7, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. 

Today, we are joined via video conference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Andrew Jones, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about an emergency room bill for what turned out not to be an emergency but could have been. But first, as always, this week’s news. 

Let’s start this week with the continuing fight over the abortion pill mifepristone. Last month, it appeared that the court fight over the pill was put on the back burner. That was after the Trump administration, to the consternation of abortion opponents, asked a federal district court judge to postpone proceedings while it finished a new safety review of the pill by the Food and Drug Administration. Well, the state of Louisiana, which had brought the suit to roll back the pill’s availability, wasn’t satisfied with that, and appealed the delay to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Last Friday, right before dinner, a three-judge appeals court panel ruled in favor of Louisiana and basically ordered a rollback of abortion pill availability to the rules that were in place before 2021. That’s when doctors had to literally hand the pill to patients, meaning no telehealth and no pharmacy distribution. Shefali, you’re one of our abortion experts. Pick up the story from there. What happened over the weekend, and where are we now? 

Luthra: Over the weekend, there was a lot of confusion. I spent a lot of time talking to abortion providers and people who track abortion law quite closely. And providers were prepared to switch regimens, if they had to, to change to what’s misoprostol-only â€” using larger doses of the other drug in medication abortions, which is safe, is effective â€” is less safe, less effective? â€” but still good, though not gold standard. Meanwhile, we saw an appeal from the manufacturers of medication abortion to the Supreme Court. They also saw a stay from the 5th Circuit. While they might get some more time to figure things out, they never heard from the 5th Circuit. But then, on Monday, the Supreme Court weighed in and said, We are blocking this 5th Circuit ruling for a week. You have a few days â€” so, until Thursday, today actually â€” to submit arguments from both sides. And then, by the end of the day Monday, they are supposed to say whether this stay will be extended, whether they will be ruling, whether they might take up this case. And there’s a lot that could happen, right? They could try and make a ruling now, they could send this back to the lower courts. They could say, We want to hear arguments before this term ends, which would be at the end of June. They could say, We want to hear arguments on this in the fall, right before the midterm elections. But what they do could have real significance for whether mifepristone is available by telehealth, and, as a result, how people in states with abortion bans â€” but also where abortion is legal â€” get abortions. Because telehealth abortion is increasingly popular. One in 4 abortions are done by telehealth. About half of those are for people in states with bans, but half of them are for people in states where abortion is legal and protected. But going to a clinic and getting a pill handed to you is simply much more inconvenient and often impractical or not really possible, compared to having it mailed to you â€” if you have child care, if you can’t get off work, if you live really far from a clinic. And so access to this gold-standard regimen of abortion care is now possibly going to be very much in limbo for all these people across the country. 

I don’t know if we have seen much to indicate that this is going to be a campaign issue. We haven’t really heard as much chatter from Democrats as one might expect. But it is possible that if this becomes more of a live issue, if the Supreme Court makes those restrictions more permanent, or if they, in fact, do take this case up in a manner of timing that would be very influential, that this could, in fact, become a meaningful campaign issue, because most voters don’t like abortion restrictions, especially national ones. 

Rovner: Yeah, among the people who are sort of put in a difficult situation here is the Trump administration. The anti-abortion movement clearly wants more action on this issue. Trump was pretty clear, even on the campaign trail in 2024, that he doesn’t want to further restrict abortion; he’s already getting hammered for not following through on his promise to make in vitro fertilization more available. And now anti-abortion groups are planning to put not just money but their large volunteer power up against those candidates who won’t vow to take more aggressive federal action. How angry are they? And what impact could that have on the midterms, where Republicans are already on defense? 

Luthra: They are furious with the Trump administration. I mean, you have the head of SBA Pro-Life America : Trump is the problem. That’s quite blatant for what is ostensibly a close ally to the White House, an organization that has tried to influence policy, that has hoped for those influences to be translated into actual policy. It’s clear that they’ve given up on that. And many of them were very, very frustrated that the administration took on this purported review of mifepristone and kept saying, We will have more information for you later, probably after the elections. And that they, in fact, argued against Louisiana in the courts, and they defended their policy of having mifepristone available for now. And so I think what you’re seeing politically is this real possibility of schisms in the conservative movement. The people who oppose abortion and, right, are an important part of that base, but also, Trump may be unpopular nationally, but he still carries a lot of influence in a large part of the Republican Party. We just saw that in the primaries in Indiana this week. And so I think we really don’t know who wins. Do anti-abortion voters simply stay home? Do they say, Well, this is still our best option. It’s the Republican Party. And also, in the meantime, how much does the movement start thinking instead about trying to pick a possible successor to Trump? And a lot of them really are focusing now on the midterms, but also on 2028. And so do they just say, Well, we’re done with thisWe’re not going to win and move on. Or is there something that they might be able to get if they keep threatening to withhold money and voter influence? Open question. I think we’ll see. 

Rovner: Jessie, Sandhya, you guys are on the Hill. I mean, you know, there’s been a lot written this week: Oh, Democrats haven’t said anything about this. I think this came as a bit of a surprise. I think we, most of us, thought that this was going to be kind of back-burnered until after the election. Do you see Democrats picking this up and running with it at some point? It has, it has been, it’s been an effective political issue, but maybe not so much in terms of votes, right?  

Hellmann: I don’t know if Democrats really saw much gain from focusing on abortion in the last round of elections, which feels like such a weird way to talk about it. But they might think that other campaign issues, like the affordability issue, healthcare costs, more generally, might be more of an issue that they want to hit on â€¦ especially after the ACA tax credits expired. But we might see more from them as this issue continues to play out in the courts. 

Rovner: And I’m just wondering if, you know, if Republicans start â€¦ I mean, we’ve seen people like Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the HELP [Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] Committee, who’s been very outspoken, you know, and has long anti-abortion bona fides, I mean, going back pretty much his whole career. But it’s interesting that he’s been hammering on this. I’ve seen Republicans on the Hill hammering on this in a way that separates them from the president, which is a little bit surprising. It makes me wonder if Democrats are going to try to exploit that difference or not, or if they can figure out how, or if just, as you say, affordability is so much a bigger issue right now. 

Hellmann: I think the Bill Cassidy race is really interesting. He’s in a heated primary against Julia Letlow, and he seems to think that this mifepristone issue is going to be, like, a wedge issue in that race. He’s the chairman of the HELP Committee, so he spends so much time talking about this. Even when HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary RFK [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. was on the Hill a few weeks ago, this is one of the first things that he asked him about, and he didn’t even get to the vaccine issue until later. But I think that maybe in those more conservative primaries, it could be an issue. But then it’ll be interesting to see how he’ll talk about it later on, if he does win that primary. 

Luthra: I think one thing to note about the Cassidy primary that I’m really surprised by â€” and I think speaks to the complicated state of things, and maybe the fact that people thought this was a resolved issue â€” is he talks about it a lot on the Hill. If you go through his TV ads that he is running in this very close primary, they’re not about abortion. He has not had a single TV ad about abortion, and it is largely instead about trying to assert his bona fides as a true partner to Donald Trump. And I think that’s really interesting because, again, as we’ve discussed, Trump is not really interested in this issue, and Louisiana primary voters certainly are. But there’s a calculation, right? Do you want to situate yourself as the partner to the president, or do you want to talk about abortion? And maybe you can do both, but maybe it’s actually really difficult to do both of those things. 

Rovner: Well, one thing I haven’t seen mentioned in this latest round of debate over abortion is the potential impact on the rest of the drug industry. Once again, justices are being asked to step in and override the presumably evidence-based findings of the Food and Drug Administration. The last time we got this close to a Supreme Court ruling on an FDA approval of mifepristone was in 2024, when the justices were able to punt by pointing out that the doctors group that brought the suit didn’t have standing. But it doesn’t look like that’s as viable an out this time, because it’s the state that’s suing. Why haven’t we heard more from drugmakers, who we know are freaking out about not being able to rely on FDA decisions to make, you know, business plans worth billions of dollars? 

Raman: I think we will. I think it really depends on what we see in the next week, in terms of is this getting escalated, that the Supreme Court would hold arguments, or where we are? If I think back to 2024, I feel like a lot of more of the involvement from the pharmaceutical industry â€” when they were speaking out more, holding briefings, maybe submitting those briefs â€” was when we got to the Supreme Court stage. So I think it’s a matter of time. And right now it’s, you know, kind of figuring out their options and what they’re going to do. But a ruling could have a huge impact on so many other drugs. So I doubt that they’d be quiet as we get further along. 

Rovner: Yes, I would expect, I mean, we’re going to see a flurry of briefs by the end of the day today, and I would expect that the drug industry would be among those who are going to be filing those briefs. So we will know more. 

Luthra: In fact, we actually already have a brief from PhRMA [. 

Rovner: Oh good. 

Luthra: It came in either last night or this morning, and it says exactly what you’d say, that they are concerned that pharmaceutical development will suffer if Louisiana wins, that this is really problematic for drug research and development. And we are seeing some op-eds from biotech CEOs, etc., in places like Stat just highlighting that they are very concerned about the ramifications for the industry. So I think so I’m just totally right, like, as this case picks up steam, that chorus will get louder and louder, because this is just too consequential for the industry to not talk about. 

Rovner: Right, this is about much, much more than abortion. All right. Well, speaking of the FDA, Commissioner Marty Makary’s job is, quote, “on thin ice” — that was, were the exact words used in stories from Bloomberg, NOTUS, and The Wall Street Journal, all in the past few days. On the one hand, we’ve heard these rumors before, as things at FDA have been chaotic, to say the least, but this week’s flurry of rumors appears to be over Makary’s overruling of FDA scientists who recommended approval of mango- and blueberry-flavored vapes. Makary was reportedly concerned about attracting children to vaping by approving fruit flavors. This has been a long-standing argument. While the scientists who recommended approval wanted to help adults actually quit smoking, which is demonstrably worse for their health than vaping. As it turns out, the flavored vapes were approved on Tuesday, apparently after President Trump intervened personally by calling Makary. So this raises two questions. First, is this more politicization of FDA policy? It certainly looks like it, even if the ultimate decision here was what the FDA scientists actually wanted. 

Raman: I mean, if you look back to when President Trump was on the campaign trail, he did talk about wanting to save vaping and how that was a big issue for certain voters and stuff. So it has been something that’s been in the back burner. These kind of approvals and authorizations take a very long time. And they’ve, you know, a lot of folks have been complaining for a long time about how long some of these things take. They can be backlogged for years. And we had very different opinions with some of the appointees during the Biden administration about how to handle flavored nicotine and tobacco products. I do think that the short turnaround between some of those conversations over the weekend and then suddenly this getting authorized is a little unusual, but it’s kind of hard to say where they were in the process before that, if they were dotting the i’s, crossing the t’s, or if this shoved things forward a lot more. So it’s hard to tell, but I think it really does build into your earlier point about how folks are just not sure for how long that he remains as FDA commissioner. I mean, there have been things building for months, but it really has heated up in the last couple weeks or so. And I think something that raises for me there is just if he does get out at some point soon, that would make another thing that the Senate has to get through and, you know, find agreement on which could get even more complicated if, depending on what happens with â€¦ 

Rovner: â€¦ with the abortion case. 

Raman: Yeah, and Cassidy’s race! 

Rovner: Oh, Cassidy’s primary! That’s right. Yes. 

Raman: Yeah. So I think there’s a lot of interconnected things that will be really interesting to watch here as this plays out. 

Rovner: Well, there’s also, before we get off of this, there’s a broader question here about harm reduction. Sandhya, we just talked about this a few weeks ago, after the federal government said it would stop paying for test strips to detect fentanyl and other potentially fatal substances added to illicit drugs. So harm reduction is bad when it comes to fentanyl strips, but good for flavored vapes? 

Raman: I think we’ve had a lot of conflicting messaging on this. Flavored vapes, I guess, are a little bit more complicated, because you could be an adult and just go straight into flavored vapes, and it is a little bit more complicated than that. 

Rovner: And it is a legal product. 

Raman: Yes, it is a legal product. You know, it’s regulated very differently. But I think, since you did bring up harm reduction, the interesting thing there that has been happening is just that there’s been so much differences of opinion, despite that guidance. You know, we had the Office of National Drug Control Policy this week put out their drug control strategy plan for the year, and that had language in favor of the testing strip. So we’ve had a lot of conflicting messages between different parts of the administration over the same issue, which is really confusing folks on the ground. 

Rovner: It is. Well, in other news from the FDA this week,  that the agency blocked the publication of several studies that found very few serious side effects from vaccines for covid-19 and shingles. This included top FDA officials ordering the withdrawal of studies that had already been accepted by medical journals. This is far from the first that we’ve heard of this sort of thing from the FDA and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But it does increase the doubts that this administration is, quote, “following the science,” does it not? 

Raman: I mean, we saw the same kind of reaction in terms of why this happened from HHS, you know, saying that the studies were making really broad claims, and they were not supported by whatever the underlying data that they had was. I think that this and the CDC vaccine study getting pulled are both highly unusual, but the fact that they’re both happening in a short period of time, you know, kind of increases that. I think it’ll be interesting, you know, we saw with the CDC study that it ended up getting leaked, and then people were able to look at it and make their own conclusions. What happens with this? But having these studies about vaccine efficacy being pulled when the administration is trying to pull back on their vaccine messaging is, like, a less salient issue for the midterms is interesting. So I’m curious what happens next there. 

Rovner: Yeah, me too. OK, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

OK, we’re back, and of course, we have more personnel news. Last Thursday, just after we taped, thank you very much, President Trump pulled the nomination of Casey Means to become the next surgeon general after it had become clear she did not have the votes to even move out of committee. In her place, the president nominated Dr. Nicole Saphier, a Fox News contributor who did finish her medical residency and is a practicing radiologist specializing in breast imaging, and â€” apparently this is now a requirement for a high job at the Department of Health and Human Services â€” she’s a podcast host. Just this week, there’s been a  that were critical of some of the health stances taken by President Trump and HHS Secretary RFK Jr. But I imagine that might actually help her nomination, which has generally been pretty well received, by making her look like she’s at least as interested in accurate medical advice as she is in currying favor. Or am I misreading this? 

Raman: I don’t know that the tweets are going to have a huge effect either way, when there’s so many other things going on. And I feel like it’s so interesting that her book from, you know, long before this administration, was called Make America Healthy Again. So it seems like if anyone is committed to this movement, it would be someone with a book titled that six years ago. 

Rovner: Although she’s not really a MAHA person, right? 

Raman: Yeah, yeah. But it just is such a funny coincidence. But I think that right after they pulled the Means nomination, it was interesting â€” kind of goes back to what Jessie said was that â€” we had the president; we had her brother, Calley Means; and then we had Secretary Kennedy as well digging in on Cassidy and blaming him for that nomination falling through. But they did back the new nominee. So it’s interesting what is going to happen there. But just how political just getting this across is, even though there weren’t other votes in the Senate to get Casey across the finish line. 

Rovner: Yeah. Shefali, you were going to add something? 

Luthra: Oh, I just think that the tweets, I mean, they are really striking, and I think you’ve hit on something that is a fascinating tension. This is someone who has criticized the president’s talking points around Tylenol in pregnancy; who has said that, you know, maybe there is not a link between Tylenol and pregnancy and autism. Maybe I don’t want to be told just tough it out when I am in pain. She also, fascinatingly, is quite anti-abortion, and has talked about that a lot as well. And I think there’s just a lot of really complicated worldviews that she brings. And on the one hand, like, maybe some of that ends up being appealing to lawmakers because, as we’ve discussed many times on this podcast, the stances that are more anti-vax, anti-medicine, anti-science are not necessarily that popular with voters, and lawmakers are reacting to that. That’s why it’s been so difficult to confirm a surgeon general nominee. And maybe this finally changes that. Maybe deleting those tweets does suggest that someone would rather remain in good standing with the president. I don’t think we really know until â€¦ if she gets the job and then see what happens. But it is really fascinating to see the third person picked, where there’s still an unfilled position, possibly being someone a bit more aligned with some things that are, in fact, conventionally accepted medicine. 

Rovner: Well, we will see. And of course, this is â€¦ yet another nomination that has to go through Bill Cassidy’s HELP Committee. And regardless of what happens in his primary, even if he loses his primary, he’s going to be the chairman of that committee until the end of this year. So we will have to see. 

All right. Moving on to the Affordable Care Act, we have more evidence this week about the impact of last year’s big budget bill and the expiration of those covid-era additional premium subsidies that they’re having on enrollment.  that analysts and state officials are expecting a drop of about 20%, dropping from 24 million in 2025 to about 19 million. Insurance company Cigna announced last week that it’s dropping out of the ACA marketplace. It currently sells in 11 states. And hospitals are reporting their first-quarter results that are already experiencing the fallout â€” from lower admissions to more uncompensated care. That includes not just people who’ve dropped insurance, but people who had to buy insurance with higher deductibles that they may not be able to pay. Republicans in the Trump administration have tried to downplay the reductions, but as the year wears on and the results get more obvious, aren’t they going to have to have some counterargument to this? 

Hellmann: A 20% decrease in enrollment could be really bad for the marketplaces, especially if the people who are leaving are healthy. It’s going to lead to a sicker risk pool, which is going to possibly lead to higher premiums in the future. So you would think that the administration would have to respond to that. But they have also showed that they’re not really a friend to the ACA, and the first Trump administration also did a lot of things to undermine it. So I’m not sure that they’re going to try to find a way to fix these problems. And they also had a recent marketplace rule that some experts actually think could weaken the health of the marketplaces even more.  

Rovner: Yeah â€¦ I know the Republicans â€¦ one of the big Republican talking points is that a lot of these people were what they call phantom enrollees. They didn’t even know they were enrolled. They didn’t file any claims. But, as you point out, a lot of people have insurance and don’t file any claims because they are healthy. Those are kind of the people that the insurers want. Obviously, not phantom people who don’t know they’re enrolled. That’s fraud. But people who â€¦ have insurance and don’t use it are a good thing for the insurance industry. Shefali, you’re nodding. 

Luthra: No, I was just thinking about all the years I’ve had health insurance and didn’t file a claim. Like, of course you would want that. That’s awesome. It doesn’t mean I wasn’t covered. It meant that I relied on the peace of mind of having health insurance. And I would be very sad if I started filing claims for insurance and suddenly all the healthy people were gone. That would be terrible. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will â€¦ again, I think we’re going to get more evidence as the year wears on, and this is going to become a big, I think, campaign issue, obviously. 

Well, I want to talk about global health, at least briefly. A lot of people are watching that Dutch-flagged cruise ship with passengers sickened and some dying of hantavirus. Now, hantavirus is not normally spread person-to-person, but it is fairly clear that that’s what’s happening in this case, and it appears the outbreak is being fairly effectively handled by the World Health Organization. But of course, the U.S. left the WHO when Trump returned to office, so the U.S. is not only not helping with this, it’s out of the loop, even though there are more than a dozen Americans who’ve been on board, and reportedly seven who could have been exposed to this who have disembarked and already returned to the U.S. This is kind of why the U.S. was part of the WHO, right? When you have an international incident like this? 

Raman: Yeah, and I was just listening in to [an] infectious disease briefing this morning, where they were detailing how this situation is unusual. Usually, at this point in a crisis like this, we would have had more communication from the CDC, from the NIH [National Institutes of Health], just about the state of play, different briefings, or just going and helping with the situation. And we haven’t seen that, and just how striking that is right now. 

Rovner: And of course, I mean, so many people are having PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] from covid, and remembering, you know, cruise ships with people with covid. Public health experts say that’s not going to happen here with hantavirus. It’s just this one strain of hantavirus that spreads person to person. It’s hard to spread it. But with so little trust in science and so much misinformation, you got to wonder whether even this incident that shouldn’t cause a panic might anyway. 

Raman: Yeah, I think that has been kind of the concern is that this is something that the experts are worried about, and they’d like to learn more about, because there is a new case that they can learn from, to provide more public health information. But to not panic over this, just because the things that you said: This is not likely to cause another major pandemic in the same way as covid. 

Rovner: Well. Finally, this week, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. has struck out on another cause. Now he wants to get people off of their antidepressants. At a MAHA meeting on Monday, he unveiled a series of steps for doing that, from encouraging non-drug interventions for mental health conditions, to paying doctors to counsel patients for how to taper off the medications. He says he doesn’t want to tell people to stop taking their drugs, which can be lifesaving in many cases, although he’s also said he doesn’t want people not to be allowed to take vaccines, too. So where is this headed? Is this â€¦ this is a big, I guess, some MAHA people think people are overmedicated with antidepressants and ADHD [] drugs. 

Raman: I think it has a lot of the same playbook that we’ve seen with vaccines. He’s talked about over-medicalization as an issue for a while now. It was in the last MAHA report about a year ago, and even before that, he’s brought it up. My sense from attending that event this week was not that they were really looking at changing prescription guidelines, but I guess it’s hard to tell where we’ll see further along down the line. But it was more of just like an exploratory stage, you know, training physicians about different things related to tapering and things like that. But sometimes that’s the start of things changing down the line, and it is interest[ing], that kind of brings back his focus to very much the psychiatric drugs, the ADHD, depression, anxiety, and just wanting to lessen the medications there. So. 

Rovner: I can’t help but wonder if, because he’s been told to back off of the vaccine issue, because it doesn’t play that well with the public, that he’s going to pick this up as his next crusade.  

Raman: There was a huge emphasis on informed consent, which is, I feel, another big talking point with vaccine. So there is a lot of similarities in how it’s approached. So, I would look for more of those kind of clues there. 

Luthra: I think it’s also worth noting, even if this is early rhetoric that we know from research that rhetoric does influence prescribing behavior. We saw that study that showed after the “don’t take Tylenol when you’re pregnant” kerfluffle, prescriptions of Tylenol went down for people who are pregnant. And this is not really the first time RFK has talked about SSRIs, specifically. He’s talked about them with regard to pregnancy, in particular, and that’s already a very stigmatized, very fraught time for people, even though the consensus is, if you are depressed, stay on your medications. And I think this is something absolutely worth keeping an eye on, even if this is largely rhetorical, discouraging use of medications. Does that translate into changes, especially around something that is fraught and is often stigmatized and misunderstood, like antidepressants, which, as you mentioned, Julie, are lifesaving and very important for people with severe depression. 

Rovner: Indeed, and for people with severe anxiety. All right, that’s this week’s news. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Andrew Jones, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast KFF Health News’ Andrew Jones, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month.” Andrew, welcome. 

Andrew Jones: Thank you so much for having me. 

Rovner: So tell us about this month’s patient â€” who she is, where she’s from, and what happened that landed her in the emergency room. 

Jones: Silvana Toska. She’s from Davidson, North Carolina. It’s just north of Charlotte. She’s a professor of political science there, and a mom of two. And while she was outdoor at an event last fall, she got bit by an insect, and she ended up with such a bad systemic allergic reaction that she got anaphylaxis. What anaphylaxis means is that her lungs began to be difficult to breathe. And so she broke out in hives, and she immediately decides, with her husband, to go to an urgent care, where she gets treated with two doses of epinephrine. And then the doctor says you need to be under watch for a couple of hours, so you need to go to the ER, which is kind of where our story starts. 

Rovner: So she doesn’t drive off to the ER, she goes in an ambulance to the ER, right? 

Jones: That’s correct. Yeah. They put her in the back of an ambulance, and they ship her off to the ER. Her husband and her two kids follow. 

Rovner: So by the time she got to the ER, she was already feeling better from the medication that they gave her at the urgent care. That’s what’s in an EpiPen, right? 

Jones: That’s correct, yeah. 

Rovner: The epinephrine. So what happened when she got to the ER? 

Jones: So, not a whole lot, actually. Like you said, she’s feeling fine at that point. A doctor comes in. The doctor sees her for less than five minutes, asks her about her condition, does a quick checkup, doesn’t actually make physical contact with her, which I thought was very interesting. And then the doctor steps out. And she basically spends an hour and a half doing nothing, trying to keep her kids entertained. And she gets a dose of Pepcid to keep the allergic reaction at bay. But after the doctor came in again, just to say that she could leave, she left, and it was an incredibly uneventful ER visit. 

Rovner: And then, as we say, the bill came. So how much is the ER charge for her couple of hours of follow-up â€¦ at which not very much happened? 

Jones: Yeah. So that empty hour and a half, essentially, for that time, she was charged $6,746.50. And at the end of the day, she was responsible for a $150 copay and $3,100.24 â€” a bill that she got on Christmas Day that year. 

Rovner: Awesome. So what was the justification for such a big bill for such â€” I won’t say “little care,” but what seemed to be little care? 

Jones: Yeah, well, she was actually charged for something that wasn’t little. It was called “critical care.” She was coded for critical care, her time there was. And the experts that I spoke to said that while Toska had every right to think that it was an outrageous price to charge, it was probably an appropriate charge for the situation, those codes were. And that’s partly because of a coding system that really isn’t hyper-specific to individual cases. Toska needed to be in the ER setting because of the anaphylaxis. It can return and cause a critical situation. And while she was coded based on what might have happened, rather than what did happen, it ended up not working in her favor as far as the bill went. And so people all over the U.S. experience this. Another expert I spoke to said that people are brought on that train of care when they arrive to the ER. There’s really no way to get off once it starts moving. And you don’t know what it’s going â€¦ what the dreaded bill is going to be once it stops. And there definitely could be reform in the way that U.S. healthcare system does ER coding, although there would have to be some, you know, pretty titanic changes for that to happen. But I’ll say that if listeners ever find themselves concerned about a bill, they should definitely call their insurance company, ask if there was an attempt to negotiate, and they should call the hospital to check the accuracy of the coding. Toska did do both of those things and, unfortunately, nothing changed. But I can say that that was the right thing to do. There was some great back-and-forth. There was a letter that explained why they did that and, ultimately, what happened to her comes down to a coding system that did not work in her favor. And she told me that recently she experienced another allergic reaction, but instead of going to the ER, she just took some Benadryl instead. 

Rovner: And you know, I guess the takeaway here is that when a medical professional tells you to go to the ER, it’s not usually because they’re going to make money from sending you to the ER. It’s because something could happen that you should be in the ER for it. I guess that’s sort of why we have medical insurance, right? 

Jones: Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, she really had no other choice. It was the right thing for her to do. But again, because of a coding system that wasn’t specific to her situation, it ended up â€” I see, you know, testimonies all the time from people who see this very outrageous bill for a little care. Toska is the first time I’ve seen a bill where there was essentially no care that she could see. And so I think it’s fair for her to have this discussion in her mind and with her family, and here in this article about: Is our coding system fair? But ultimately, when a provider says you need to go to the ER to make sure that you know your situation is taken care of, that’s what you have to do. 

Rovner: Andrew Jones, thank you very much. 

Jones: Julie, thank you. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Jessie, why don’t you go first this week? 

Hellmann: My extra credit is from Nature. It’s titled “.” They [Max Kozlov, Alexandra Witze, and Dan Garisto] did an analysis showing that more than 100 independent advisory panels have been terminated. These are panels that advise agencies on biomedical environmental policy and other types of health policy. They’re typically staffed by researchers and other experts from outside of the government. And now so many of these groups are being canceled, there’s concern that this could result in less transparency and more of agencies making decisions within their own ranks. And then they also found that groups that are still in existence are meeting less and less. They’re not issuing public reports. An example of this that we all know about is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is tied up in a big legal dispute right now. And the White House defended all of this, is saying that these panels are a waste of taxpayer dollars that don’t meaningfully inform policymaking. So I thought that was a good read on something that doesn’t get a ton of attention. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well â€¦ of course, these panels are intended to bring in the public to make public policy. That’s kind of why they’re there. They’ve always been sort of a bipartisan thing. Anyway, really interesting story. Sandhya. 

Raman: So my extra credit is from The Cut, and it’s called “,” and it’s by Juno DeMelo. And this was a story that, you know, they talked to a lot of pediatricians about how their jobs have changed given the increasing vaccine skepticism. And some of these pediatricians are talking about having to really sell to their patients and their families why pediatric vaccines are necessary, or just devoting a lot more time, having a longer appointment just to explain why this is necessary. Sometimes it takes multiple appointments, which is just different with what they’ve had to do from the past. And, you know, the fatigue from having to go into all the science, instead of just presuming the child will get the vaccine and being able to discuss other things â€” safety and signs to watch and growth, and all of that. And so I think it was a good look at some of the things that drilled down on that. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was. These policy changes have impacts way down the line. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is from ProPublica. It is by Duaa Eldeib. The headline is “.” It’s about families opting out of vitamin K shots, which are useful for blood clotting for newborns, and babies dying. And I think the story is remarkable for several reasons. It’s really got remarkable examples, and we see who these children are who are dying. We know how old they are, we know the color of their hair. We know what their symptoms were and what happened to them. There isn’t government data tracking vitamin K shots and whether they are rejected, but the story does a really good job painting a picture anyway. It has interviews with hospitals who have seen more and more parents saying we don’t want this because we are concerned. And it contextualizes this within the rising anti-establishment approach to medicine, more skepticism around well-researched and appropriate interventions. There is data showing how many children die from this spontaneous bleeding that can often happen if you’re deficient in vitamin K. And together, it uses those different points to create a picture of a troubling and avoidable public health trend that’s resulting in kids dying. 

Rovner: Yeah, more fallout from the anti-vax movement. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleague Stephanie Armour, and it’s called “HHS’ Healthy Food Agenda Puts Hospitals on Notice About Patients’ Meals.” It’s a story about something that we’ve talked about before in the podcast, the new HHS policy that threatens hospitals’ Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for facilities that don’t conform to last year’s new dietary guidelines. But there’s some pretty vivid detail here about how those guidelines actually fail to address the needs of many hospitalized patients who may be limited in their ability to eat or drink and might actually need Jell-O or ginger ale or Ensure, all of which are now at least theoretically banned. And the administration is also asking patients to report hospitals that are violating the new rules. Again, another thing that was not on my 2026 bingo card. 

All right, that’s this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X , or on Bluesky . Sandhya, where are you hanging these days? 

Raman: I’m on  and on  @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann:  on  and  and also on . 

Rovner: Shefali. 

Luthra: On Bluesky . 

Rovner: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-445-abortion-pill-mifepristone-makary-may-7-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2235382&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2235382
She Owed Her Insurer a Nickel, So It Canceled Her Coverage /health-care-costs/insurer-missed-payments-dropped-coverage-florida-bill-of-the-month-march-2026/ Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2174972 Last summer, Lorena Alvarado Hill received a series of unexpected medical bills.

A teacher’s aide in Melbourne, Florida, Hill is a single mom who works shifts at J.Crew on the weekends to send her daughter to college. Hill and her mother, who lives with her, had been enrolled in an insurance plan through HealthFirst.

Hill paid nothing toward the premiums for the government-subsidized plan, which previously had covered her scans and other appointments.

Then the bills came.

Hill was on the hook for a $2,966.93 MRI, as well as more than half a dozen doctor visits costing about $200 or $300 each. Without that kind of money on hand, Hill said, she put a few of the bills on payment plans and tried to figure out what had gone wrong.

She discovered, to her surprise, that her insurance had been canceled for “non-payment of premiums.”

The Medical Service

A health insurance plan purchased through the Affordable Care Act federal exchange, healthcare.gov.

The Bill

A monthly premium bill for 1 cent, which in the following months increased incrementally to 5 cents.

The Billing Problem: Small Bill, Big Consequences

Premium subsidies for ACA plans are automatically recalculated every time coverage is changed because of a life event, such as marriage, a change of job, or a child turning 26. In June, Hill removed her mother from the family’s group plan because she turned 65 and became eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

The change triggered a recalculation of Hill’s monthly premium contribution, increasing it from $0 to 1 cent. She said she thought the amount was so small that she couldn’t pay it with her credit card.

Hill acknowledged she had received some bills that noted, “You may lose your health insurance coverage because you did not pay your monthly health insurance premium.”

But she said that her doctors collected the usual copayments during subsequent visits and that her insurance broker told her not to worry, reassuring her that the plan was “active.” Hill figured the 1-cent monthly premium was probably a rounding error that couldn’t result in termination, she said.

On Nov. 22, she got a letter marked “Important: Your health insurance coverage is ending.” It listed the last day of coverage as July 31, nearly four months before.

“I panicked,” Hill said. “I didn’t sleep that night.”

Lorena Alvarado Hill sits on the edge of her couch. A mural painting is seen on the wall behind her.
On Nov. 22, 2025, Hill got a letter informing her that her health insurance had been canceled — listing the last day of coverage as July 31. The terminated policy left her on the hook for thousands of dollars in bills. “I didn’t sleep that night,” she said. (Michelle Bruzzese for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

She made an appointment the next day with her broker, who called HealthFirst for clarification. The news was even worse: Not only had her insurance been canceled, but the 5-cent bill could be sent to a collection agency.

Hill takes out loans to pay her daughter’s college expenses. “I couldn’t have my credit ruined,” she said.

Others have lost their coverage over owing small amounts, said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “This woman’s situation is not so unusual with the enhanced subsidies,” she said.

The American Rescue Plan, passed in 2021, increased the amount of government assistance available to ACA plan holders. Those enhanced subsidies, which Congress let expire at the end of last year, meant enrollees with lower incomes had to pay little or nothing toward their premiums.

The Biden administration found that, in 2023, about 81,000 subsidized ACA insurance policies were terminated because the enrollee owed $5 or less. Nearly 103,000 more were canceled for owing less than $10.

To prevent that kind of coverage loss, most likely hitting people with little income, Biden administration health officials to allow ACA enrollees to retain coverage if they owed less than $10, or less than 95% of premium costs.

Insurers were required to keep insurance active for a 90-day “grace period” to give enrollees time to respond. That’s why Hill’s doctors initially took her copayments and sent no bill, as if nothing had changed.

That Biden administration “flexibility” rule took effect Jan. 15, 2025, though not every insurer opted to offer leniency to those owing small amounts.

The Trump administration removed the rule on Aug. 25, eliminating the protection entirely in the name of combating fraud and abuse.

The Resolution

Alarmed by the cancellation, the thousands of dollars in bills, and the threat of collections over 5 cents, Hill researched insurance law and fought back.

She filed a complaint in December with HealthFirst and the Florida Department of Financial Services asking for a write-off of her 5-cent balance and retroactive restoration of her policy, citing state and federal laws that seemed to apply to her situation.

In particular, she wrote, “creditors are not required to collect, and consumers are not required to pay, credit-card balances of $1.00 or less,” adding that “all major insurers and payment processors in Florida follow a 1-cent write-off policy.”

She noted that HealthFirst’s policy was to respond to complaints in 30 days.

Thirty days came and went, but Hill said she heard nothing in response — and new bills from her canceled policy kept coming.

Despite her frustration, Hill said, all her doctors were contracted with HealthFirst, so she reenrolled for 2026.

Lance Skelly, a spokesperson for HealthFirst, initially said the case “is still in the appeals/grievance process.” In a follow-up email, he said HealthFirst had in canceling Hill’s policy.

“Stepping back from what’s legal, this is just ridiculous,” Corlette said.

Weeks after a reporter’s query to the insurer, Hill said she looked at her billing statements for all the medical services she received in 2025 and was pleasantly surprised that the balances owed had been adjusted to $0.

But she said she would also like HealthFirst to cover what she had paid and still owed toward the bills she’d put on payment plans.

Lorena Alvarado Hill stands for a portrait indoors. She is looking out the window.
Hill and her mother were enrolled together in a health plan purchased through the federal Affordable Care Act exchange. Hill removed her mother from the plan when she became eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, but the change triggered a recalculation of her monthly premium contribution, increasing it from $0 to 1 cent. She said the amount was so small that she couldn’t figure out how to pay for it with her credit card. (Michelle Bruzzese for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

The Takeaway

Even small bills can have major consequences.

With the automation of more health billing decisions, irrational results have become increasingly common.

“One cent?!” Hill said. “No human would do this!”

It can be tempting to dismiss the notice of a tiny debt, but it’s important to take it seriously. Contact the insurer and get a human involved.

And while insurance policies have grace periods allowing coverage to remain in place if you miss a payment, some are not very long. For subsidized ACA marketplace plans, the period is 90 days, but others last just 30 or 45.

Missing one payment can mean losing coverage. So it’s important to keep a close eye on premiums to make sure they’re paid.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and  that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/insurer-missed-payments-dropped-coverage-florida-bill-of-the-month-march-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2174972&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2174972
He Needs an Expensive Drug. A Copay Card Helped — Until It Didn’t. /health-care-costs/expensive-drug-copay-card-discount-bill-of-the-month-february-2026/ Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2162352 Over the course of 2025, Jayant Mishra of Mission Viejo, California, progressively developed scaly, itchy red patches on his skin. Then came the pain and swelling in the joints of his hands, making it difficult to do his work at a bank.

His primary care doctor referred him to a rheumatologist, who diagnosed psoriatic arthritis. She advised Mishra that while there’s no cure, there were many new medicines that could keep the autoimmune disease in check, and she recommended one, Otezla.

At first, Mishra balked. He knew the medicines were expensive. He worried about side effects. He thought he could manage with over-the-counter drugs.

But by September he was in so much pain that he agreed to try a starter pack provided by Otezla’s manufacturer, Amgen. It worked: The skin lesions disappeared, and the joint pain that kept him up at night dissipated. He was sold.

His rheumatologist got approval for the drug from his insurer, UnitedHealthcare, and signed him up for Amgen’s copayment assistance program. Having enrolled other patients, she told Mishra the copay card, similar to a credit card, should last a year, he said, shielding him from the drug’s high list price: around $5,000 for a 30-day supply, .

He said the doctor explained that, in her patients’ experience, insurers and their pharmacy benefit managers negotiated a deeply discounted price with Amgen — she estimated $1,400 to $2,200 a month. Patients paid a percentage of that amount, their “patient responsibility,” using the copay card.

Mishra said he was approved for a copay card covering $9,450 a year. “I was happy when I got the message,” he said.

He added that the doctor reassured him about the cost. “She said: ‘You shouldn’t have to pay anything out-of-pocket. Your copay card will cover this.’”

He started the medicine and, at first, paid nothing.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Service

Otezla, which comes in a pill, is approved to treat some autoimmune disorders, including psoriatic arthritis.

The Bill

$441.02, for the second month’s fill of the drug — before Mishra chose to ration rather than refill his prescription, because his copay card was empty.

The insurance statement from UnitedHealthcare’s pharmacy benefit manager, Optum Rx — another subsidiary of the same parent company, UnitedHealth Group — showed it did not provide a negotiated discount and covered just $308.34 of the full $5,253.85 charge for a 30-day supply. The charges for the second month depleted the copay card and left Mishra owing the balance.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/expensive-drug-copay-card-discount-bill-of-the-month-february-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2162352&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2162352
Blurry Line Between Medical and Vision Insurance Leaves Patient With Unexpected Bill /health-care-costs/medicare-advantage-eye-care-wisconsin-bill-of-the-month-january-2026/ Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:00:00 +0000 Barbara Tuszynski was concerned about her vision but confident in her insurance coverage when she went to an eye clinic last May.

The retiree, 70, was diagnosed with glaucoma in her right eye in 2019. She had a laser procedure to treat it in 2022, and she uses medicated drops in both eyes to prevent more damage. She is supposed to be checked regularly, she said.

During the May appointment, Tuszynski’s optometrist examined her eyes and reassured her that the glaucoma had not worsened.

Tuszynski, who lives in central Wisconsin, had looked up beforehand whether the clinic in nearby Madison participated in her insurance plan. The insurer’s website listed the optometrist’s name with a green check mark and the words “in-network.” She assumed that meant her policy would cover the appointment.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Procedure

An optometrist tested Tuszynski’s vision and took pictures of her optic nerves.

The Final Bill

$340, which included $120 for vision testing and $100 for optic nerve imaging.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/medicare-advantage-eye-care-wisconsin-bill-of-the-month-january-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2149694&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2149694
Culture Wars Take Center Stage /podcast/what-the-health-429-obamacare-abortion-pill-mifepristone-hhs-january-15-2026/ Thu, 15 Jan 2026 20:20:00 +0000 /?p=2143097&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2143097 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Millions of Americans are facing dramatically higher health insurance premium payments due to the Jan. 1 expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. But much of Washington appears more interested at the moment in culture war issues, including abortion and gender-affirming care.

Meanwhile, at the Department of Health and Human Services, personnel continue to be fired and rehired, and grants terminated and reinstated, leaving everyone who touches the agency uncertain about what comes next.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Anna Edney photo
Anna Edney Bloomberg News
Joanne Kenen photo
Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Congress remains undecided on a deal to renew enhanced ACA premium subsidies, as it is on spending plans to keep the federal government running when the existing, short-term plan expires at the end of the month. While some of the bigger appropriations hang-ups are related to immigration and foreign affairs, there are also hurdles to passing spending for HHS.
  • ACA plan enrollment is down about 1.5 million compared with last year, with states reporting that many people are switching to cheaper plans or dropping coverage. Enrollment numbers are likely to drop further in the coming months as more-expensive premium payments come due and some realize they can no longer afford the plans they’re enrolled in.
  • A key Senate health committee on Wednesday hosted a hearing on the abortion pill mifepristone, focused on the safety concerns posed by abortion foes — though those concerns are unsupported by scientific research and decades of experience with the drug. Many abortion opponents are frustrated that the Trump administration has not taken aggressive action to restrict access to the abortion pill.
  • As the Trump administration moved this week to rehire laid-off employees and abruptly cancel, then restore, addiction-related grants, overall government spending is up, despite the administration’s stated goal of saving money by cutting the federal government’s size and activities. It turns out the churn within the administration is costing taxpayers more. And new data, revealing that more federal workers left on their own than were laid off last year, shows that a lot of institutional memory was also lost.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who created the “Bill of the Month” series and wrote the latest installment, about a scorpion pepper, an ER visit, and a ghost bill. If you have a baffling, infuriating, or exorbitant bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “,” by Maxine Joselow.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “,” by Anna Clark.

Joanne Kenen: The New Yorker’s “,” by Dhruv Khullar.

Anna Edney: MedPage Today’s “,” by Joedy McCreary.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Paul Kane.
  • HealthAffairs’ “,” by Mica Hartman, Anne B. Martin, David Lassman, and Aaron Catlin.
  • Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
  • JAMA’s “,” by Sophie Dilek, Joanne Rosen, Anna Levashkevich, Joshua M. Sharfstein, and G. Caleb Alexander.
click to open the transcript Transcript: Culture Wars Take Center Stage

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU public radio in Washington, D.C., and welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 15, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. 

Today, we are joined via video conference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Alice [Miranda] Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” about an ER trip, a scorpion pepper, and a ghost bill. But first, this week’s news. Let’s start this week on Capitol Hill, where both houses of Congress are here and legislating. This week alone, the Senate rejected a Democratic effort to accept the House-passed bill that would renew for three years the Affordable Care Act’s expanded subsidies â€” the ones that expired Jan. 1.  

The Senate also turned back an effort to cancel the Trump administration’s regulation covering the ACA, which, although it has gotten far less attention than the subsidies, would also result in a lot of people losing or dropping health insurance coverage.  

Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans are struggling just to keep the lights on. Between resignations, illnesses, and deaths, House Republicans are very nearly â€” in the words of longtime Congress watcher  â€” a [majority] in name only, which I guess is pronounced “MINO.” Their majority is now so thin that one or two votes can hand Democrats a win, as we saw earlier this week in a surprise defeat on an otherwise fairly routine labor bill. Which brings us to the prospects for renewing those Affordable Care Act subsidies. When the dust cleared from last week’s House vote, 17 Republicans joined all the House’s Democrats to pass the bill and send it to the Senate. But it seems that the bipartisan efforts in the Senate to get a deal are losing steam. What’s the latest you guys are hearing? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so it wasn’t a good sign when the person who has sort of come out as a leader of these bipartisan negotiations, Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno, at first came out very strong and said, We’re in the end zone. We’re very close to a deal. We’re going to have bill text. And that was several days ago, and now they’re saying that maybe they’ll have something by the end of the month. But the initial enthusiasm very quickly fizzled as they really got into the negotiations, and, from what my colleagues have reported, there’s still disagreements on several fronts, you know, including this idea of having a minimum charge for all plans, no zero-premium plans anymore, which the right says is to crack down on fraud, and the left says would really deter low-income people from getting coverage. And there, of course, is, as always, a fight about abortion, as we spoke about on this podcast before. There is not agreement on how Obamacare currently treats abortion, and thus there can be no agreement on how it should treat abortion. 

And so the two sides have not come to any kind of compromise. And I don’t know what compromise would be possible, because all of the anti-abortion activist groups and their allies in Congress, of which there are many, say that the only thing they’ll accept is a blanket national ban on any plan that covers abortion receiving a subsidy, and that’s a nonstarter for most, if not all, Democrats. So I don’t know where we go from here. 

Rovner: Well, we will talk more about both abortion and the ACA in a minute, but first, lawmakers have just over two weeks to finish the remaining spending bills, or else risk yet another government shutdown. They seem to [be] making some headway on many of those spending bills, but not so much on the bill that funds most of the Department of Health and Human Services. Any chance they can come up with a bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the much more conservative House? That is a pretty narrow needle to thread. I don’t think abortion is going to be a huge issue in Labor, HHS, because that’s where the Hyde Amendment lives, and we usually see the Hyde Amendment renewed. But, you know, I see a lot of Democrats and, frankly, Republicans in the Senate wanting to put money back for a lot of the things that HHS has cut, and the House [is] probably not so excited about putting all of that money back. I’m just wondering if there really is a deal to be had, or if we’re going to see for the, you know, however many year[s] in a row, another continuing resolution, at least for the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Ollstein: Well, you’re hearing a lot more optimism from lawmakers about the spending bill than you are about a[n] Obamacare subsidy deal or any of the other things that they’re fighting about. And I would say, on the spending, I think the much bigger fights are going to be outside the health care space. I think they’re going to be about immigration, with everything we’re seeing about foreign policy, whether and how to put restraints on the Trump administration, on both of those fronts. On health, yes, I think you’ve seen efforts to restore funding for programs that was slashed by the Trump administration, and you are seeing some Republican support for that. I mean, it impacts their districts and their voters too. So that makes sense. 

Kenen: We’ve also seen the Congress vote for spending that the administration hasn’t been spent. So Congress has just voted on a series of things about science funding and other health-related issues, including global health. But it remains to be seen whether this administration takes appropriations as law or suggestion. 

Rovner: So while the effort to revive the additional ACA subsidies appears to be losing steam, there does seem to be some new hope for a bipartisan health package that almost became law at the end of 2024, so 13 months ago. Back then, Elon Musk got it stripped from the year-end spending bill because the bill, or so Musk said, had gotten too big. That health package includes things like reforms for pharmacy benefits managers and hospital outpatient payments, and continued funding for community health centers. Could that finally become law? That thing that they said, Oh, we’ll pass it first thing next year, meaning 2025. 

Edney: I think it’s certainly looking more likely than the subsidies that we’ve been talking about. But I do think we’ve been here before several times, not just at the end of last year â€” but, like with these PBM reforms, I feel like they have certainly gotten to a point where it’s like, This is happening. It’s gonna happen. And, I mean, it’s been years, though, that we’ve been talking about pharmacy benefit manager reforms in the space of drug pricing. So basically, you know, from when [President Donald] Trump won. And so, you know, I say this with, like, a huge amount of caution: Maybe. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will, but we’ll believe it when â€¦ we get to the signing ceremony. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, back to the Affordable Care Act, for which enrollment in most states end today. We’re getting an early idea of how many people actually are dropping coverage because of the expiration of those subsidies. Sign-ups on the federal marketplace are down about 1.5 million from the end of last year’s enrollment period, and that’s before most people have to pay their first bill. States that run their own marketplaces are also reporting that people are dropping coverage, or else trying to shift to cheaper plans. I’m wondering if these early numbers â€” which are actually stronger than many predicted, with fewer people actually dropping coverage â€” reflect people who signed up hoping that Congress might actually renew the subsidies this month. Since we kept saying that was possible. 

Ollstein: I would bet that most people are not following the minutiae of what’s happening on Capitol Hill and have no idea the mess we’re in, and why, and who’s responsible. I would love to be wrong about that. I would love for everyone to be super informed. Hopefully they listen to this podcast. But you know, I think that a lot of people just sign up year after year and aren’t sure of what’s going on until they’re hit with the giant bill.  

Rovner: Yeah. 

Ollstein: One thing I will point out about the emerging numbers is it does show, at least early indications, that the steps a lot of states are taking to make up for the shortfalls and put their own funding into helping people and subsidizing plans, that’s really working. You’re seeing enrollment up in some of those states, and so I wonder if that’ll encourage any others to get on board as well. 

Kenen: But â€¦ I think what Julie said is it’s â€¦ the follow-up is less than expected. But for the reasons Julie just said is that you haven’t gotten your bill yet. So either you haven’t been paying attention, or you’re an optimist and think there’ll be a solution. So, and people might even pay their first bill thinking that there’ll be a solution next month, or that we’re close. I mean, I would think there’d be drop-off soon, but there might be a steeper cliff a month or two from now, when people realize this is it for the year, and not just a tough, expensive month or two. So just because they’re not as bad as some people forecast doesn’t say that this is going to be a robust coverage year. 

Edney: And I think, I mean, they are the whole picture when you’re talking about who’s signing up, but a lot of these people that I’ve read about or heard about are on the radio programs and different things are signing up, are drastically changing their lives to be able to afford what they think might be their insurance. So how does that play out in other aspects? I think will be .. of the economy of jobs, like, where does that lead us? I think will be something to watch out for too. 

Rovner: And by the way, in case you’re wondering why health insurance is so expensive, we got the , and total health expenditures grew by 7.2% from the previous year to $5.3 trillion, or 18% of the nation’s GDP [gross domestic product], up from 17.7% the year before. Remember, these are the numbers for 2024, not 2025, but it makes it pretty hard for Republicans to blame the Affordable Care Act itself for rising insurance premiums. Insurance is more expensive because we’re spending more on health care. It’s not really that complicated, right? 

Kenen: This 17%-18% of GDP has been pretty consistent, which doesn’t mean it’s good; it just means it’s been around that level for many, many, many years. Despite all the talk about how it’s unsustainable, it’s been sustained, with pain, but sustained. $5.7 trillion, even if you’ve been doing this a long time â€¦ 

Rovner: It’s $5.3 trillion. 

Kenen: $5.3 trillion. It’s a mind-boggling number. It’s a lot of dollars! So the ACA made insurance more â€” the out-of-pocket cost of insurance for millions of Americans, 20-ish million â€” but the underlying burden we’ve not solved the — to use the word of the moment, the “affordability” crisis in health care is still with us and arguably getting worse. But like, I think we’re sort of numb. These numbers are just so insane, and yet you say it’s unsustainable, but â€¦ I think it was Uwe’s line, right? 

Rovner: It was, it was a famous Uwe Reinhardt line. 

Kenen: No, it’s sustainable, if we’re sustaining it at a high â€” in economically â€” zany price.  

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: And, like, the other thing is, like, where is the money? Right? Everybody in health care says they don’t have any money, so I can’t figure out who has the $5 trillion. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, it’s not â€¦ it does not seem to be the insurance companies as much as it is, you know, if you look at these numbers â€” and I’ll post a link to them â€” you know, it’s hospitals and drug companies and doctors and all of those who are part of the health care industrial complex, as I like to call it. 

Kenen: All of them say they don’t have enough.  

Rovner: Right. All right. So we know that the Affordable Care Act subsidies are hung up over abortion, as Alice pointed out, and we know that the big abortion demonstration, the March for Life, is coming up next week, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that Senate health committee chairman and ardent anti-abortion senator Bill Cassidy would hold a hearing not on changes to the vaccine schedule, which he has loudly and publicly complained about, but instead about the reputed dangers of the abortion pill, mifepristone. Alice, like me, you watched yesterday’s hearing. What was your takeaway? 

Ollstein: So, you know, in a sense, this was a show hearing. There wasn’t a bill under consideration. They didn’t have anyone from the administration to grill. And so this is just sort of your typical each side tries to make their point hearing. And the bigger picture here is that conservatives, including senators and the activist groups who are sort of goading them on from the outside â€” they’re really frustrated right now about the Trump administration and the lack of action they’ve seen in this first year of this administration on their top priority, which is restricting the abortion pill. Their bigger goal is outlawing all abortion, but since abortion pills comprise the majority of abortions these days, that’s what they’re targeting. And so they’re frustrated that, you know, both [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] and [Marty] Makary have promised some sort of review or action on the abortion pill, and they say, We want to see itWhy haven’t you done it yet? And so I think that pressure is only going to mount, and this hearing was part of that. 

Rovner: I was fascinated by the Louisiana attorney general saying, basically, the quiet part out loud, which is that we banned abortion, but because of these abortion pills, abortions are still going up in our state. That was the first time I think I’d heard an official say that. I mean that, if you wonder why they’re going after the abortion pill, that’s why â€” because they struck down Roe [v. Wade] and assumed that the number of abortions would go down, and it really has not, has it? 

Ollstein: That’s right. And so not only are people increasingly using pills to terminate pregnancies, but they’re increasingly getting them via telemedicine. And you know, that’s absolutely true in states with bans, but it’s also true in states where abortion is legal. You know, a lot of people just really prefer the telemedicine option, whether because it’s cheaper, or they live really far away from a doctor who is willing to prescribe this, or, you know, any other reasons. So the right â€” you know, again, including senators like Cassidy, but also these activist groups â€” they’re saying, at a bare minimum, we want the Trump administration to ban telemedicine for the pills and reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement. That would really roll back access across the country. But what they really want is for the pills to be taken off the market altogether. And they’re pretty open about saying that.  

Rovner: Well, rather convenient timing from the , which published a peer-reviewed study of 5,000 pages of documents from the FDA that found that over the last dozen years, when it comes to the abortion pill and its availability, the agency followed the evidence-based recommendations of its scientists every single time, except once, and that once was during the first Trump administration. Alice, is there anything that will convince people that the scientific evidence shows that mifepristone is both safe and effective and actually has a very low rate of serious complications? There were, how many, like 100, more than 100 peer-reviewed studies that basically show this, plus the experience of many millions of women in the United States and around the world. 

Ollstein: Well, just like I’m skeptical that there’s any compromise that can be found on the Obamacare subsidies, there’s just no compromise here. You know, you have the groups that are making these arguments about the pills’ safety say very openly that, you know, the reason they oppose the pills is because they cause abortions. They say it can’t be health care if it’s designed to end a life, and that kind of rhetoric. And so the focus on the rate of complication â€¦ I mean, I’m not saying they’re not genuinely concerned. They may be, but, you know, this is one of many tactics they’re using to try to curb access to the pills. So it’s just one argument in their arsenal. It’s not their, like, primary driving, overriding goal is, is the safety which, like you said, has been well established with many, many peer-reviewed studies over the last several years. 

¸é´Ç±¹²Ô±ð°ù:ÌýSo, in between these big, high-profile anti-abortion actions like Senate hearings, those supporting abortion rights are actually still prevailing in court, at least in the lower courts. This week, [a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association against the Trump administration after the administration also quietly gave Planned Parenthood and other family planning groups] back the Title X family planning money that was appropriated to it by Congress. That was what Joanne was referring to, that Congress has been appropriating money that the administration hasn’t been spending. But this wasn’t really the big pot of federal money that Planned Parenthood is fighting to win back, right?

Ollstein: It was one pot of money they’re fighting to win back. But yes, the much bigger Medicaid cuts that Congress passed over last summer, those are still in place. And so that’s an order of magnitude more than this pot of Title X family planning money that they just got back. So that aside, I’ve seen a lot of conservatives conflate the two and accuse the Trump administration of violating the law that Congress passed and restoring funding to Planned Parenthood. This is different funding, and it’s a lot less than the cuts that happened. And so I talked to the organizations impacted, and it was clear that even though they’re getting this money back, for some it came too late, like they already closed their doors and shut down clinics in a lot of states, and they can’t reopen them with this chunk of money. This money is when you give a service to a patient, you can then submit for reimbursement. And so if the clinic’s not there, it’s not like they can use this money to, like, reopen the clinic, sign a lease, hire people, etc.  

Rovner: Yeah. The wheels of the courts, as we have seen, have moved very slowly. 

OK, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

So while abortion gets most of the headlines, it’s not the only culture war issue in play. The Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments in a case challenging two of the 27 state laws barring transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams. Reporters covering the argument said it seemed unlikely that a majority of justices would strike down the laws, which would allow all of those bans to stand. Meanwhile, the other two branches of the federal government have also weighed in on the gender issue in recent weeks. The House passed a bill in December, sponsored by now former Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene that would make it a felony for anyone to provide gender-affirming care to minors nationwide. And the Department of Health and Human Services issued proposed regulations just before Christmas that wouldn’t go quite that far, but would have roughly the same effect. The regulations would ban hospitals from providing gender-affirming care to minors or risk losing their Medicare and Medicaid funding, and would bar funding for gender-affirming care for minors by Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. At the same time, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy issued a declaration, which is already being challenged in court, stating that gender-affirming care, quote, “does not meet professionally recognized standards of health care,” and therefore practitioners who deliver it can be excluded from federal health programs. I get that sports team exclusions have a lot of public support, but does the public really support effectively ending all gender-affirming care for minors? That’s what this would do. 

Edney: Well, I think that when a lot of people hear that, they think of surgery, which is the much, much, much, much, much less likely scenario here that we’re even talking about. And so those who are against it have done an effective job of making that the issue. And so there â€¦ who support gender-affirming care, who have looked into it, would see that a lot of this is hormone treatment, things like that, to drugs â€¦  

Rovner: Puberty blockers! 

Edney: â€¦ they’re taking â€” exactly â€” and so it’s not, this isn’t like a permanent under-the-knife type of thing that a lot of people are thinking about, and I think, too, talking about, like mental health, with being able to get some of these puberty blockers, the effect that it can have on a minor who doesn’t want to live the way they’ve been living, so it’s so helpful to them. So I think that there’s just a lot that has, you know, there’s been a lot of misinformation out there about this, and I feel like that that’s kind of winning the day. 

Kenen: I think, like, from the beginning, because, like, five or six years ago was the first time I wrote about this. The playbook has been very much like the anti-abortion playbook. They talk about it in terms of protecting women’s health, and now they’re talking about it in protecting children’s health. And, as Anna said, they’re using words like mutilation. Puberty blockers are not mutilation. Puberty blockers are a medication that delays the onset of puberty, and it is not irreversible. It’s like a brake. You take your foot off the brake, and puberty starts. There’s some controversy about what age and how long, and there’s some possible bone damage. I mean, there’s some questions that are raised that need to be answered, but the conversation that’s going on now â€” most of the experts in this field, who are endocrinologists and psychologists and other people who are working with these kids, cite a lot of data saying that not only this is safe, but it’s beneficial for a kid who really feels like they’re trapped in the wrong body. So you know, I think it’s really important to repeat â€¦ the point that Anna made, you know, 12-year-olds are not getting major surgery. Very few minors are, and when they are, it’s closer â€¦ they may be under 18, it’s rare. But if you’re under 18, you’re closer to 18, it’s later in teens. And it’s not like you walk into an operating room and say, you know, do this to me. There’s years of counseling and evaluation and professional teams. It really did strike a nerve in the campaign. I think Pennsylvania, in particular. This is something that people don’t understand and get very upset about, and the inflammatory language, it’s not creating understanding. 

Rovner: We’ll see how this one plays out. Finally, this week, things at the Department of Health and Human Services continues to be chaotic. In the latest round of “we’re cutting you off because you don’t agree with us,” the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration sent hundreds of letters Tuesday to grantees canceling their funding immediately. It’s not entirely clear how many grants or how much money was involved, but it appeared to be something in the neighborhood of $2 billion â€” that’s around a fifth of SAMHSA’s entire budget. SAMHSA, of course, funds programs that provide addiction and mental health treatment, treatment for homelessness and suicide prevention, among other things. Then, Wednesday night, after a furious backlash from Capitol Hill and just about every mental health and substance abuse group in the country, from what I could tell from my email, the administration canceled the cuts. Did they miscalculate the scope of the reaction here, or was chaos the actual goal in this?  

Edney: That is a great question. I really don’t know the answer. I don’t know what it could serve anyone by doing this and reversing it in 24 hours, as far as the chaos angle, but it does seem, certainly, like there was a miscalculation of how Congress would react to this, and it was a bipartisan reaction that wanted to know why, what is it even your justification? Because these programs do seem to support the priorities of this administration and HHS. 

Rovner: I didn’t count, but I got dozens of emails yesterday.  

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: My entire email box was overflowing with people basically freaking out about these cuts to SAMHSA. Joanne, you wanted to say something? 

Kenen: I think that one of the shifts over â€” I’m not exactly sure how many years â€” 7, 8, 9, years, whatever we’ve been dealing with this opioid crisis, the country has really changed and how we see addiction, and that we are much more likely to view addiction not as a criminal justice issue, but as a mental health issue. It’s not that everybody thinks that. It’s not that every lawmaker thinks that, but we have really turned this into, we have seen it as, you know, a health problem and a health problem that strikes red states and blue states. You know, we are all familiar with the “deaths of despair.” Many of us know at least an acquaintance or an acquaintance’s family that have experienced an overdose death. This is a bipartisan shift. It is, you know, you’ve had plenty of conservatives speaking out for both more money and more compassion. So I think that the backlash yesterday, I mean, we saw the public backlash, but I think there was probably a behind-the-scenes â€” some of the “Opioid Belts” are very conservative states, and Republican governors, you know, really saying we’ve had progress. Right? The last couple of years, we have made progress. Fatal overdoses have gone down, and Narcan is available. And just like our inboxes, I think their telephones, they were bombarded.  

Rovner: Yeah. Well, meanwhile, several hundred workers have reportedly been reinstated at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health â€” that’s a subagency of CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. Except that those RIF [reduction in force] cancellations came nine months after the original RIFs, which were back in April. Does the administration think these folks are just sitting around waiting to be called back to work? And in news from the National Institutes of Health, Director Jay Bhattacharya told a podcaster last week that the DEI-related [diversity, equity, and inclusion] grants that were canceled and then reinstated due to court orders are likely to simply not be renewed. And at the FDA, former longtime drug regulator Richard Pazdur said at the J.P. Morgan [Healthcare] Conference in San Francisco this week that the firewall between the political appointees at the agency and its career drug reviewers has been, quote, “breached.” How is the rest of HHS expected to actually, you know, function with even so much uncertainty about who works there and who’s calling the shots? 

Ollstein: Not to mention all of this back and forth and chaos and starting and stopping is costing more, is costing taxpayers more. Overall spending is up. After all of the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] and RIFs and all of it, they have not cut spending at all because it’s more expensive to pay people to be on administrative leave for a long time and then try to bring them back and then shut down a lab and then reopen a lab. And all of this has not only meant, you know, programs not serving people, research not happening, but it hasn’t even saved the government any money, either. 

Kenen: Like, you know, the game we played when we were kids, remember, “Red Light-Green Light,” you know, you’d run in one direction, you run back. And if you were 8 years old, it would end with someone crying. And that’s sort of the way we’re running the government these days [laughs]. The amount of people fired, put on leave. The CDC has had this incredible yo-yoing of people. You can’t even keep track. You don’t even know what email to use if you’re trying to keep in touch with them anymore. The churn, with what logic? It’s, as Alice said, just more expensive, but it’s, it’s also just â€¦ like you can’t get your job done. Even if you want a smaller government, which many of conservatives and Trump people do, you still want certain functions fulfilled. But there’s still a consensus in society that we need some kind of functioning health system and health oversight and health monitoring. I mean, the American public is not against research, and the American public is not against keeping people alive. You know, the inconsistency is pretty mind-boggling. 

Edney: Well, there’s a lot of rank-and-file, but we’re seeing a lot of heads of parts of the agencies where, like at the FDA, with the drug center, or many of the different institutes at NIH that really don’t have anyone in place that is leading them. And I think that that, to me, like this is just my humble opinion, is it kind of seems like the message as anybody can do this part, because it’s all coming from one place. There’s really just one leader, essentially, RFK, or maybe it’s Trump, or they want everyone to do it the way that they’re going to comply with the different, like you said, everyone wants research, but I, Joanne, but I do think they only want certain kinds of research in this case. So it’s been interesting to watch how many leaders in these agencies that are going away and not being replaced. 

Rovner: And all the institutional memory that’s walking out the door. I mean, more people â€” and to Alice’s point about how this hasn’t saved money â€” more people have taken early retirement than have been actually, you know, RIF’d or fired or let go. I mean, they’ve just â€¦ a lot of people have basically, including a lot of leaders of many of these agencies, said, We just don’t want to be here under these circumstancesBye. Assuming at some point this government does want to use the Department of Health and Human Services to get things done, there might not be the personnel around to actually effectuate it. But we will continue to watch that space. 

OK, that’s this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Elisabeth Rosenthal, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Elisabeth Rosenthal, senior contributing editor at KFF Health News and originator of our “Bill of the Month” series, which in its nearly eight years has analyzed nearly $7 million in dubious, infuriating, or inflated medical charges. Libby also wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” which we’ll talk about in a minute. Libby, welcome back to the podcast. 

Elisabeth Rosenthal: Thanks for having me back. 

Rovner: So before we get to this month’s patient, can you reflect for a moment on the impact this series has had, and how frustrated are you that eight years on, it’s as relevant as it was when we began? 

Rosenthal: We were worried it wouldn’t last a year, and here we are, eight years later, still finding plenty to write about. I mean, we’ve had some wins. I think we helped contribute to the No Surprises Act being passed. There are states clamping down on facility fees, you know, and making sure that when you get something done in a hospital rather than an outpatient clinic, it’s the same cost. The country’s starting to address drug prices. But, you know, we seem to be the billing police, and that’s not good. We’ve gotten a lot of bills written off for our individual patients. Suddenly, when a reporter calls, they’re like, Oh, that was a mistake or Yeah, we’re going to write that off. And I’m like, You’re not writing that off; that shouldn’t have been billed. So sadly, the series is still going strong, and medical billing has proved endlessly creative. And you know, I think the sad thing for me is our success is a sign of a deeply, deeply dysfunctional system that has left, as we know, you know, 100 million adult Americans with medical debt. So we will keep going until it’s solved, I hope. 

Rovner: Well, getting on to this month’s patient, he gives new meaning to the phrase “It must have been something I ate.” Tell us what it was and how he ended up in the emergency room. 

Rosenthal: Well, Maxwell [Kruzic] loves eating spicy foods, but he’s never had a problem with it. And suddenly, one night, he had just excruciating, crippling abdominal pain. He drove himself to the emergency room. It was so bad he had to stop three times, and when he got there, it was mostly on the right-lower quadrant. You know, the doctors were so convinced, as he was, that he had appendicitis, that they called a surgeon right away, right? So they were all like, ready to go to the operating room. And then the scan came back, and it was like, whoops, his appendix is normal. And then, oh, could he have kidney stones? And it’s like no sign of that either. And finally, he thought, or someone asked, Well, what did you eat last night? And of course, Maxwell had ordered the hottest chili peppers from a bespoke chili pepper-growing company in New Mexico. They have some chili pepper rating of 2 million [Scoville heat units], which is, like, through the roof, and it was a reaction to the chili peppers. I didn’t even know that could happen, and I trained as a doctor, but I guess your intestines don’t like really, really, really hot stuff. 

Rovner: So in the end, he was OK. And the story here isn’t even really about what kind of care he got, or how much it cost. The $8,000 the hospital charged for his few hours in the ER doesn’t seem all that out of line compared to some of the bills we’ve seen. What was most notable in this case was the fact that the bill didn’t actually come until two years later. How much was he asked to pay two years after the hot pepper incident? 

Rosenthal: Well, he was asked to pay a little over $2,000, which was his coinsurance for the emergency room visit. And as he said, you know, $8,000 â€¦ now we go, well, that’s not bad. I mean, all they did, actually, was do a couple of scans and give him some IV fluids. But in this day and age, you’re like, wow, he got away â€” you know, from a “Bill of a Month” perspective, he got away cheap, right? 

Rovner: But I would say, is it even legal to send a bill two years after the fact? Who sends a bill two years later? 

Rosenthal: That’s the problem, like, and Maxwell â€” he’s a pretty smart guy, so he was checking his portal repeatedly. I mean, he paid something upfront at the ER, and he kept thinking, I must owe something. And he checked and he checked and he checked and it kept saying zero. He actually called his insurer and to make sure that was right. And they said, No, no, no, it’s right. You owe zero. And then, you know, after like, six months, he thought, I guess I owe zero. But then he didn’t think about it, and then almost two years later, this bill arrives in the mail, and he’s like, What?! And what I discovered, which is a little disturbing, is it is not, I wouldn’t say normal, but we see a bunch of these ghost bills at “Bill of the Month,” and in many cases, it’s legal, because of what was going on in those two-year periods. And of course, I called the hospital, I called the insurer, and they were like, Yeah, you know, someone was away on vacation, and someone left their job, and we couldn’t â€¦ you know, the hospital billed them correctly. And the hospital said, No, we didn’t. And they were just kind of doing the usual back-end negotiations to figure out what a service is worth. And when they finally agreed two years later what should be paid, that’s when they sent Maxwell the bill. And the problem is, whether it’s legal really depends on your insurance contracts, and whether they allow this kind of late billing. I do not know to this day if Maxwell’s did, because as soon as I called the insurer and the hospital, they were like, Never mind. He doesn’t owe anything. And you know, as he said, he’s a geological engineer. He has lots of clients, and as he said, you know, if I called them two years later and said, Whoops, I forgot to bill for something, they would be like, Forget it! you know. So I do think this is something that needs to be addressed at a policy level, as we so often discover on “Bill of the Month.” 

Rovner: So what should you do if you get one of these ghost bills? I should say I’m still negotiating bills from a surgery that I had six months ago. So I guess I should count myself lucky. 

Rosenthal: Well, I think you should check with your insurer and check with the hospital. I think more with your insurer â€” if the contract says this is legal to bill. It’s unclear to me, in this case, whether it was. The hospital was very much like, Oh, we made a mistake; because it took so long, we actually couldn’t bill Maxwell. So I think in his case, it probably was in the contract that this was too late to bill. But, you know, I think a lot of hospitals, I hate to say it, have this attitude. Well, doesn’t hurt to try, you know, maybe they’ll pay it. And people are afraid of bills, right? They pay them.  

Rovner: I know the feeling. 

Rosenthal: Yeah, I do think, you know, they should check with their insurer about whether there’s a statute of limitations, essentially, on billing, because there may well be and I would say it’s a great asymmetry, because if you submit an insurance claim more than six months late, they can say, Well, we won’t pay this

Rovner: And just to tie this one up with a bow, I assume that Maxwell has changed his pepper-eating ways, at least modified them? 

Rosenthal: He said he will never eat scorpion peppers again. 

Rovner: Libby Rosenthal, thank you so much. 

Rosenthal: Oh, sure. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back, and now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Anna, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Edney: Sure. So my extra credit is from MedPage Today: “.” I appreciated this article because it answered some questions that I had, too, after the sweeping change to the childhood vaccine schedule. There was just a lot of discussions I had about, you know, well, what does this really mean on the ground? And will parents be confused? Will pediatricians â€” how will they be talking about this? You know, will they stick to the schedule we knew before? And there was an article in JAMA Perspectives that lays out, essentially, to clinicians, you know, that they should not fear malpractice .. issues if they’re going to talk about the old schedule and not adhere to the newer schedule. And so it lays out some of those issues. And I thought that was really helpful. 

Rovner: Yeah, this was a big question that I had, too. Alice, why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so I have a piece from ProPublica. It’s called “.” So this is about how there’s been this huge push on the right to end public water fluoridation that has succeeded in a couple places and could spread more. And the proponents of doing that say that it’s fine because there are all these other sources of fluoride. You can get a treatment at the dentist, you can get it in stuff you buy at the drugstore and take yourself. But at the same time, the people who arepushing for ending fluoridated public drinking water are also pushing for restricting those other sources. There have been state and federal efforts to crack down on them, plus all of the just rhetoric about fluoride, which is very misleading. It misrepresents studies about its alleged neurological impacts. But it also, that kind of rhetoric makes people afraid to have fluoride in any form, and people are very worried about that, what that’s going to do to the nation’s teeth? 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s like vaccines. The more you talk it down, the less people want to do it. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a piece by Dhruv Khullar in The New Yorker called “,” and it was really great, because there’s certain things I think that we who â€” like, I don’t know how all of you watch it â€” but like, there’s certain things that didn’t even strike me, because I’m so used to writing about, like, the connection between poverty, social determinants of health, and, like, of course, people who come to the ED [emergency department] have, you know, homelessness problems and can’t afford food and all that. But Dhruv talked about how it sort of brought that home to him, how our social safety net, the holes in it, end up in our EDs. And he also talked about some of it is dramatized more for TV, that not everybody’s heart stops every 15 minutes. He said that sort of happens to one patient a day. But he talked about compassion and how that is rediscovered in this frenetic ED/ER scene. It’s just a very thoughtful piece about why we all love that TV show. And it’s not just because of Noah Wyle. 

Rovner: Although that helps. My extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “,” by Maxine Joselow. And while it’s not about HHS, it most definitely is about health. It seems that for the first time in literally decades, the Environmental Protection Agency will no longer calculate the cost to human health when setting clean air rules for ozone and fine particulate matter, quoting the story: “That would most likely lower costs for companies while resulting in dirtier air.” This is just another reminder that the federal government is charged with ensuring the help of Americans from a broad array of agencies, aside from HHS â€” or in this case, not so much.  

OK, that’s this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had help this week from producer Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, at kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me still on X , or on Bluesky . Where are you folks hanging these days? Alice. 

Ollstein: Mostly on Bluesky  and still on X . 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly on  or on  . 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney:  or X . 

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-429-obamacare-abortion-pill-mifepristone-hhs-january-15-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2143097&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2143097
Medical Bills Can Be Vexing and Perplexing. Here’s This Year’s Best Advice for Patients. /health-care-costs/bill-of-the-month-2025-top-takeaways-best-advice-surprise-bills/ Tue, 23 Dec 2025 10:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2122963 A Texas boy’s second dose of the MMRV vaccine cost over $1,400. A Pennsylvania woman’s long-acting birth control cost more than $14,000.

Treatment for a Florida Medicaid enrollee’s heart attack cost nearly $78,000 — about as much as surgery for an uninsured Montana woman’s broken arm.

In 2025, these patients were among the hundreds who asked Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News to investigate their medical bills as part of its “Bill of the Month” series.

Insured and uninsured. Job-based and government-funded. Comprehensive and short-term. Part of a sharing ministry. So many people with different health insurance situations asked the same questions: Why do I owe so much? And how am I going to afford it?

As millions of Americans grapple with the rising cost of health insurance next year, the “Bill of the Month” series is approaching its eighth anniversary. Our nationwide team of health reporters has analyzed almost $7 million in medical charges, more than $350,000 of that this year.

Of this year’s 12 featured patients, five had their bills mostly or fully forgiven soon after we contacted the provider and insurer for comment.

Our mission, though, is to empower every patient with the information needed to understand, manage, and — if push comes to shove — fight their own medical bills. Here are our 10 takeaways from 2025.

1. Most insurance coverage doesn’t start immediately. Many new plans come with waiting periods, so it’s important to maintain continuous coverage until the new plan kicks in. One exception: If you lose your job-based coverage, you have 60 days to opt into . Once you pay, the coverage applies retroactively, even for care received while you were temporarily uninsured.

2. Check out your coverage before you check in. Some plans come with unexpected restrictions, potentially affecting coverage for care ranging from contraception to immunizations and cancer screenings. Call your insurer — or, for job-based insurance, your human resources department or retiree benefits office — and ask whether there are exclusions for the care you need, including per-day or per-policy-period caps, and what you can expect to owe out-of-pocket.

3. “Covered” does not mean insurance will pay, let alone at in-network rates. Carefully read the fine print on network gap exceptions, prior authorizations, and other insurance approvals. The terms may be limited to certain doctors, services, and dates.

4. Get a cost estimate in writing for nonemergency procedures. If you object to the price, negotiate before undergoing care. And if you’re uninsured and receive a bill that’s $400 or more than the estimate, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has a .

5. Location matters. Prices can vary depending on where a patient receives care and where tests are performed. If you need blood work, ask your doctor to send the requisition to an in-network lab. A doctor’s office connected to a health system, for instance, may send samples to a hospital lab, which can mean higher charges.

6. When admitted, contact the billing office early. If possible, when you or a loved one has been hospitalized, it can help to speak to a billing representative. Ask whether the patient has been fully admitted or is being kept under observation status, as well as whether the care has been determined to be “medically necessary.” And while there may be no choice about taking an ambulance, if a transfer to another facility is recommended, you can ask whether the ambulance service is in-network.

7. Ask for a discount. Medical charges are almost always higher than what insurers would pay, because providers expect them to negotiate lower rates. You can, too. If you’re uninsured or underinsured, you may be eligible for a self-pay or charity care discount.

8. There’s help available for Medicaid patients. If you get a bill you don’t think you should owe, file a complaint with your state’s Medicaid program and, if you have one, your managed-care plan. Ask whether there is a caseworker who can advocate on your behalf. A legal aid clinic or consumer protection firm specializing in medical debt can also help file complaints and communicate with providers.

9. Your elected representatives can help, too. While a call from a state or federal lawmaker’s office may not get your bill forgiven, those officials often have an open line of communication with insurance companies, local hospitals, and other major providers — and advocating for you is their job.

10. When all else fails … you can write to “Bill of the Month”!

Photographers

Jason Ardan
Scott Dalton
Loren Elliott
Jamie Kelter Davis
Matt Kile
Jacob Langston

Maddie McGarvey
Parker Michels-Boyce
Sophie Park
Jim Vondruska
Jeremy Wade Shockley
Rachel Woolf

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/bill-of-the-month-2025-top-takeaways-best-advice-surprise-bills/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2122963&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2122963
Scorpion Peppers Caused Him ‘Crippling’ Pain. Two Years Later, the ER Bill Stung Him Again. /health-care-costs/scorpion-peppers-spicy-food-colorado-bill-of-the-month-december-2025/ Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2131627 Maxwell Kruzic said he was in such “crippling” stomach pain on Oct. 5, 2023, that he had to pull off the road twice as he drove himself to the emergency room at Mercy Regional Medical Center in Durango, Colorado. “It was the worst pain of my life,” he said.

Kruzic was seen immediately because hospital staff members were pretty sure he had appendicitis. They inserted an IV, called a surgeon, and sent him off for a scan to confirm the diagnosis.

But the scan showed a perfectly normal appendix and no problems in his abdomen. Doctors racked their brains for other possible diagnoses. Could it be a kidney stone? Gallstones? Here was a 37-year-old man in agony, but nothing really fit.

Then, someone asked what Kruzic had eaten the night before. He said he’d consumed tacos with some hot sauce that he’d made from a kind of scorpion pepper, grown from seeds he ordered from a chile pepper research institute.

The peppers measure over 2 million Scoville heat units on the spiciness scale, he noted, compared with a jalapeño at up to 8,000 or a habanero at 100,000 to 350,000.

The peppers are among “the world’s hottest, incredibly hot,” Kruzic said. “Delicious.” He loves spicy food and had never had a problem with it, but apparently this was just too much burn for his digestive system.

Kruzic spent much of the night on a gurney in the ER. After about four hours, the pain decreased, and he was sent home with medicine to treat nausea and vomiting.

Then the bill came — about two years later.

The Medical Procedure

Kruzic underwent blood work and a CT scan of his abdomen during his ER visit for acute abdominal pain.

Consuming very spicy foods painful inflammation and irritation of the digestive system. The discomfort typically resolves on its own.

The Final Bill

$8,127.41, including $5,820 for the CT scan. Kruzic paid $97.02 during his visit to the hospital, which was in-network under his insurance. After insurance payments and discounts, he owed $2,460.46 — the remainder of the $1,585.26 he owed toward his plan’s deductible and $972.22 he owed in coinsurance.

The Problem: Ghost Bills From Visits Past

This September, Kruzic received a bill for his pepper-induced ER visit in 2023.

Unfortunately for patients, there are no uniform rules for timely billing.

Anticipating a bill, Kruzic repeatedly checked the hospital’s online portal, as well as that of his insurer, UnitedHealthcare. He noted that the insurer said the claim had been processed shortly after his treatment. For about eight months, he kept checking the hospital portal’s billing section, which indicated he owed “$0.” He called UnitedHealthcare, and Kruzic said a representative assured him that if the hospital said he owed nothing, that was the case.

It is unclear what caused the nearly two-year delay. At least part of the problem seems to have involved protracted disagreements between the insurer and the hospital over how much his visit should have cost.

A photo of Maxwell Kruzic standing on steps outside his home.
It took two years for Kruzic to get a bill for his October 2023 trip to the ER. There are no uniform rules requiring hospitals and other medical providers to bill patients in a timely manner after care. (Jeremy Wade Shockley for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Lindsay Radford Foster, a spokesperson for CommonSpirit Health, the hospital system, said in a statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News: “United Healthcare, the insurer responsible for the medical claim, underpaid the account based on the care provided. As a result, CommonSpirit contacted UnitedHealthcare’s Payer Relations Department to rectify the underpayments.”

Asked why it had taken two years, she cited a reorganization at UnitedHealthcare and a change in the insurer’s representative assigned to the case.

But UnitedHealthcare contested that view. “This was paid accurately,” said Caroline Landree, a spokesperson for the insurer.

But those explanations don’t satisfy Kruzic, a geological consultant: “Receiving a bill two years after the service wouldn’t fly in any other industry. We could never contact a client two years after we completed a project and say, ‘By the way, we missed this charge.’”

“How could this be considered anything but surprise billing?” he added.

The federal No Surprises Act doesn’t protect against all types of medical bills that patients find surprising. It primarily protects patients from out-of-network charges when they visit an in-network hospital, or in an emergency.

But in medical billing, what’s legal and what’s reasonable are two very different issues.

“The bill certainly sounds outrageous,” said Maxwell Mehlmen, co-director of the Law-Medicine Center at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. “The question is whether it’s legal.”

That, he said, “is a matter of state law and the terms of the insurance policy and the agreement between the hospital and the insurer.”

In Colorado, there are extensive regulations about how long health care providers have to file a claim and . For instance, claims for Medicaid patients must be filed from the date of service. For patients with private insurance, the terms may be outlined in their insurers’ contracts with individual providers.

If a hospital and the provider and insurer were working out payment in good faith, then a patient can be billed for their share of the costs years later.

The Resolution

Within hours of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News contacting the hospital’s media relations department for this article, Kruzic got a call from a hospital executive telling him his bill had been adjusted to zero.

Blaming administrative changes at the insurer, Radford Foster of CommonSpirit said that UnitedHealthcare had taken so long to properly pay the bill that the hospital couldn’t collect from the patient. She said that Kruzic’s statement balance “was to be adjusted to zero, but due to a clerical error, a statement was sent to the patient in error.”

UnitedHealthcare’s Landree said that “given the significant delay, we are addressing this issue directly with the physician’s office.”

“Mr. Kruzic will not be responsible for any additional costs related to this bill,” she said.

A photo of Kruzic posing for a photo outside by a wooded area.
“Receiving a bill two years after the service wouldn’t fly in any other industry,” says Kruzic, who works as a geological consultant. “We could never contact a client two years after we completed a project and say, ‘By the way, we missed this charge.’” (Jeremy Wade Shockley for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

The Takeaway

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Bill of the Month” series receives complaints every year about ghost bills — bills that arrive long after a service is rendered.

Sometimes it’s because the insurer and hospital are haggling over payment, and the patient’s responsibility — usually a percentage of that number — can’t be calculated until the dispute is resolved. Other times, insurers audit old bills and, determining they overpaid, try to claw back the money, resulting in the patient (or even the patient’s surviving spouse) being billed for the difference.

For now, the legality of billing long after treatment depends primarily on the fine print of insurance contracts.

An insurer’s word that a claim has been “processed” doesn’t mean that the insurer has agreed to pay and that the billing is resolved. It could also mean that the insurer balked at the bill or completely denied payment.

As for Kruzic and his affinity for hot peppers? He said he still loves spicy food, but in his cooking, “I will not use scorpion peppers again.”

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/scorpion-peppers-spicy-food-colorado-bill-of-the-month-december-2025/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2131627&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2131627
Not Serious Enough To Turn on the Siren, Toddler’s 39-Mile Ambulance Ride Still Cost Over $9,000 /health-care-costs/short-nonurgent-ambulance-ride-surprise-bill-of-the-month-november-2025/ Tue, 25 Nov 2025 10:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2122798 Elisabeth Yoder’s son, Darragh, was 15 months old in August when he developed what at first looked to his parents like hand, foot, and mouth disease. The common generally clears up in less than a week, but Darragh’s condition worsened over several days. His skin turned bright red. Blisters gave way to skin peeling off his face.

An online search of his symptoms suggested he had a serious bacterial infection. Yoder drove the toddler from their home in the small town of Mechanicsburg, Ohio, to the Mercy Health hospital in nearby Urbana.

Staff in the emergency room there quickly confirmed that Darragh had scalded skin syndrome and said he needed to be taken by a private company’s ambulance to Dayton Children’s, a hospital about 40 miles away.

“I asked them: ‘Can I take him? Can I drive him?’” Yoder said. “And they were like, ‘Oh, absolutely not.’”

So, Yoder and her son got into the ambulance, with Darragh strapped in his car seat. The ambulance driver didn’t turn on the siren or drive particularly fast, Yoder said. The trip took about 40 minutes, she said. “It was fairly straightforward transportation from Point A to Point B.”

Yoder had heard that ambulance rides can be pricey. But she didn’t know how much her son’s ride would cost.

Darragh was hospitalized for three days and recovered from the illness.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Procedure

During the ride, the ambulance crew monitored Darragh’s vitals and an intravenous line, inserted at the hospital, carrying fluids and antibiotics, but he received no other medical treatment, Yoder said.

The Final Bill

$9,250, which included a “base rate” charge of $6,600 for a “specialty care transport” and a mileage fee of $2,340, calculated at $60 for each of the ride’s 39 miles. It also included $250 for use of an intravenous infusion pump and $60 for monitoring Darragh’s blood oxygen.

The Problem: No Insurance, Few Protections

The children’s hospital charged only about $3,000 more for the toddler’s three-day stay than the ambulance company charged for the ride, Yoder said.

Darragh’s family doesn’t have health insurance, leaving them on the hook for the full charges. Their income is a bit too high for them to qualify for Medicaid, the public health program that covers low-income residents, or for the Ohio Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers moderate-income kids.

The Yoders belong to a Christian health care sharing ministry, with members paying into a fund that helps reimburse them for medical bills.

Unlike health insurance, such arrangements do not offer members negotiated rates with ambulance companies or other medical providers. And there are no state or federal billing protections that would help an uninsured patient in Ohio with a ground ambulance bill.

A photo of Elisabeth Yoder walking with Darragh.
Darragh’s family doesn’t have health insurance, leaving them on the hook for the full charges. Their income is a bit too high for them to qualify for Medicaid or for the Ohio Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Maddie McGarvey for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

The federal No Surprises Act protects those with insurance from large bills for air ambulance transportation provided outside their insurers’ network agreements. But ground ambulance services aren’t covered by the law — and even if they were, that wouldn’t have helped the Yoders, since they didn’t have insurance.

Patricia Kelmar, the senior director of health care campaigns , a national advocacy group, said ambulance charges vary widely. She said she’s seen per-mile charges ranging from less than $30 to more than $80, as well as base rates that differ dramatically.

Some patients, such as those with traumatic injuries, need ambulances with highly trained staff and advanced medical equipment, Kelmar said, so it makes sense that those rides would be more expensive. But patients rarely are told what the ride will cost until they receive a bill.

Jennifer Robinson, a spokesperson for Mercy Health, said she couldn’t comment on a specific patient’s case but said the staff follows established medical standards. “When a patient requires a higher level of treatment, ambulance transfer between facilities is best practice to ensure appropriate care,” she said in an email to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Kimberly Godden, a vice president for the ambulance company, Superior Ambulance Service, said a doctor at the first hospital requested a high-level transport for the patient, requiring specially trained staff.

“Our priority is always to ensure patients receive the highest-quality care when they need it most, and we respond to every call regardless of a patient’s ability to pay,” Godden said in an email. “Superior had the team and resources available to quickly and safely move the patient to the higher level of care they needed within the time frame set by the ordering physician.”

Godden said the company would offer a “charity care” rate to Yoder if the family qualified for it.

The Resolution

Yoder said she repeatedly discussed the bill with ambulance company representatives, including the option for charity care. They told Yoder the best deal they could offer was to reduce the total by about 40%, to $5,600, if the family paid it in a lump sum, she said.

After months of discussion, the family wound up agreeing to that deal, Yoder said. They put the charge on a new credit card, which gave them 17 months to pay it off with no interest.

They have agreed to payment plans with the two hospitals, which offered charity care discounts that dropped the bills to a total of about $6,800.

The Yoders expect the sharing ministry to reimburse them for about 75% of the payments they’re making to the hospitals and the ambulance service.

The Takeaway

Patients and their families should feel comfortable asking hospital staffers whether a recommended ambulance company is in their insurance network and how much the ride to another location will cost, said Kelmar, a national expert on such bills. “Shouldn’t the hospital know that?” she said. “I don’t think it’s that heavy of a lift.”

Kelmar said she doesn’t want to discourage people from taking an ambulance if a doctor says it’s necessary. Once consumers receive a bill for the service, she said, they often can negotiate the price down. It can help to look up what the ambulance service accepts as payment from government programs. Those rates are often much lower than the full-price charges patients see on a bill.

If the family had been covered by Ohio’s Medicaid program, the ambulance service would have been paid much less than it charged the Yoders. The public health program pays ambulance services for “specialty care transports,” plus $5.05 per mile. Those rates would have added up to $609.95 for the transportation part of Darragh’s ambulance ride.

Yoder said she wishes she had driven Darragh straight to the children’s hospital. If she had skipped the local ER, she said, they would have arrived at the bigger hospital sooner and she would have saved thousands of dollars.

But she didn’t feel as if she had a choice about putting her son in the ambulance, she said. The doctor told her it was necessary, and the hospital staff had already inserted an intravenous line. “I wasn’t going to pull out his IV line and just leave,” she said.

Yoder said she remains uninsured because she hasn’t seen any private insurance options that suit her family’s circumstances. No matter who pays the ambulance bill, she thinks the charges were much too high. She understands that patients can often negotiate discounts, she said, “but you shouldn’t have to work so hard for it.”

Elisabeth Yoder nuzzling her son's cheek.
Yoder with her son, Darragh. (Maddie McGarvey for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and  that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/short-nonurgent-ambulance-ride-surprise-bill-of-the-month-november-2025/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2122798&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2122798
The Government Is Open /podcast/what-the-health-422-government-shutdown-aca-tax-credits-november-13-2025/ Thu, 13 Nov 2025 18:45:44 +0000 /?p=2117249&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2117249 The Host
Emmarie Huetteman photo
Emmarie Huetteman Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Emmarie Huetteman, senior editor, oversees a team of Washington reporters, as well as “Bill of the Month” and “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.” She previously spent more than a decade reporting on the federal government, most recently covering surprise medical bills, drug pricing reform, and other health policy debates in Washington and on the campaign trail. 

The longest federal government shutdown in history is over, after a handful of House and Senate Democrats joined most Republicans in approving legislation that funds the government through January. Despite Democrats’ demands, the package did not include an extension of the expanded tax credits that help most Affordable Care Act enrollees afford their plans — meaning most people with ACA plans are slated to pay much more toward their premiums next year.

Also, new details are emerging about the Trump administration’s efforts to use the Medicaid program — for low-income and disabled people — to advance its immigration and trans health policy goals. And President Donald Trump has unveiled deals with two major pharmaceutical companies designed to increase access to weight loss drugs for some Americans.

This week’s panelists are Emmarie Huetteman of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Anna Edney photo
Anna Edney Bloomberg News
Shefali Luthra photo
Shefali Luthra The 19th
Sandhya Raman photo
Sandhya Raman CQ Roll Call

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Though the shutdown deal did not include an extension of the enhanced ACA subsidies, it came with a plan for a Senate vote by next month — on what exactly, it is unclear. Senate Republicans appear to be coalescing around providing money via health savings accounts rather than through the subsidies, while House Republicans seem more fragmented. The clock is ticking; the existing credits expire on Jan. 1, and open enrollment has begun.
  • Even as the Trump administration is likely to be tied up in court over its efforts to use Medicaid to crack down on health care for immigrants and trans people, they’ve had a real chilling effect. Immigrants, for instance, are skipping medical care, and hospitals are cutting back on offering gender-affirming care for trans people for fear of losing federal funding.
  • Trump’s newly announced GLP-1 price deals could help Medicare enrollees afford the weight loss drugs, potentially opening up access to a new population of patients — and customers. And a steady stream of policy reversals, unexplained dismissals, and negative news coverage is leading to worries that the FDA’s credibility is being undermined by internal drama. Also in question is whether it’s interfering with the agency’s work. Drug companies would likely say yes, and some within the FDA are trying to combat these concerns.
  • A major anti-abortion group is leaning into the current electoral moment, targeting key states and preparing for sizable political contributions ahead of next year’s midterm elections. Abortion opponents see an opportunity to capitalize on voters’ changing motivations and reposition themselves to fit into the post-Trump Republican Party.

Also this week, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Julie Rovner interviews Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Julie Appleby, who wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a doctor who became the patient after a car accident sent her to the hospital — and $64,000 into debt. Do you have an outrageous medical bill? Tell us about it!

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Emmarie Huetteman: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Immigrants With Health Conditions May Be Denied Visas Under New Trump Administration Guidance,” by Amanda Seitz.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “,” by Tim Loh, Hayley Warren, and Julia Janicki.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “,” by Orion Rummler.

Sandhya Raman: BBC’s “,” by Nadine Yousif.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

Click to open the transcript Transcript: The Government Is Open

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]  

Emmarie Huetteman: Hello and welcome to “What the Health?” from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU. I’m Emmarie Huetteman, a senior editor for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, filling in for host Julie Rovner this week. I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Nov. 13, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today, we’re joined via video conference by Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning. 

Huetteman: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everyone. 

Huetteman: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Huetteman: Later in this episode, we’ll have Julie’s interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Julie Appleby, who wrote our latest “Bill of the Month” story about a doctor who became the patient after a car accident sent her to the hospital and $64,000 into debt. But first, this week’s news. 

The longest federal government shutdown in history is over. Late Wednesday, six House Democrats joined most Republicans in approving legislation that funds the government through January. That vote came after a handful of Senate Democrats broke ranks with their party last weekend and brokered a deal to end the shutdown. Although the Trump administration was still fighting earlier this week not to fully fund food stamps, the White House has said those benefits would be fully restored within hours of the shutdown’s end. That said, food banks and other safety-net programs have warned the shutdown’s consequences could linger, especially for those who were forced to redirect rent money, dip into savings, and make other sacrifices to feed their families. Notably, despite Democrats’ demands, the deal does not include an extension of the expanded tax credits that help people afford Affordable Care Act plans. That means those enhanced subsidies are still slated to expire at the end of the year. Sandhya, you were on Capitol Hill last night. What was included in the deal? And now that the shutdown’s over, can we expect a vote on extending the tax credits? 

Raman: So part of that deal was that sometime in the middle of next month, the Senate is going to be able to vote on a health bill of Democrats’ choosing to extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year. There’s been a decent amount of talk already in both chambers about what a health care bill could look like, because it would need to be bipartisan to pass. There’s some multiple camps right now. 

I think in the Senate, Republicans are coalescing around putting money into flexible savings accounts instead of doing an extension of the credits as something that they would want to do instead. There are other Republicans that are still open to extending the credits with some reforms attached. The House, we figured out last night, was a little bit more fragmented. They’re less united in the way the House is around doing something with the flexible spending accounts. So a lot of them are still anti-extending the credits at all. They are working on a health package, but it remains to be seen what they want to do with that, given the short amount of time they have. But I think a lot of them are also looking for the same reforms that the Senate is on the Republican side, if they do sign on to extend them. 

Huetteman: Yeah, short is right. We’re already looking at that Dec. 31 deadline to extend the existing credits. And of course, we’re already in the open enrollment period at this point. People are already getting their plans for next year. Polls show that most Americans blamed Republicans for the shutdown. A tracking poll from my KFF colleagues out last week showed most Americans want Congress to extend the tax credits. Republicans are aware of this heading into the midterms next year, no? 

Raman: I think that’s definitely been a big factor when talking to folks, especially ones that I think have been more interested in extending the credits are set up for our competitive races next year. There has been talk at different times of doing a one-year extension. But that puts us pretty close to the midterms, which might not be in everyone’s best interest depending on how things shake out. So, I think it’s definitely in a lot of folks’ minds, just because it is a lot more popular than it has been in previous years. But there are a lot of the more conservative folks that just have been anti-ACA for so long, that they don’t want to extend something that was … The enhanced subsidies were started by Democrats during covid. They think it’s a covid-era thing that needs to be phased out. 

Huetteman: Yeah, and also notably, you might’ve noticed I said that they only funded the government through January. Does that mean we’re getting ready to do this again in a couple of months? 

Raman: There’s a chance. So part of the deal got done this week is that they did three of the 12 spending bills that they do every year to fund the government. But they usually do them in order of which ones are easiest to get done. So we still have to come to agreements on some of the bigger ones, including Labor, HHS [Health and Human Services]. Education is what funds most of the health activities, and that’s usually a tougher one. So, I think it depends on a few things. Are folks sticking to their word? Do they get that health care vote that they were promised? Do other things shake out that make people at odds with each other over the next bit? But we could possibly be in the same situation if we don’t make inroads on funding the government for a yearlong situation before then. 

Huetteman: Oh goodness. Well, it sounds like we’ll be back again having this conversation soon. Meanwhile, months after the president [Donald Trump] signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill with big changes to Medicaid, new details are emerging about how the Trump administration is using the Medicaid program to promote its policy goals. My Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Phil Galewitz recently reported on how the Trump administration has ordered state Medicaid agencies to investigate the immigration status of certain enrollees â€” providing states with lists of names to re-verify â€” and effectively roping the health program into the president’s immigration crackdown. 

Also, NPR reports the Trump administration plans to dramatically restrict access to medical care for transgender youth. New proposals that could be released as soon as this month would block federal money from being spent on trans care. Policy experts say that would make it difficult, if not impossible, to access that care, in large part because government funding is a huge source of revenue, and losing it could force hospitals to end the programs entirely. Both of these programs are pretty striking: enlisting Medicaid to perform spot checks of immigration status, and also potentially blocking funding for trans care. Have we seen other presidential administrations use Medicaid like this? And since we’re talking about funding, is there a role for Congress here? 

Luthra: My understanding is that this approach, specifically with gender-affirming care and with immigration, doesn’t really have a precedent. And what I think is really important about these is these are decisions that will be litigated, challenged, argued in court. But, even if and as that happens, there’s a real chilling effect that I think is really important. Already, we know that a lot of immigrants are very afraid to sign up even for benefits they are entitled to, because they’re worried it could count against them. We already know that a lot of immigrants with health needs are skipping their health care because they are so worried about what happens if ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] shows up at a hospital. This only threatens to add to that. On the vantage of gender-affirming care, already we have seen some major hospitals and health providers drop the offering, even in anticipation of this policy coming into effect. So I think what’s really important is to understand that no matter what happens, already, people’s health is really being affected, and people are suffering as a result. 

Raman: I think we’ve seen little sprinkles of some of these things that have happened in the past, but this is elevated at such a level that it’s different. Even in the first Trump administration, there were some things put in place with the public charge to crack down on what benefits immigrants could be entitled to. But I think, as with a lot of the things that we’re seeing, it’s really been amped up. I think one thing that Shefali was saying that made me think of was, we’ve already seen a lot of this chilling effect with a lot of things in abortion and reproductive care, where even if laws or regulations don’t go into effect, they’re being talked about or litigated. It already has that effect of people not wanting to show up or not knowing what’s available to them. So we have a little bit of that to look at as well. 

Huetteman: Yeah, absolutely. All right, well, we’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back with more health news. 

We’re back. In an Oval Office announcement last week, President Trump unveiled agreements with the pharmaceutical giants Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk to offer some Americans lower prices on their weight loss drugs. Under the deals, the Trump administration says, most eligible patients on Medicare and Medicaid, or those who use the planned TrumpRx website, would pay a few hundred dollars a month for some of the most popular GLP-1 drugs. That’s compared to current price tags, which can be $1,000 or more. Anna, these are only some of the most recent deals between the Trump administration and drugmakers. What does this mean for Americans who take these weight loss drugs, and what do the companies get in exchange? 

Edney: Yeah, I think for Americans who take these or are hoping to take these, I think, is probably where it really opens up. Because … Medicare was not covering these. Now that they’ve come to the table and made a deal, it might open it up to some Medicare beneficiaries. I don’t think you’re going to see everyone on Medicare who wants it be able to get it. I think it’ll be a little stricter on what BMI [body mass index] and comorbidities and things that they need to meet, but it will open access to some Americans. Medicaid, I think, it might not be as beneficial for people’s pocketbooks because they’re already paying extremely low out-of-pocket prices, and Medicaid already negotiates very low prices. That might not be the big change that it was hyped up to be. 

But on the Medicare side, certainly, the companies benefit from that, too, because that opens a new patient population to them. And through TrumpRx â€” that’s the other place where they made this deal for lowered prices on the GLP-1s â€” a lot of people have employer coverage that they might be trying to already get these drugs through, and then they’re not paying a whole lot out-of-pocket. But there are employer coverage plans that aren’t covering GLP-1s because they’re just so expensive. So it could be a place where some people might go to try to comparison shop and get their GLP-1s that they didn’t have access to before. 

Huetteman: I also noticed, in looking at the Trump administration’s fact sheet on this, that they were heralding that the companies had agreed to some extra American manufacturing. Let’s say concessions. Am I correct about that? Is this connected to tariffs by any chance? 

Edney: Yeah, I think that that’s been going on in conjunction with some of these deals. As you usually hear the companies say, And we’re opening a new factory in Virginia or somewhereAnd certainly they’re trying to avoid the tariffs. As with a lot of these things, some of it, in some cases, they have been factories that the companies were already planning to open, and then they just pumped up for this purpose. I think for so many of this â€” and even for the prices, the lower prices that these companies are negotiating â€” we just haven’t seen the details that will matter on what the company’s got, and what the American people actually benefit from for all of this, and what these factories will mean or will be making. These are things that might not come online for several years. So you can say you’re building something, but will we see it once Trump is out of office? 

Huetteman: Exactly. And a lot of the framing has been: We’re helping Americans by bringing this work back to America, so that Americans can do the work, so that Americans can benefit from the drug prices. But it seems like there’s at best a lag on that sort of benefit. Right? 

Edney: Definitely. Definitely a lag on being able to bring some of that stuff online. I think with a lot of the Trump administration’s health policies â€” and I use that word loosely â€” it is that it is a lot of negotiation and handshakes. And so we don’t really know how solid those efforts will be in the years to come. 

Huetteman: Well, we can definitely keep an eye on that. In other news: Drama, drama, drama at the Food and Drug Administration. With a steady stream of controversial policy reversals, unexplained dismissals, and just plain unflattering stories, concerns are growing that mismanagement at the FDA is undermining the usually cautious agency’s credibility. In some of the latest developments, Stat reported the FDA’s top drug regulator resigned after being accused of using his position to punish a former associate. Stat also reported that dozens of scientists are considering leaving the already diminished FDA office that regulates vaccines, biologics, and the blood supply to get away from a toxic work environment. What are the ramifications of problems at the FDA? Is the internal drama interfering with business there? 

Edney: I think the pharmaceutical industry would say yes, definitely. They’re feeling like their applications for new drugs aren’t getting reviewed in time. They’re worried that they’re not going to be reviewed in time. And this starts with the administration letting go hundreds of workers in those offices, but also, is now … There’s just been such chaos at the top. You had Vinay Prasad, who is the head of vaccines and biologic drugs there, who has been let go and then brought back. And then now we have the head of the drug center, George Tidmarsh, who resigned under investigation for basically using his position to fulfill a vendetta against an old colleague who pushed him out of some companies. And so I think, certainly, there’s a lot of potential for disruption, as people are trying to avoid retaliation, avoid getting in the crosshairs of all of this. 

And recently, the FDA has now put Rick Pazdur, who was the head of their cancer center, in charge of the drug center to try to show some stability to encourage the pharmaceutical industry. Because he is someone who’s really pushed for innovation, pushed for trying to get drugs to the market faster. And he’s been at the FDA for, I think, 26 years. So, they’re trying to show some stability with that. But we’ll have to see how that goes because he’s also been highly criticized in the past by Prasad, and they’ll be working closely together at the head of those two centers. 

Huetteman: Well, finally, in reproductive health news, a federal judge ruled late last month that the FDA violated federal law by restricting access to mifepristone. While the government’s restrictions remain in place for the politically controversial medication, which is used to manage miscarriages as well as abortions, the judge did order the FDA to consider the relevant evidence in order to “provide a reasoned explanation for its restrictions.” And a major anti-abortion group, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, announced plans for it and its super PAC [political action committee] to spend about $80 million in at least four states to support anti-abortion candidates in the midterm elections next year. Shefali, what does this say about how abortion opponents see this moment? What are they looking to gain in the midterms and beyond? 

Luthra: It’s so interesting to me to see how much anti-abortion groups are really â€” and, in particular, SBA â€” leaning into this moment. And they really see this as a reversal of last year’s election, where Trump certainly won. But we do know from polling that voters largely opposed abortion restrictions, supported abortion rights. I think some really useful context is to consider that the president, despite being backed by abortion opponents, has not really been the champion many of them would’ve hoped for. He hasn’t actually done very much on abortion, has not taken the very meaningful steps that you might’ve expected in a post-Dobbs landscape [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] to remarkably restrict it, beyond the normal things any Republican president does. And so I think what we’re seeing here is an effort to reposition the anti-abortion movement beyond this presidential administration. Thinking ahead to what does it look like if there is a post-Trump GOP? 

How do you build out a movement that is a more staunch ally to the anti-abortion movement going forward? One other thing that I think is really noteworthy is: A lot of abortion opponents are looking at polling that says that voters who support abortion rights aren’t prioritizing it in the same way they might have a year ago. And they’re really hoping that things can revert to how they used to be. Or the voters who were these single-issue abortion voters were on their side, were supportive of restrictions, and then might be mobilized by these kinds of really seismic investments in elections. 

Huetteman: Yeah, absolutely. I’m thinking about now how there was such a reaction about a month ago â€” check me on the timing â€” when a generic version of the abortion pill was put out. What was the reaction like then, and what does that say about how they feel the Trump administration is reacting to their needs? 

Luthra: A lot of abortion opponents were really livid about this, and approving this generic was pretty standard. It was not that complicated of a process. This drug has been available for so long in other forms. But it underscored that a lot of people who oppose abortion feel like they’re really just waiting. The HHS and the FDA have promised this review of mifepristone that they say could ultimately lead to restrictions. But all it has really been has been a promise this review is ongoing, is coming. There will eventually be results, but there haven’t been any. So to be waiting for some kind of policy that people keep telling you is coming, and then at the same time, to see actually the FDA moving to make abortion medication more available â€” not less â€” is really frustrating for a lot of people who hope that this administration would be an ally to them. 

Huetteman: Absolutely. OK. That’s it for this week’s news. Now, we’ll have Julie’s interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Julie Appleby. And then we’ll do our extra credits. 

Julie Rovner: I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ other Julie, Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News “Bill of the Month.” Julie, welcome back. 

Julie Appleby: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient is actually a doctor, so she knows how the system works. But, as so often happens, she was in a car accident and ended up in an out-of-network hospital. Tell us who she is and what kind of care she needed. 

Appleby: OK. Her name is Lauren Hughes, and she was heading to see patients at a clinic about 20 miles from where she lives in Denver back in February when another driver T-boned her car, totaling it. She was taken by ambulance to the closest hospital, which turned out to be Platte Valley Hospital, where she was diagnosed with bruising, a deep cut on her knee, and a broken ankle. Physicians there recommended immediate surgical repair because they wanted to wash out that wound on her knee. And also, she needed some screws in her ankle to hold it in place. 

Rovner: So then after the surgery and an overnight stay, she goes home, and then the bills start to come. How much did it end up costing? 

Appleby: Well, she was billed $63,976 by the hospital. 

Rovner: And the insurance company denied her claim. What was their argument? 

Appleby: Yeah, this is where it gets complicated, as many of these things often do. Her insurer, Anthem, fully covered the nearly $2,400 ambulance ride and some smaller radiology charges from the ER. But it denied the surgery and the overnight stay charges from the hospital, which did happen to be out-of-network. Four days after her surgery, Anthem notified Hughes in a letter that after consulting clinical guidelines for her type of ankle repair, its reviewer determined that it wasn’t medically necessary for her to be fully admitted for an inpatient hospital stay. So, the note said that if she’d needed additional surgery or had other problems such as vomiting or fever, an inpatient stay might’ve been warranted. But they didn’t have that in this case. And generally, people don’t stay overnight in the hospital after broken ankle surgery. 

Rovner: Of course, she had no car and she â€¦ 

Appleby: Right? Her car was totaled. She had no way to get home. She had nobody to pick her up. And it turns out, there’s a couple more little quirks. So the surgery charges were denied because this quirk that under Anthem’s agreement with the hospital, all claims for services before and after a patient are approved or denied together. So, since the hospital stay was generally not required after the ankle surgery, the surgery charges itself were denied as well. Even though Anthem said they always felt that that was medically necessary â€” that she needed the ankle surgery â€” it all came down to this overnight hospital stay. 

Rovner: So, isn’t this exactly what the federal surprise billing law was supposed to eliminate â€” being in an accident, getting taken to an out-of-network hospital for emergency care? How did it not apply here? 

Appleby: Right. Well, that’s where it’s so interesting because initially, that’s what everybody thought: The No Surprises Act would cover it. And the No Surprises Act from 2022, it’s aimed at preventing these so-called surprise bills, which come when you go to an out-of-network hospital or provider. And in those cases, it limits your financial liability for emergency care to the exact same cost sharing as if you had been in an in-network hospital. 

So in this case, it applies to emergency care, and we saw that it did actually cover some of her emergency room charges, and that kind of thing. But generally though, emergency care is defined as treatment needed to stabilize a patient. So once she was stabilized before the surgery, she enters this post-stabilization situation. And if your provider determines that you can travel using nonmedical transport to an in-network facility, you might lose those No Surprises Act protections. Generally, you’re asked to sign some paperwork saying you want to stay at the out-of-network facility, and you want to continue treatment, and you waive your rights in that case. Hughes does not remember getting anything like that. And this case didn’t come down to the No Surprises Act. It was a question of medical necessity. Your insurer has broad power to determine medical necessity. And if they review a situation and determine that it’s not medically necessary, and you’re post-stabilization, that trumps any No Surprises Act protections. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? 

Appleby: So what eventually happened was that the hospital resubmitted the charges as outpatient services. And that seemed to be the crux of the matter here. It was that inpatient overnight hospital stay. If she was kept [on] an observation status â€” which is a lower level of care, hospitals get paid a little bit less â€” that would’ve seemed to solve the problem. And that’s what happened here. Platte Valley resubmitted the bill, and her insurer paid about $21,000 of that bill. There was another $40,000 that was knocked off by an Anthem discount. And in the end, Hughes only owed a $250 copayment. 

Rovner: Wow. 

Appleby: Yeah. 

Rovner: Of course, you left out the part where we actually called and made it â€¦ 

Appleby: Well, there was that, too. And she was very savvy, as you mentioned. She also got her HR department at her employer involved. She wrote letters. She was not going to give up on this. That’s one of the advice that she gave is not to wait â€” not to delay too long if you get a notice of not medical necessity â€” but to quickly and aggressively question insurance denials once they’re received. Make sure you understand what’s going on. Try to get it escalated to the insurers and the hospital’s leadership. All of those things. And I think another takeaway for folks is â€” and this is harder because, look, you’re in the emergency room, you don’t know what’s going on â€” but it might be worth asking, Hey, am I post-stabilization? Am I being admitted as an inpatient? Am I being held for an observation stay? Is there some kind of difference with that in terms of my insurance coverage? And you could perhaps try to put this to the hospital billing department. But it’s even better if there’s a way you can call your insurer. But that’s not always realistic in these kinds of emergency situations. 

Rovner: Yeah, and just out of curiosity, if somebody totals my car and I end up [in] an ambulance needing surgery, I’m going to assume that the other driver’s insurance is going to pay my medical bills. Why didn’t that happen? 

Appleby: Well, in this case, the way it was explained to me is the other driver had the minimum coverage needed in the state of Colorado. And so it did pay nearly $5,000 toward some of these charges. But that’s about all it paid. 

Rovner: Wow. Well, now, obviously, as you said, Lauren Hughes is a doctor. Savvy about the way the system works, or doesn’t in this case. Even then, it took her months and called us to work this all out. How should somebody with less expertise handle a situation like this? Is there somebody they can turn to help, assuming that they’re not cognizant enough to start asking questions about their admission status while they’re still in the emergency room waiting for surgery? 

Appleby: Right. Again, that is so complicated. If you can, call your insurer and see what they have to say. And again, it may be after hours. It may be not possible. Perhaps see if you can chat with the hospital billing department. But again, some of this is going to be after the fact. And remember, the billing in this situation came down to how the hospital coded the billing. They coded it as an inpatient hospital stay, and that’s after the fact. And there’s not a lot you can do about it. But in the end, it was resubmitted as an outpatient service, and that made all the difference in this case. 

Rovner: Wow. Another complicated one. Or I guess you can just write to us. Julie Appleby, thank you very much. 

Appleby: Thanks for having me. 

Huetteman: All right, now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week that we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Anna, how about you go first this week? 

Edney: Sure. This story is from a few of my colleagues at Bloomberg. “.” And I thought this was an interesting story, not just because there is the possibility that the world’s most-used weed killer could be going away because it’s just folding under so many legal challenges related to cancer. But it’s also just a deep dive to look at this herbicide that has affected all of our lives and how it came to be, what’s going on with it now, why it’s not working. And also at this company, Bayer, that in the middle of these legal challenges, bought the company that owned Roundup. So I just think it’s an interesting look at the whole situation and something that we’ve probably all consumed before in certain ways, through just fruits and vegetables and different seeds and things. 

Huetteman: Definitely. Shefali, how about your story? 

Luthra: Sure. So I picked a four-part series by my colleague at The 19th, Orion Rummler. The headline for the piece I picked is “” I think this is a really smart package of stories because, as Orion notes, people who have “detransitioned” â€” transitioned and then transitioned back â€” are a really central part of the modern conservative movement’s efforts to target trans health and, in particular, trans health for young people. Saying, look at these people who transitioned and then came back and regretted it. But there hasn’t been a lot of journalism actually looking at people who navigate this experience beyond those who are these political tokens. So Orion does exactly that. He talked to people who have had the experience of transitioning and then detransitioning in some way. 

He notes that this is a pretty rare experience to have this journey with one’s gender, but that the people he interviewed, he profiled, said that they felt really frustrated with how the conversation has unfolded. In fact, their transitioning was an important part of their journey to discover their gender, and that they are deeply concerned that restrictions on trans health could be harmful to them and their loved ones as well. I think this is really valuable journalism, and I’m so excited that Orion did it, and I hope everyone reads it. 

Huetteman: That’s really interesting. Thank you for sharing that one. Sandhya, what do you have this week? 

Raman: So I pick, “,” and it’s by Nadine Yousif for the BBC. So this week, the Pan-American Health Organization, Canada is no longer measles-free. And so that means that the Americas region as a whole has lost its elimination status. I thought this was important because in the U.S., we’re at a 33-year high with measles. And Mexico has also seen a surge in cases. And just an interesting way to look at what’s happening a little broader than just the U.S. lens, as all these places are seeing fewer people vaccinated against measles. 

Huetteman: Thanks for sharing that story, Sandhya. My extra credit this week is a great scoop from my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Amanda Seitz. The headline is, “Immigrants With Health Conditions May Be Denied Visas Under New Trump Administration Guidance.” Amanda got her hands on a State Department cable that expands the list of reasons that would make visa applicants ineligible to enter the country, including now age or the likelihood they might rely on government benefits. And it gives visa officers quite a bit of power to make those calls.  

Now immigrants, they’re already screened for communicable diseases and mental health problems. But the new guidance goes further and emphasizes that chronic diseases should be considered. And it calls on those visa officers to assess whether applicants can pay for their own medical care, noting that certain medical conditions can “require hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of care.” 

All right, that’s this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineers, Taylor Cook and Francis Ying. “What the Health?” is available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts. And, as always, on kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on . Where are you folks these days? Sandhya? 

Raman: I’m on  and on  @SandhyaWrites. 

Huetteman: Shefali? 

Luthra: I’m on Bluesky . 

Huetteman: And Anna? 

Edney:  or  @AnnaEdney. 

Huetteman: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Stephanie Stapleton Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl 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 <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-422-government-shutdown-aca-tax-credits-november-13-2025/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2117249&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2117249