Surprise Bills Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /tag/surprise-bills/ Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Fri, 17 Apr 2026 16:30:16 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Surprise Bills Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /tag/surprise-bills/ 32 32 161476233 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 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
Watch: A Strange Checkup Bill Revealed a Firefighter’s Kids Were Mistakenly Uninsured /health-care-costs/watch-costly-care-checkup-surprise-bill-line-of-duty-health-insurance-benefits-children/ Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:00:00 +0000

After Susannah Reed-McCullough’s husband died in 2018, she and their young daughters continued to receive health insurance through his job as a firefighter in Maryland.

Then, in 2024, she got an unexpected medical bill: $377 for a checkup for one of her children the previous fall. Reed-McCullough said she called the doctor’s billing department and learned the insurance company had dropped the children’s coverage.

The drop turned out to be a mistake. But Reed-McCullough said she was forced to act as the go-between for her late husband’s human resources department and their insurer — all while worried about her daughters’ being uninsured.

In this installment of InvestigateTV and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Costly Care” series, Caresse Jackman, InvestigateTV’s national consumer investigative reporter, explores how administrative errors can leave patients on the hook for medical bills they shouldn’t owe, sometimes with few options to correct a problem they didn’t create.

Jackman interviewed Elisabeth Rosenthal, senior contributing editor at Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, who said accidental coverage drops are “a common problem” in need of attention from state regulators.

“People make mistakes, systems make mistakes, and they should be held responsible for them, not the patient,” Rosenthal said.

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/watch-costly-care-checkup-surprise-bill-line-of-duty-health-insurance-benefits-children/">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=2147847&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2147847
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 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 . Other times, insurers audit old bills and, determining they overpaid, try to claw back the money, resulting in the patient (or ) 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 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 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  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? !

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 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 “” 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? !

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’ “,” 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:

  • KFF’s “,” by Audrey Kearney, Alex Montero, Mardet Mulugeta, Ashley Kirzinger, and Liz Hamel.
  • Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “,” by Phil Galewitz.
  • NPR’s “,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin.
  • Stat’s “,” by Lizzy Lawrence and Adam Feuerstein.
  • Stat’s “,” by Lizzy Lawrence.
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, “.” 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 . 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

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
Doctor Tripped Up by $64K Bill for Ankle Surgery and Hospital Stay /health-care-costs/doctor-ankle-surgery-hospital-stay-surprise-bill-of-the-month-october-2025/ Wed, 29 Oct 2025 09:00:00 +0000 Physician Lauren Hughes was heading to see patients at a clinic about 20 miles from her Denver home in February when another driver T-boned her Subaru, totaling it. She was taken by ambulance to the closest hospital, Platte Valley Hospital.

A shaken Hughes was examined in the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with bruising, a deep cut on her knee, and a broken ankle. Physicians recommended immediate surgical repair, she said.

“They said: ‘You have this fracture and a big gaping wound in your knee. We need to take you to the OR to wash it out and make sure there’s no infection,’” she said. “As a clinician, I thought, ‘Yes.’”

She was taken to the operating room in the early evening, then admitted to the hospital overnight.

A friend took her home the next day.

Then the bills came.

The Medical Procedure

Surgeons cleaned the cut on her right knee, which had hit her car’s dashboard, and realigned a broken bone in her right ankle, stabilizing it with metal screws. Surgery is typically recommended when a broken bone is deemed unlikely to heal properly with only a cast.

The Final Bill

$63,976.35, charged by the hospital — which was not in-network with the insurance plan she got through her job — for the surgery and overnight stay.

The Problem: Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Hughes’ insurer, Anthem, fully covered the nearly $2,400 ambulance ride and some smaller radiology charges from the ER but denied the surgery and overnight stay charges from the out-of-network hospital.

“Sixty-three thousand dollars for a broken ankle and a cut to the knee, with no head injury or internal damage,” Hughes said. “Just to stay there overnight. It’s crazy.”

Insurers have broad power to determine — that is, what is needed for treatment, diagnosis, or relief. And that decision affects whether and how much they will pay for it.

Four days after her surgery, Anthem notified Hughes that after consulting clinical guidelines for her type of ankle repair, its reviewer determined it was not medically necessary for her to be fully admitted for an inpatient hospital stay.

If she had needed additional surgery or had other problems, such as vomiting or a fever, an inpatient stay might have been warranted, according to the letter. “The information we have does not show you have these or other severe problems,” it said.

To Hughes, the notion that she should have left the hospital was “ludicrous.” Her car was in a junkyard, she had no family nearby, and she was taking opioid painkillers for the first time.

When she asked for further details about medical necessity determinations, Hughes was directed deep inside her policy’s benefit booklet, which outlines that, for a hospital stay, documentation must show “safe and adequate care could not be obtained as an outpatient.”

It turns out the surgery charges were denied because of an insurance contract quirk. Under Anthem’s agreement with the hospital, all claims for services before and after a patient is admitted are approved or denied together, said Anthem spokesperson Emily Snooks.

A hospital stay is not generally required after ankle surgery, and the insurer found Hughes did not need the kind of “comprehensive, complex medical care” that would necessitate hospitalization, Snooks wrote in an email to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

“Anthem has consistently agreed that Ms. Hughes’ ankle surgery was medically necessary,” Snooks wrote. “However, because the ankle surgery was bundled with the inpatient admission, the entire claim was denied.”

Facing bills from an out-of-network hospital where she was taken by emergency responders, though, Hughes did not understand why she wasn’t shielded by the , which took effect in 2022. The federal law requires insurers to cover out-of-network providers as though they are in-network when patients receive emergency care, among other protections.

“If they had determined it was medically necessary, then they would have to apply the No Surprises Act cost,” said Matthew Fiedler, a senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at Brookings. “But the No Surprises Act is not going to override the normal medical necessity determination.”

There was one more oddity in her case. During one of many calls Hughes made trying to sort out her bill, an Anthem representative told her that things might have been different had the hospital billed for her hospitalization as an overnight “observation” stay.

Generally, that’s when patients are kept at a facility so staff can determine whether they need to be admitted. Rather than being tied to the stay’s duration, the designation mainly reflects the intensity of care. A patient with fewer needs is more likely to be billed for an observation stay.

Insurers pay hospitals less for an observation stay than admission, Fiedler said.

That distinction is a big issue for patients on Medicare. Most often, the government health program will not pay for if the patient was not first formally admitted to a .

“It’s a classic battle between providers and insurers as to what bucket a claim falls in,” Fiedler said.

A photo of Lauren Hughes at her home.
(Rachel Woolf for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

The Resolution

As a physician and a director of a health policy center at the University of Colorado, Hughes is a savvier-than-usual policyholder. Yet even she was frustrated during the months spent going back and forth with her insurer and the hospital — and worried when it looked like her account would be sent to a collection agency.

In addition to appealing the denied claims, she sought the help of her employer’s human resources department, which contacted Anthem. She also , which contacted Anthem and the Platte Valley Hospital.

In late September, Hughes received calls from a hospital official, who told her they had “downgraded the level of care” the hospital billed her insurance for and resubmitted the claim to Anthem.

In a written statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Platte Valley Hospital spokesperson Sara Quale said that the facility “deeply regrets any anxiety this situation has caused her.” The hospital had “prematurely” and erroneously sent Hughes a bill before working out the balance with Anthem, she wrote.

“After a careful review of Ms. Hughes’ situation,” Quale continued, “we have now stopped all billing to her. Furthermore, we have informed Ms. Hughes that if her insurance company ultimately assigns the remaining balance to her, she will not be billed for it.”

Anthem spokesperson Stephanie DuBois said in an email that Platte Valley resubmitted Hughes’ bill to the insurer on Oct. 3, this time for “outpatient care services.”

An explanation of benefits that was sent to Hughes shows the hospital rebilled for around $61,000 — about $40,000 of which was knocked off the total by an Anthem discount. The insurer paid the hospital nearly $21,000.

In the end, Hughes owed only a $250 copayment.

The Takeaway

There are places where patients receiving emergency care at an out-of-network hospital may fall through the cracks of federal billing protections, in particular during a phase that may be nearly indistinguishable to the patient, known as “post-stabilization.”

Generally, that occurs when the medical provider determines the patient is to an in-network facility using nonmedical transport, said Jack Hoadley, a research professor emeritus at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University.

If the patient prefers to stay put for further treatment, the out-of-network provider must then ask the patient , agreeing to waive billing protections and continue treatment at out-of-network rates, he said.

“It’s very important that if they give you some kind of letter to sign that you read that letter very carefully, because that letter might give them your permission to get some big bills,” Hoadley said.

If possible, patients should contact their insurer, in addition to asking the hospital’s billing department: Are you being fully admitted, or kept under observation status, and why? Has your care been determined to be medically necessary? Keep in mind that medical necessity determinations play a key role in whether coverage is approved or denied, even after services are provided.

That said, Hughes did not recall being told she was stable enough to leave with nonmedical transportation, nor being asked to sign a consent form.

Her advice is to quickly and aggressively question insurance denials once they are received, including by asking for your case to be escalated to the insurer’s and hospital’s leadership. She said expecting patients to navigate complicated billing questions while in the hospital after a serious injury isn’t realistic.

“I was calling family,” Hughes said, “alerting my work colleagues about what happened, processing the extent of my injuries and what needed to be done clinically, arranging care for my pet, getting labs and imaging done — coming to grips with what just happened.”

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by 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? !

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/doctor-ankle-surgery-hospital-stay-surprise-bill-of-the-month-october-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=2106729&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2106729
Big Loopholes in Hospital Charity Care Programs Mean Patients Still Get Stuck With the Tab /health-care-costs/hospital-charity-care-loopholes-needy-patients-pay/ Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2090203 Quinn Cochran-Zipp went to the emergency room three times with severe abdominal pain before doctors figured out she had early-stage cancer in the germ cells of her right ovary. After emergency surgery four years ago, the Greeley, Colorado, lab technician is cancer-free.

The two hospitals that treated Cochran-Zipp at the time determined that she qualified for 100% financial assistance, since her income as a college student was extremely low. Not having to worry about the roughly $100,000 in bills she racked up for her care was an enormous relief, she said.

Then she started receiving unexpected bills from doctors who worked at the hospitals but, because they weren’t on staff there, didn’t have to abide by the facilities’ financial assistance policies.

Those bills, which came from specialists in emergency medicine, anesthesiology, and radiology who treated her, totaled more than $5,000. Although it was a fraction of the total cost of her care, to Cochran-Zipp it was an enormous amount. She went on payment plans and used scholarship and covid stimulus money to help cover the bills.

Cochran-Zipp, now 25 and working at a community health center, is applying to medical schools and hopes to enroll next fall. Her experience as a patient has shaped how she thinks about becoming a doctor.

“I don’t think that I could be a provider that, in good conscience, charges patients money in addition to the hospital fees,” she said.

A photo of a woman smiling outside.
After emergency surgery four years ago, Quinn Cochran-Zipp is cancer-free. The hospitals treating her at the time said she qualified for 100% financial assistance, but she was billed by nonstaff medical specialists for more than $5,000.

Hospital financial assistance programs are commonplace, and many patients rely on them. Most offer varying amounts of financial help to uninsured and lower-income people. Eligibility is typically based on a sliding income scale. Some hospitals apply other tests, such as residency.

But even if people qualify for assistance, they may not get discounts. That’s because many physicians working at but not for a hospital aren’t bound by its financial assistance policies. Hospitals themselves might limit the types of services eligible for discounted or “charity care,” as it’s sometimes called.

“It’s a hole in the system,” said Caitlin Donovan, a at the , a nonprofit that helps patients with serious illnesses cover their medical bills. Case managers who work with patients report that they’ve seen these problems repeatedly, Donovan said.

In the coming years, more patients will encounter difficulties as demand for financial assistance grows. More than 14 million people are over the next decade, primarily because of changes to the federal Medicaid program and state insurance marketplaces in recently passed championed by the Trump administration. Some of these people will likely qualify for discounted care.

Nonprofit hospitals do not pay taxes on the money they make, but to maintain that tax-exempt status, they are to help patients pay for emergency and other medically necessary care. For-profit hospitals are not required to offer financial assistance to needy patients, but many do.

However, physicians and other providers who work in a hospital as independent contractors rather than as employees are often not subject to a hospital’s financial assistance policy. According to an , a health care think tank, physician services in the emergency, radiology, anesthesia, and pathology specialties are commonly excluded from hospital charity care.

For example, at , a large nonprofit health system serving Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, services performed by physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants employed by HHC, including emergency department physicians at four of its hospitals, are covered by its financial assistance policy. But treatment by emergency physicians at three HHC hospitals is not covered by the financial assistance policy, since they are not employees. Care by doctors working in isn’t covered by the financial assistance policy at any HHC facility.

Hartford HealthCare declined to comment on the record for this article.

Health system researchers have identified another potential barrier to patients’ receiving help from hospital financial assistance policies. require that nonprofit hospitals include emergency and medically necessary care in their charity care policies, but they give hospitals substantial leeway to define what “medically necessary” care means.

Historically, excluded care has been limited to services that insurance doesn’t typically cover, like cosmetic surgery or experimental treatment. But in recent years, hospitals appear to be defining medically necessary care more narrowly, eliminating financial assistance for care that is needed but not urgently required. Care that might fall into this category could be a kidney stone removal, a cancer biopsy, or a cardiac valve replacement, published this year in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the study of 209 nonprofit hospitals with more than 200 beds found only isolated examples of hospitals — about 6% of them — that substantially excluded medically necessary care, researchers are concerned that it could be the leading edge of a larger trend, said Mark Hall, a professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University, who co-authored the study.

“There’s not really much in the way of regulatory guidance in what should be in or out” of a financial assistance policy, said , a clinical assistant professor at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, who has examining hospital financial assistance policies.

The American Hospital Association declined to comment for this article. American Medical Association spokesperson Robert Mills said that the AMA doesn’t have a position on whether all contracted physicians should be required to participate in hospital financial assistance policies.

For-profit hospitals have more latitude to fashion their financial assistance policies as they wish.

At HCA Healthcare, one of the country’s largest for-profit health care systems, with nearly in 20 states and the United Kingdom, discounted or free care is available only for “.”

“Facility charity policies and uninsured discounts are typically specific to emergency services” at HCA Healthcare, said Harlow Sumerford, an HCA Healthcare spokesperson. “Any third-party providers are independent and would have their own financial policies.”

In recent years, medical debt protection laws. A few apply to some doctors and other health care providers who practice at health care facilities and bill patients separately for their care.

Colorado’s is the most expansive. Under its law that took effect in September 2022, covered hospitals have to screen all uninsured people and others who request it for eligibility for Medicaid and other health programs, and provide discounted care to people whose income is up to 250% of the federal poverty level (about ). There are limits on how much qualifying patients can be billed each month and, after three years, their debt is retired.

Under the Colorado law, licensed health care professionals who work at a covered hospital can charge qualified patients no more than the rates set by the state.

“This rule has been a game changer for folks in Colorado,” said Melissa Duncan, consumer assistance program manager at the , which helps patients access health care and cover their bills.

Unfortunately, the law didn’t pass in time to help Cochran-Zipp.

As hospitals grapple with the changes expected under the federal health care legislation passed this summer, discounted care programs may make a tempting target, say some health care financing experts. Facing higher rates of uncompensated care and trouble collecting payments from patients, facilities may reduce the financial assistance that they offer.

Hospitals may say “we are going to do all we can to protect our spending,” said , a professor of accounting and health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University. “In that environment, charity care will be a burden.”

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/hospital-charity-care-loopholes-needy-patients-pay/">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=2090203&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2090203
As Trump Punts on Medical Debt, Battle Over Patient Protections Moves to States /courts/medical-debt-battle-patient-protections-states-trump-policy-credit-reports/ Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:00:00 +0000 With the Trump administration scaling back federal efforts to protect Americans from medical bills they can’t pay, advocates for patients and consumers have shifted their work to contain the nation’s medical debt problem to state Capitols.

Despite progress in some mostly blue states this year, however, recent setbacks in more conservative legislatures underscore the persistent challenges in strengthening patient protections.

Bills to shield patients from medical debt failed this year in Indiana, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming in the face of industry opposition. And advocates warn that states need to step up as millions of Americans are expected to lose insurance coverage because of President Donald Trump’s tax and spending law.

“This is an issue that had been top of mind even before the change of administrations in Washington,” said Kate Ende, policy director of Maine-based Consumers for Affordable Health Care. “The pullback at the federal level made it that much more important that we do something.”

This year, Maine joined a growing list of states that have barred medical debt from residents’ credit reports, a key protection that can make it easier for consumers to get a home, a car, or sometimes a job. The with bipartisan support.

An in the U.S. have some form of health care debt.

The federal government was poised to bar medical debt from credit reports under in the waning days of former President Joe Biden’s administration. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people nationwide.

But the Trump administration did not defend the regulations from lawsuits brought by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped.

Now, only patients in states that have enacted their own credit reporting rules will benefit from such protections. More than a dozen have such limits, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont, which, like Maine, enacted a ban this year.

Still more states have passed in recent years, including caps on how much interest can be charged on such debt and limits on the use of wage garnishments and property liens to collect unpaid medical bills.

In many cases, the medical debt rules won bipartisan support, reflecting the overwhelming popularity of these consumer protections. In Virginia, the state’s conservative Republican governor this year restricting wage garnishment and capping interest rates.

And several GOP lawmakers in California joined Democrats to make it easier for patients to access financial assistance from hospitals for big bills.

“This is the kind of commonsense, pocketbook issue that appeals to Republicans and Democrats,” said Eva Stahl, a vice president at Undue Medical Debt, a nonprofit that buys up and retires patients’ debts and has pushed for expanded patient protections.

But in several statehouses, the drive for more safeguards hit walls.

Bills to ban medical debts from appearing on credit reports failed in and , despite support from some GOP lawmakers. And measures to limit aggressive collections against residents with medical debt were derailed in , , and .

In some states, the measures faced stiff opposition from debt collectors, the credit reporting industry, and banks, who told legislators that without information about medical debts, they might end up offering consumers risky loans.

In Maine, the Consumer Data Industry Association, which represents credit bureaus, that regulating medical debt should be left to the federal government. “Only national, uniform standards can achieve the dual goals of protecting consumers and maintaining accurate credit reports,” warned Zachary Taylor, the group’s government relations director.

In South Dakota, state Rep. Lana Greenfield, a Republican, echoed industry objections in urging her colleagues to vote against a credit reporting ban. “Small-town banks could not receive information on a mega, mega medical bill. And so, they would in good faith perhaps loan money to somebody without knowing what their credit was,” Greenfield said on the House floor.

Under the Biden administration, that medical debt, unlike other debt, was not a good predictor of creditworthiness.

But South Dakota state Rep. Brian Mulder, a Republican who chairs the health committee and authored the legislation, noted the power of the banking industry in South Dakota, where favorable regulations have made the state a magnet for financial institutions.

In Montana, legislation to shield a portion of debtors’ assets from garnishment easily passed a committee. Supporters hoped the measure would be particularly helpful to Native American patients, who are by medical debt.

But when the bill reached the House floor, opponents “showed up en masse,” talking one-on-one with Republican lawmakers an hour before the vote, said Rep. Ed Stafman, a Democrat who authored the bill. “They lassoed just enough votes to narrowly defeat the bill,” he said.

Advocates for patients and legislators who backed some of these measures said they’re optimistic they’ll be able to overcome industry opposition in the future.

And there are signs that legislation to expand patient protections may make headway in other conservative states, including Ohio and Texas. A to force nonprofit hospitals to expand aid to patients facing large bills picked up support from leading conservative organizations.

“These things can sometimes take time,” said Lucy Culp, who oversees state lobbying efforts by Blood Cancer United, formerly known as the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. The patients’ group has been pushing for state medical debt protections in recent years, including in Montana and South Dakota.

More concerning, Culp said, is the wave of uninsured patients expected as millions of Americans lose health coverage due to cutbacks in the recently passed GOP tax law. That will almost certainly make the nation’s medical debt problem more dire.

“States are not ready for that,” Culp said.

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="/courts/medical-debt-battle-patient-protections-states-trump-policy-credit-reports/">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=2091514&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2091514
Surprise Bills Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /tag/surprise-bills/ Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Fri, 17 Apr 2026 16:30:16 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Surprise Bills Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /tag/surprise-bills/ 32 32 161476233 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 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
Watch: A Strange Checkup Bill Revealed a Firefighter’s Kids Were Mistakenly Uninsured /health-care-costs/watch-costly-care-checkup-surprise-bill-line-of-duty-health-insurance-benefits-children/ Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:00:00 +0000

After Susannah Reed-McCullough’s husband died in 2018, she and their young daughters continued to receive health insurance through his job as a firefighter in Maryland.

Then, in 2024, she got an unexpected medical bill: $377 for a checkup for one of her children the previous fall. Reed-McCullough said she called the doctor’s billing department and learned the insurance company had dropped the children’s coverage.

The drop turned out to be a mistake. But Reed-McCullough said she was forced to act as the go-between for her late husband’s human resources department and their insurer — all while worried about her daughters’ being uninsured.

In this installment of InvestigateTV and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Costly Care” series, Caresse Jackman, InvestigateTV’s national consumer investigative reporter, explores how administrative errors can leave patients on the hook for medical bills they shouldn’t owe, sometimes with few options to correct a problem they didn’t create.

Jackman interviewed Elisabeth Rosenthal, senior contributing editor at Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, who said accidental coverage drops are “a common problem” in need of attention from state regulators.

“People make mistakes, systems make mistakes, and they should be held responsible for them, not the patient,” Rosenthal said.

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/watch-costly-care-checkup-surprise-bill-line-of-duty-health-insurance-benefits-children/">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=2147847&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2147847
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 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 . Other times, insurers audit old bills and, determining they overpaid, try to claw back the money, resulting in the patient (or ) 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 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 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  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? !

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 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 “” 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? !

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’ “,” 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:

  • KFF’s “,” by Audrey Kearney, Alex Montero, Mardet Mulugeta, Ashley Kirzinger, and Liz Hamel.
  • Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “,” by Phil Galewitz.
  • NPR’s “,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin.
  • Stat’s “,” by Lizzy Lawrence and Adam Feuerstein.
  • Stat’s “,” by Lizzy Lawrence.
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, “.” 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 . 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

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
Doctor Tripped Up by $64K Bill for Ankle Surgery and Hospital Stay /health-care-costs/doctor-ankle-surgery-hospital-stay-surprise-bill-of-the-month-october-2025/ Wed, 29 Oct 2025 09:00:00 +0000 Physician Lauren Hughes was heading to see patients at a clinic about 20 miles from her Denver home in February when another driver T-boned her Subaru, totaling it. She was taken by ambulance to the closest hospital, Platte Valley Hospital.

A shaken Hughes was examined in the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with bruising, a deep cut on her knee, and a broken ankle. Physicians recommended immediate surgical repair, she said.

“They said: ‘You have this fracture and a big gaping wound in your knee. We need to take you to the OR to wash it out and make sure there’s no infection,’” she said. “As a clinician, I thought, ‘Yes.’”

She was taken to the operating room in the early evening, then admitted to the hospital overnight.

A friend took her home the next day.

Then the bills came.

The Medical Procedure

Surgeons cleaned the cut on her right knee, which had hit her car’s dashboard, and realigned a broken bone in her right ankle, stabilizing it with metal screws. Surgery is typically recommended when a broken bone is deemed unlikely to heal properly with only a cast.

The Final Bill

$63,976.35, charged by the hospital — which was not in-network with the insurance plan she got through her job — for the surgery and overnight stay.

The Problem: Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Hughes’ insurer, Anthem, fully covered the nearly $2,400 ambulance ride and some smaller radiology charges from the ER but denied the surgery and overnight stay charges from the out-of-network hospital.

“Sixty-three thousand dollars for a broken ankle and a cut to the knee, with no head injury or internal damage,” Hughes said. “Just to stay there overnight. It’s crazy.”

Insurers have broad power to determine — that is, what is needed for treatment, diagnosis, or relief. And that decision affects whether and how much they will pay for it.

Four days after her surgery, Anthem notified Hughes that after consulting clinical guidelines for her type of ankle repair, its reviewer determined it was not medically necessary for her to be fully admitted for an inpatient hospital stay.

If she had needed additional surgery or had other problems, such as vomiting or a fever, an inpatient stay might have been warranted, according to the letter. “The information we have does not show you have these or other severe problems,” it said.

To Hughes, the notion that she should have left the hospital was “ludicrous.” Her car was in a junkyard, she had no family nearby, and she was taking opioid painkillers for the first time.

When she asked for further details about medical necessity determinations, Hughes was directed deep inside her policy’s benefit booklet, which outlines that, for a hospital stay, documentation must show “safe and adequate care could not be obtained as an outpatient.”

It turns out the surgery charges were denied because of an insurance contract quirk. Under Anthem’s agreement with the hospital, all claims for services before and after a patient is admitted are approved or denied together, said Anthem spokesperson Emily Snooks.

A hospital stay is not generally required after ankle surgery, and the insurer found Hughes did not need the kind of “comprehensive, complex medical care” that would necessitate hospitalization, Snooks wrote in an email to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

“Anthem has consistently agreed that Ms. Hughes’ ankle surgery was medically necessary,” Snooks wrote. “However, because the ankle surgery was bundled with the inpatient admission, the entire claim was denied.”

Facing bills from an out-of-network hospital where she was taken by emergency responders, though, Hughes did not understand why she wasn’t shielded by the , which took effect in 2022. The federal law requires insurers to cover out-of-network providers as though they are in-network when patients receive emergency care, among other protections.

“If they had determined it was medically necessary, then they would have to apply the No Surprises Act cost,” said Matthew Fiedler, a senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at Brookings. “But the No Surprises Act is not going to override the normal medical necessity determination.”

There was one more oddity in her case. During one of many calls Hughes made trying to sort out her bill, an Anthem representative told her that things might have been different had the hospital billed for her hospitalization as an overnight “observation” stay.

Generally, that’s when patients are kept at a facility so staff can determine whether they need to be admitted. Rather than being tied to the stay’s duration, the designation mainly reflects the intensity of care. A patient with fewer needs is more likely to be billed for an observation stay.

Insurers pay hospitals less for an observation stay than admission, Fiedler said.

That distinction is a big issue for patients on Medicare. Most often, the government health program will not pay for if the patient was not first formally admitted to a .

“It’s a classic battle between providers and insurers as to what bucket a claim falls in,” Fiedler said.

A photo of Lauren Hughes at her home.
(Rachel Woolf for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

The Resolution

As a physician and a director of a health policy center at the University of Colorado, Hughes is a savvier-than-usual policyholder. Yet even she was frustrated during the months spent going back and forth with her insurer and the hospital — and worried when it looked like her account would be sent to a collection agency.

In addition to appealing the denied claims, she sought the help of her employer’s human resources department, which contacted Anthem. She also , which contacted Anthem and the Platte Valley Hospital.

In late September, Hughes received calls from a hospital official, who told her they had “downgraded the level of care” the hospital billed her insurance for and resubmitted the claim to Anthem.

In a written statement to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Platte Valley Hospital spokesperson Sara Quale said that the facility “deeply regrets any anxiety this situation has caused her.” The hospital had “prematurely” and erroneously sent Hughes a bill before working out the balance with Anthem, she wrote.

“After a careful review of Ms. Hughes’ situation,” Quale continued, “we have now stopped all billing to her. Furthermore, we have informed Ms. Hughes that if her insurance company ultimately assigns the remaining balance to her, she will not be billed for it.”

Anthem spokesperson Stephanie DuBois said in an email that Platte Valley resubmitted Hughes’ bill to the insurer on Oct. 3, this time for “outpatient care services.”

An explanation of benefits that was sent to Hughes shows the hospital rebilled for around $61,000 — about $40,000 of which was knocked off the total by an Anthem discount. The insurer paid the hospital nearly $21,000.

In the end, Hughes owed only a $250 copayment.

The Takeaway

There are places where patients receiving emergency care at an out-of-network hospital may fall through the cracks of federal billing protections, in particular during a phase that may be nearly indistinguishable to the patient, known as “post-stabilization.”

Generally, that occurs when the medical provider determines the patient is to an in-network facility using nonmedical transport, said Jack Hoadley, a research professor emeritus at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University.

If the patient prefers to stay put for further treatment, the out-of-network provider must then ask the patient , agreeing to waive billing protections and continue treatment at out-of-network rates, he said.

“It’s very important that if they give you some kind of letter to sign that you read that letter very carefully, because that letter might give them your permission to get some big bills,” Hoadley said.

If possible, patients should contact their insurer, in addition to asking the hospital’s billing department: Are you being fully admitted, or kept under observation status, and why? Has your care been determined to be medically necessary? Keep in mind that medical necessity determinations play a key role in whether coverage is approved or denied, even after services are provided.

That said, Hughes did not recall being told she was stable enough to leave with nonmedical transportation, nor being asked to sign a consent form.

Her advice is to quickly and aggressively question insurance denials once they are received, including by asking for your case to be escalated to the insurer’s and hospital’s leadership. She said expecting patients to navigate complicated billing questions while in the hospital after a serious injury isn’t realistic.

“I was calling family,” Hughes said, “alerting my work colleagues about what happened, processing the extent of my injuries and what needed to be done clinically, arranging care for my pet, getting labs and imaging done — coming to grips with what just happened.”

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by 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? !

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/doctor-ankle-surgery-hospital-stay-surprise-bill-of-the-month-october-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=2106729&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2106729
Big Loopholes in Hospital Charity Care Programs Mean Patients Still Get Stuck With the Tab /health-care-costs/hospital-charity-care-loopholes-needy-patients-pay/ Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2090203 Quinn Cochran-Zipp went to the emergency room three times with severe abdominal pain before doctors figured out she had early-stage cancer in the germ cells of her right ovary. After emergency surgery four years ago, the Greeley, Colorado, lab technician is cancer-free.

The two hospitals that treated Cochran-Zipp at the time determined that she qualified for 100% financial assistance, since her income as a college student was extremely low. Not having to worry about the roughly $100,000 in bills she racked up for her care was an enormous relief, she said.

Then she started receiving unexpected bills from doctors who worked at the hospitals but, because they weren’t on staff there, didn’t have to abide by the facilities’ financial assistance policies.

Those bills, which came from specialists in emergency medicine, anesthesiology, and radiology who treated her, totaled more than $5,000. Although it was a fraction of the total cost of her care, to Cochran-Zipp it was an enormous amount. She went on payment plans and used scholarship and covid stimulus money to help cover the bills.

Cochran-Zipp, now 25 and working at a community health center, is applying to medical schools and hopes to enroll next fall. Her experience as a patient has shaped how she thinks about becoming a doctor.

“I don’t think that I could be a provider that, in good conscience, charges patients money in addition to the hospital fees,” she said.

A photo of a woman smiling outside.
After emergency surgery four years ago, Quinn Cochran-Zipp is cancer-free. The hospitals treating her at the time said she qualified for 100% financial assistance, but she was billed by nonstaff medical specialists for more than $5,000.

Hospital financial assistance programs are commonplace, and many patients rely on them. Most offer varying amounts of financial help to uninsured and lower-income people. Eligibility is typically based on a sliding income scale. Some hospitals apply other tests, such as residency.

But even if people qualify for assistance, they may not get discounts. That’s because many physicians working at but not for a hospital aren’t bound by its financial assistance policies. Hospitals themselves might limit the types of services eligible for discounted or “charity care,” as it’s sometimes called.

“It’s a hole in the system,” said Caitlin Donovan, a at the , a nonprofit that helps patients with serious illnesses cover their medical bills. Case managers who work with patients report that they’ve seen these problems repeatedly, Donovan said.

In the coming years, more patients will encounter difficulties as demand for financial assistance grows. More than 14 million people are over the next decade, primarily because of changes to the federal Medicaid program and state insurance marketplaces in recently passed championed by the Trump administration. Some of these people will likely qualify for discounted care.

Nonprofit hospitals do not pay taxes on the money they make, but to maintain that tax-exempt status, they are to help patients pay for emergency and other medically necessary care. For-profit hospitals are not required to offer financial assistance to needy patients, but many do.

However, physicians and other providers who work in a hospital as independent contractors rather than as employees are often not subject to a hospital’s financial assistance policy. According to an , a health care think tank, physician services in the emergency, radiology, anesthesia, and pathology specialties are commonly excluded from hospital charity care.

For example, at , a large nonprofit health system serving Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, services performed by physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants employed by HHC, including emergency department physicians at four of its hospitals, are covered by its financial assistance policy. But treatment by emergency physicians at three HHC hospitals is not covered by the financial assistance policy, since they are not employees. Care by doctors working in isn’t covered by the financial assistance policy at any HHC facility.

Hartford HealthCare declined to comment on the record for this article.

Health system researchers have identified another potential barrier to patients’ receiving help from hospital financial assistance policies. require that nonprofit hospitals include emergency and medically necessary care in their charity care policies, but they give hospitals substantial leeway to define what “medically necessary” care means.

Historically, excluded care has been limited to services that insurance doesn’t typically cover, like cosmetic surgery or experimental treatment. But in recent years, hospitals appear to be defining medically necessary care more narrowly, eliminating financial assistance for care that is needed but not urgently required. Care that might fall into this category could be a kidney stone removal, a cancer biopsy, or a cardiac valve replacement, published this year in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Although the study of 209 nonprofit hospitals with more than 200 beds found only isolated examples of hospitals — about 6% of them — that substantially excluded medically necessary care, researchers are concerned that it could be the leading edge of a larger trend, said Mark Hall, a professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University, who co-authored the study.

“There’s not really much in the way of regulatory guidance in what should be in or out” of a financial assistance policy, said , a clinical assistant professor at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, who has examining hospital financial assistance policies.

The American Hospital Association declined to comment for this article. American Medical Association spokesperson Robert Mills said that the AMA doesn’t have a position on whether all contracted physicians should be required to participate in hospital financial assistance policies.

For-profit hospitals have more latitude to fashion their financial assistance policies as they wish.

At HCA Healthcare, one of the country’s largest for-profit health care systems, with nearly in 20 states and the United Kingdom, discounted or free care is available only for “.”

“Facility charity policies and uninsured discounts are typically specific to emergency services” at HCA Healthcare, said Harlow Sumerford, an HCA Healthcare spokesperson. “Any third-party providers are independent and would have their own financial policies.”

In recent years, medical debt protection laws. A few apply to some doctors and other health care providers who practice at health care facilities and bill patients separately for their care.

Colorado’s is the most expansive. Under its law that took effect in September 2022, covered hospitals have to screen all uninsured people and others who request it for eligibility for Medicaid and other health programs, and provide discounted care to people whose income is up to 250% of the federal poverty level (about ). There are limits on how much qualifying patients can be billed each month and, after three years, their debt is retired.

Under the Colorado law, licensed health care professionals who work at a covered hospital can charge qualified patients no more than the rates set by the state.

“This rule has been a game changer for folks in Colorado,” said Melissa Duncan, consumer assistance program manager at the , which helps patients access health care and cover their bills.

Unfortunately, the law didn’t pass in time to help Cochran-Zipp.

As hospitals grapple with the changes expected under the federal health care legislation passed this summer, discounted care programs may make a tempting target, say some health care financing experts. Facing higher rates of uncompensated care and trouble collecting payments from patients, facilities may reduce the financial assistance that they offer.

Hospitals may say “we are going to do all we can to protect our spending,” said , a professor of accounting and health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University. “In that environment, charity care will be a burden.”

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/hospital-charity-care-loopholes-needy-patients-pay/">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=2090203&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2090203
As Trump Punts on Medical Debt, Battle Over Patient Protections Moves to States /courts/medical-debt-battle-patient-protections-states-trump-policy-credit-reports/ Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:00:00 +0000 With the Trump administration scaling back federal efforts to protect Americans from medical bills they can’t pay, advocates for patients and consumers have shifted their work to contain the nation’s medical debt problem to state Capitols.

Despite progress in some mostly blue states this year, however, recent setbacks in more conservative legislatures underscore the persistent challenges in strengthening patient protections.

Bills to shield patients from medical debt failed this year in Indiana, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming in the face of industry opposition. And advocates warn that states need to step up as millions of Americans are expected to lose insurance coverage because of President Donald Trump’s tax and spending law.

“This is an issue that had been top of mind even before the change of administrations in Washington,” said Kate Ende, policy director of Maine-based Consumers for Affordable Health Care. “The pullback at the federal level made it that much more important that we do something.”

This year, Maine joined a growing list of states that have barred medical debt from residents’ credit reports, a key protection that can make it easier for consumers to get a home, a car, or sometimes a job. The with bipartisan support.

An in the U.S. have some form of health care debt.

The federal government was poised to bar medical debt from credit reports under in the waning days of former President Joe Biden’s administration. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people nationwide.

But the Trump administration did not defend the regulations from lawsuits brought by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped.

Now, only patients in states that have enacted their own credit reporting rules will benefit from such protections. More than a dozen have such limits, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont, which, like Maine, enacted a ban this year.

Still more states have passed in recent years, including caps on how much interest can be charged on such debt and limits on the use of wage garnishments and property liens to collect unpaid medical bills.

In many cases, the medical debt rules won bipartisan support, reflecting the overwhelming popularity of these consumer protections. In Virginia, the state’s conservative Republican governor this year restricting wage garnishment and capping interest rates.

And several GOP lawmakers in California joined Democrats to make it easier for patients to access financial assistance from hospitals for big bills.

“This is the kind of commonsense, pocketbook issue that appeals to Republicans and Democrats,” said Eva Stahl, a vice president at Undue Medical Debt, a nonprofit that buys up and retires patients’ debts and has pushed for expanded patient protections.

But in several statehouses, the drive for more safeguards hit walls.

Bills to ban medical debts from appearing on credit reports failed in and , despite support from some GOP lawmakers. And measures to limit aggressive collections against residents with medical debt were derailed in , , and .

In some states, the measures faced stiff opposition from debt collectors, the credit reporting industry, and banks, who told legislators that without information about medical debts, they might end up offering consumers risky loans.

In Maine, the Consumer Data Industry Association, which represents credit bureaus, that regulating medical debt should be left to the federal government. “Only national, uniform standards can achieve the dual goals of protecting consumers and maintaining accurate credit reports,” warned Zachary Taylor, the group’s government relations director.

In South Dakota, state Rep. Lana Greenfield, a Republican, echoed industry objections in urging her colleagues to vote against a credit reporting ban. “Small-town banks could not receive information on a mega, mega medical bill. And so, they would in good faith perhaps loan money to somebody without knowing what their credit was,” Greenfield said on the House floor.

Under the Biden administration, that medical debt, unlike other debt, was not a good predictor of creditworthiness.

But South Dakota state Rep. Brian Mulder, a Republican who chairs the health committee and authored the legislation, noted the power of the banking industry in South Dakota, where favorable regulations have made the state a magnet for financial institutions.

In Montana, legislation to shield a portion of debtors’ assets from garnishment easily passed a committee. Supporters hoped the measure would be particularly helpful to Native American patients, who are by medical debt.

But when the bill reached the House floor, opponents “showed up en masse,” talking one-on-one with Republican lawmakers an hour before the vote, said Rep. Ed Stafman, a Democrat who authored the bill. “They lassoed just enough votes to narrowly defeat the bill,” he said.

Advocates for patients and legislators who backed some of these measures said they’re optimistic they’ll be able to overcome industry opposition in the future.

And there are signs that legislation to expand patient protections may make headway in other conservative states, including Ohio and Texas. A to force nonprofit hospitals to expand aid to patients facing large bills picked up support from leading conservative organizations.

“These things can sometimes take time,” said Lucy Culp, who oversees state lobbying efforts by Blood Cancer United, formerly known as the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. The patients’ group has been pushing for state medical debt protections in recent years, including in Montana and South Dakota.

More concerning, Culp said, is the wave of uninsured patients expected as millions of Americans lose health coverage due to cutbacks in the recently passed GOP tax law. That will almost certainly make the nation’s medical debt problem more dire.

“States are not ready for that,” Culp said.

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="/courts/medical-debt-battle-patient-protections-states-trump-policy-credit-reports/">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=2091514&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2091514