Kaiser Health News

Why Even Public Health Experts Have Limited Insight Into Stopping Gun Violence in America

Published

2 months ago

March 6, 2024

Christine Spolar
Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:00:00 +0000

Gun violence has exploded across the U.S. in recent years — from mass shootings at concerts and supermarkets to school fights settled with a bullet after the last bell.

Nearly every day of 2024 so far has brought more violence. On Feb. 14, gunfire broke out at the Super Bowl parade in Kansas City, killing one woman and injuring 22 others. Most events draw little attention — while the injuries and toll pile up.

Gun violence is among America's most deadly and costly public health crises. But unlike other big killers — diseases like cancer and HIV or dangers like automobile crashes and cigarettes — sparse federal money goes to studying gun violence or preventing it.

That's because of a one-sentence amendment tucked into the 1996 congressional budget bill: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Its author was Jay Dickey, an Arkansas Republican who called himself the “point man” for the National Rifle Association on Capitol Hill. And for nearly 25 years the amendment was perceived as a threat and all but paralyzed the CDC's support and study of gun violence.

Even so, a small group of academics have toiled to document how gun violence courses through American communities with vast and tragic outcomes. Their research provides some light as officials and communities develop policies mostly in the dark. It has also inspired a fresh generation of researchers to enter the field — people who grew up with mass shootings and are now determined to investigate harm from firearms. There is momentum now, in a time of rising gun injury and death, to know more.

The reality is stark:

Gun sales reached record levels in 2019 and 2020. Shootings soared. In 2021, for the second year, more people died from gun incidents — 48,830 — than in any year on record, according to a Johns Hopkins University analysis of CDC data. Guns became the leading cause of death for children and teens. Suicides accounted for more than half of those deaths, and homicides were linked to 4 in 10.

Black people are nearly 14 times as likely to die from firearm violence as white people — and guns were responsible for half of all deaths of Black teens ages 15 to 19 in 2021, the data showed.

Harvard research published in JAMA in 2022 estimated gun injuries translate into economic losses of $557 billion annually, or 2.6% of the U.S. gross domestic product.

With gun violence touching nearly every corner of the country, surveys show that Americans — whatever their political affiliation or whether they own guns or not — support policies that could reduce violence.

What Could Have Been

It is no secret that many strategies proposed today — from school metal detectors to enhanced policing, to the optimal timing and manner of safely storing guns, to restrictions on gun sales — have limited scientific ballast because of a lack of data.

It could have been otherwise.

U.S. firearm production surged in the late 1980s, flooding communities with more than 200 million weapons. In that era, Mark Rosenberg was the founding director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and his agency, over time, was pivotal in helping to fund research on gun violence and public health.

Rosenberg thought then that gun violence could go the way of car crashes. The federal government spent $200 million a year on research to redesign roadways and cars beginning in the 1970s, he said, and had seen death rates plummeted.

“We said, ‘Why can't we do this with gun violence?'” Rosenberg said. “They figured out how to get rid of car crashes — but not cars. Why can't we do the same thing when it comes to guns?”

The Dickey Amendment sidelined that dream.

A study published in 1993 concluded that “guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide,” a finding on risk factors that prompted an uproar in conservative political circles. To newly elected representatives in the midterm “Republican Revolution” of 1994, the research was a swipe at gun rights. The NRA stepped up lobbying, and Congress passed what's known as the Dickey Amendment in 1996.

Some Democrats, such as the influential John Dingell of Michigan (a onetime NRA board member who received the group's “legislative achievement award”), would join the cause. Dingell proposed his own bills, detailed last summer by The New York Times.

Under heavy political pressure, the CDC ousted Rosenberg in 1999. Soon after, some CDC administrators began alerting the NRA to research before publication.

“It was clearly related to the work we were doing on gun violence prevention,” Rosenberg, now 78, said of his job loss. “It was a shock.”

Those Who Persevered

The quarter-century spending gap has left a paucity of data about the scope of gun violence's health effects: Who is shot and why? What motivates the violence? With what guns? What are the injuries? Can suicides, on the rise from gunfire, be reduced or prevented with safeguards? Does drug and alcohol use increase the chances of harm? Could gun safeguards reduce domestic violence? Ultimately, what works and what does not to prevent shootings?

If researchers say they “lost a generation” of knowledge about gun violence, then American families lost even more, with millions of lives cut short and a legacy of trauma passed down through generations.

Imagine if cancer research had been halted in 1996 — many tumors that are now eminently treatable might still be lethal. “It's like cancer,” said Rebecca Cunningham, vice president for research at the University of Michigan, an academic who has kept the thread of gun research going all these years. “There may be 50 kinds of cancer, and there are preventions for all of them. Firearm violence has many different routes, and it will require different kinds of science and approaches.”

Cunningham is one of a small group of like-minded researchers, from universities across the United States, who refused to let go of investigating a growing public health risk, and they pushed ahead without government funds.

Garen Wintemute has spent about $2.45 million of his money to support seminal research at the University of California-Davis. With state and private funding, he created a violence prevention program in California, a leader in firearm studies. He has documented an unprecedented increase in gun sales since 2020 — about 15 million transactions more than expected based on previous sales data.

Daniel Webster at Johns Hopkins University focused on teenagers and guns — particularly access and suicides — and found that local police who coped with gun risks daily were willing to collaborate. He secured grants, even from the CDC, with carefully phrased proposals that avoided the word “guns,” to study community violence.

At Duke University, Philip J. Cook explored the underground gun market, interviewing people incarcerated in Chicago jails and compiling pivotal social science research on how guns are bought, sold, and traded.

David Hemenway, an economist and public policy professor at Harvard, worked on the national pilot to document violent deaths — knowing most gun deaths would be recorded that way — because, he said, “if you don't have good data, you don't have nothin'.”

Hemenway, writing in the journal Nature in 2017, found a 30% rise in gun suicides over the preceding decade and nearly a 20% rise in gun murders from 2014 to 2015. The data was alarming and so was the lack of preventive know-how, he wrote. “The US government, at the behest of the gun lobby, limits the collection of data, prevents researchers from obtaining much of the data that are collected and severely restricts the funds available for research on guns,” he wrote. “Policymakers are essentially flying blind.”

His work helped create the most ambitious database of U.S. gun deaths today — the National Violent Death Reporting System. Funded in 1999 by private foundations, researchers were able to start understanding gun deaths by compiling data on all violent deaths from health department, police, and crime records in several states. The CDC took over the system and eventually rolled in data from all 50 states.

Still, no federal database of nonfatal gun injuries exists. So the government would record one death from the Super Bowl parade shooting, and the 22 people with injuries remain uncounted — along with many thousands of others over decades.

Philanthropy has supported research that Congress would not. The Joyce Foundation in Chicago funded the bulk of the grants, with more than $33 million since the 1990s. Arnold Ventures' philanthropy and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have added millions more, as has Michael Bloomberg, the politician and media company owner. The Rand Corp., which keeps a tab of ongoing research, finds states increasingly are stepping up.

Timothy Daly, a Joyce Foundation program director, said he remembers when the field of gun harm was described by some as a “desert.” “There was no federal funding. There was slim private funding,” he said. “Young people would ask themselves: ‘Why would I go into that?'”

Research published in JAMA in 2017 found gun violence “was the least-researched” among leading causes of death. Looking at mortality rates over a decade, gun violence killed about as many people as sepsis, the data showed. If funded at the same rate, gun violence would have been expected to receive $1.4 billion in research funds. Instead, it received $22 million from across all U.S. government agencies.

There is no way to know what the firearm mortality or injury rate would be today had there been more federal support for strategies to contain it.

A Reckoning

As gun violence escalated to once unthinkable levels, Rep. Dickey came to regret his role in stanching research and became friends with Rosenberg. They wrote a pivotal Washington Post op-ed about the need for gun injury prevention studies. In 2016, they delivered a letter supporting the creation of the California Firearm Violence Research Center.

Both men, they emphasized, were NRA members and agreed on two principles: “One goal must be to protect the Second-Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners; the other goal, to reduce gun violence.”

Dickey died in 2017, and Rosenberg has only kind words for him. “I did not blame Jay at all for what happened,” he said. The CDC was “under pressure from Congress to get rid of our gun research.”

As alarm over gun fatality statistics from diverse sectors of the nation — scientists, politicians, and law enforcement — has grown, research in the field is finally gaining a foothold.

Even Congress, noting the Dickey Amendment was not an all-out ban, appropriated $25 million for gun research in late 2019, split between the CDC — whose imperative is to research public health issues — and the National Institutes of Health. It's a drop in the bucket compared with what was spent on car crashes, and it's not assured. House Republicans this winter have pushed an amendment to once again cut federal funding for CDC gun research.

Still, it's a start. With growing interest in the field, the torch has passed to the next generation of researchers.

In November, Cunningham helped organize a national conference on the prevention of firearm-related harm. More than 750 academics and professionals in public health, law, and criminal justice met in Chicago for hundreds of presentations. A similar event in 2019, the first in 20 years, drew just a few dozen presentations.

“You can feel momentum,” Cunningham said at the conference, reflecting on the research underway. “There's a momentum to propel a whole series of evidence-based change — in the same way we have addressed other health problems.”

During a congressional hearing weeks later, Yale University School of Public Health Dean Megan L. Ranney bluntly described the rising number of gun deaths — noting the overwhelming number of suicides — as an alarm for lawmakers. “We are turning into a nation of traumatized survivors,” she said, urging their support for better data and research on risk factors.

Cassandra Crifasi, 41, was a high school sophomore when the Columbine massacre outside Littleton, Colorado, shook the country. She recently succeeded Webster, her mentor and research partner, as co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Crifasi has spent much of her career evaluating risk factors in gun use, including collaborative studies with Baltimore police and the city to reduce violence.

Raised in rural Washington state, Crifasi said she never considered required training in firearms an affront to the Second Amendment. She owns guns. In her family, which hunted, it was a matter of responsibility.

“We all learned to hunt. There are rules to follow. Maybe we should have everybody who wants to have a gun to do that,” she said.

Crifasi pointed to the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland, Florida — which left 17 dead and 17 injured — as a turning point. Students and their parents took “a page out of Mothers Against Drunk Driving — showing up, testifying, being in the gallery where laws are made,” she said.

“People started to shift and started to think: This is not a third rail in politics. This is not a third rail in research,” Crifasi said.

Shani Buggs worked in corporate management before she arrived at Johns Hopkins to pursue a master's in public health. It was summer 2012, and a gunman killed 12 moviegoers at a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colorado. The town's pain led the national news, and “rightfully so,” Buggs said. “But I was in Baltimore, in East Baltimore, where there were shootings happening that weren't even consistently making the local news.”

Now violence “that once was considered out of bounds, out of balance — it is more and more common,” said Buggs who recently joined the California Firearm Violence Research Center as a lead investigator.

Buggs' research has examined anxiety and depression among youths who live in neighborhoods with gun violence — and notes that firearm suicide rates too have drastically increased among Black children and adolescents.

There is a trauma from hearing gunshots and seeing gun injuries, and daily life can be a thrum of risk in vulnerable communities, notably those largely populated by Black and Hispanic people, Buggs said. Last year, Buggs organized the Black and Brown Collective with a core group of about two dozen scientists committed to contextualizing studies on gun violence.

“The people most impacted by the gun violence we usually hear about in America look like our families,” she said of the collective.

“They are not resilient. People are just surviving,” Buggs said. “We need way more money to research and to understand and address the complexity of the problem.”

Illustration credit: Oona Tempest/KFF Health News. (Reference photos of Buggs, Cook, Crifasi, Cunningham, Daly, Hemenway, Webster: Christine Spolar for KFF Health News; Rosenberg: Getty Images; Wintemute: University of California-Davis.)

——————————
By: Christine Spolar
Title: Why Even Public Health Experts Have Limited Insight Into Stopping Gun Violence in America
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/gun-violence-data-public-health-experts-research-funds/
Published Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:00:00 +0000

Post Views: 94

Related Topics:Featured Health Kaiser Health News News

Up Next

When It Comes to Ketamine, Meta’s Posting Policy Is No Party to Decipher

Don't Miss

Biden Is Right. The US Generally Pays Double That of Other Countries for Rx Drugs.

Kaiser Health News

Democrats Seek To Make GOP Pay for Threats to Reproductive Rights

Published

2 days ago

May 10, 2024

Staff Editor

Samantha Liss
Fri, 10 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

ST. CHARLES, Mo. — Democrat Lucas Kunce is trying to pin reproductive care restrictions on Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), betting it will boost his chances of unseating the incumbent in November.

In a recent ad campaign, Kunce accuses Hawley of jeopardizing reproductive care, including in vitro fertilization. Staring straight into the camera, with tears in her eyes, a Missouri mom identified only as Jessica recounts how she struggled for years to conceive.

“Now there are efforts to ban IVF, and Josh Hawley got them started,” Jessica says. “I want Josh Hawley to look me in the eye and tell me that I can't have the child that I deserve.”

Never mind that IVF is legal in Missouri, or that Hawley has said he supports limited access to abortion as a “pro-life” Republican. In key races across the country, Democrats are branding their Republican rivals as threats to women's health after a broad erosion of reproductive rights since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, including near-total state abortion bans, efforts to restrict medication abortion, and a court ruling that limited IVF in Alabama.

On top of the messaging campaigns, Democrats hope ballot measures to guarantee abortion rights in as many as 13 states — including Missouri, Arizona, and Florida — will help boost turnout in their favor.

The issue puts the GOP on the defensive, said J. Miles Coleman, an election analyst at the University of Virginia.

“I don't really think Republicans have found a great way to respond to it yet,” he said.

Abortion is such a salient issue in Arizona, for example, that election analysts say a U.S. House seat occupied by Republican Juan Ciscomani is now a toss-up.

Hawley appears in less peril, for now. He holds a wide lead in polls, though Kunce outraised him in the most recent quarter, raking in $2.25 million in donations compared with the incumbent's $846,000, according to campaign finance reports. Still, Hawley's war chest is more than twice the size of Kunce's.

Kunce, a Marine veteran and antitrust advocate, said he likes his odds.

“I just don't think we're gonna lose,” he told KFF Health News. “Missourians want freedom and the ability to control their own lives.”

Hawley's campaign declined to comment. He has backed a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks and has said he supports exceptions for rape and incest and to protect the lives of pregnant women. Missouri's state ban is near total, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

“This is Josh Hawley's life's mission. It's his family's business,” Kunce said, a nod to Erin Morrow Hawley, the senator's wife, a lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court in March on behalf of activists who sought to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone.

State abortion rights have won out everywhere they've been on the ballot since the end of Roe in 2022, including in Republican-led Kentucky and Ohio.

An abortion rights ballot initiative is also expected in Montana, where a Republican challenge to Democrat Jon Tester could decide control of the Senate.

On a late-April Saturday along historic Main Street in St. Charles, Missouri, people holding makeshift clipboards fashioned from yard signs from past elections invited locals strolling brick sidewalks to sign a petition to get the initiative on Missouri ballots. Nearby, diners enjoyed lunch on a patio tucked under a canopy of trees in this affluent St. Louis suburb.

Missouri was the first state to ban abortion after Roe fell; it is outlawed except in “cases of medical emergency.” The measure would add the right to abortion to the state constitution.

Larry Bax, 65, of St. Charles County, said he votes Republican most of the time but signed the ballot measure petition along with his wife, Debbie Bax, 66.

“We were never single-issue voters. Never in our life,” he said. “This has made us single-issue because this is so wrong.”

They won't vote for Hawley this fall, they said, but are unsure if they'll support the Democratic nominee.

Jim Seidel, 64, who lives in Wright City, 50 miles west of St. Louis, also signed the petition. He said he believes Missourians deserve the opportunity to vote on the issue.

“I've been a Republican all my life until just recently,” Seidel said. “It's just gone really wacky.”

He plans to vote for Kunce in November if he wins the Democratic primary in August, as seems likely. Seidel previously voted for a few Democrats, including Bill Clinton and Claire McCaskill, whom Hawley unseated as senator six years ago.

“Most of the time,” he added, Hawley is “strongly in the wrong camp.”

Over about two hours in conservative St. Charles, KFF Health News observed only one person actively declining to sign the petition. The woman told the volunteers she and her family opposed abortion rights and quickly walked away. The Catholic Church has discouraged voters from signing. At St. Joseph Parish in a nearby suburb, for example, a sign flashed: “Decline to Sign Reproductive Health Petition!”

The ballot measure organizers turned in more than twice the required number of signatures May 3, though, and now await certification from the secretary of state's office.

Larry Bax's concern goes beyond abortion and the ballot measure in Missouri. He worries about more governmental limits on reproductive care, such as on IVF or birth control. “How much further can that reach extend?” he said. Kunce is banking on enough voters feeling like Bax and Seidel to get an upset similar to the one that occurred in 2012 for the same seat — also over abortion. McCaskill defeated Republican Todd Akin that year, largely because of his infamous response when asked about abortion: “If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

——————————
By: Samantha Liss
Title: Democrats Seek To Make GOP Pay for Threats to Reproductive Rights
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/democrats-campaign-reproductive-rights-abortion/
Published Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/their-first-baby-came-with-medical-debt-these-illinois-parents-wont-have-another/

Post Views: 28

Kaiser Health News

Their First Baby Came With Medical Debt. These Illinois Parents Won’t Have Another.

Published

2 days ago

May 10, 2024

Staff Editor

Noam N. Levey
Fri, 10 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

JACKSONVILLE, Ill. — Heather Crivilare was a month from her due date when she was rushed to an operating room for an emergency cesarean section.

The first-time mother, a high school teacher in rural Illinois, had developed high blood pressure, a sometimes life-threatening condition in pregnancy that prompted doctors to hospitalize her. Then Crivilare's blood pressure spiked, and the baby's heart rate dropped. “It was terrifying,” Crivilare said.

She gave birth to a healthy daughter. What followed, though, was another ordeal: thousands of dollars in medical debt that sent Crivilare and her husband scrambling for nearly a year to keep collectors at bay.

The Crivilares would eventually get on nine payment plans as they juggled close to $5,000 in bills.

“It really felt like a full-time job some days,” Crivilare recalled. “Getting the baby down to sleep and then getting on the phone. I'd set up one payment plan, and then a new bill would come that afternoon. And I'd have to set up another one.”

Crivilare's pregnancy may have been more dramatic than most. But for millions of new parents, medical debt is now as much a hallmark of having children as long nights and dirty diapers.

About 12% of the 100 million U.S. adults with health care debt attribute at least some of it to pregnancy or childbirth, according to a KFF poll.

These people are more likely to report they've had to take on extra work, change their living situation, or make other sacrifices.

Overall, women between 18 and 35 who have had a baby in the past year and a half are twice as likely to have medical debt as women of the same age who haven't given birth recently, other KFF research conducted for this project found.

“You feel bad for the patient because you know that they want the best for their pregnancy,” said Eilean Attwood, a Rhode Island OB-GYN who said she routinely sees pregnant women anxious about going into debt.

“So often, they may be coming to the office or the hospital with preexisting debt from school, from other financial pressures of starting adult life,” Attwood said. “They are having to make real choices, and what those real choices may entail can include the choice to not get certain services or medications or what may be needed for the care of themselves or their fetus.”

Best-Laid Plans

Crivilare and her husband, Andrew, also a teacher, anticipated some of the costs.

The young couple settled in Jacksonville, in part because the farming community less than two hours north of St. Louis was the kind of place two public school teachers could afford a house. They saved aggressively. They bought life insurance.

And before Crivilare got pregnant in 2021, they enrolled in the most robust health insurance plan they could, paying higher premiums to minimize their deductible and out-of-pocket costs.

Then, two months before their baby was due, Crivilare learned she had developed preeclampsia. Her pregnancy would no longer be routine. Crivilare was put on blood pressure medication, and doctors at the local hospital recommended bed rest at a larger medical center in Springfield, about 35 miles away.

“I remember thinking when they insisted that I ride an ambulance from Jacksonville to Springfield … ‘I'm never going to financially recover from this,'” she said. “‘But I want my baby to be OK.'”

For weeks, Crivilare remained in the hospital alone as covid protocols limited visitors. Meanwhile, doctors steadily upped her medications while monitoring the fetus. It was, she said, “the scariest month of my life.”

Fear turned to relief after her daughter, Rita, was born. The baby was small and had to spend nearly two weeks in the neonatal intensive care unit. But there were no complications. “We were incredibly lucky,” Crivilare said.

When she and Rita finally came home, a stack of medical bills awaited. One was already past due.

Crivilare rushed to set up payment plans with the hospitals in Jacksonville and Springfield, as well as the anesthesiologist, the surgeon, and the labs. Some providers demanded hundreds of dollars a month. Some settled for monthly payments of $20 or $25. Some pushed Crivilare to apply for new credit cards to pay the bills.

“It was a blur of just being on the phone constantly with all the different people collecting money,” she recalled. “That was a nightmare.”

Big Bills, Big Consequences

The Crivilares' bills weren't unusual. Parents with private health coverage now face on average more than $3,000 in medical bills related to a pregnancy and childbirth that aren't covered by insurance, researchers at the University of Michigan found.

Out-of-pocket costs are even higher for families with a newborn who needs to stay in a neonatal ICU, averaging $5,000. And for 1 in 11 of these families, medical bills related to pregnancy and childbirth exceed $10,000, the researchers found.

“This forces very difficult trade-offs for families,” said Michelle Moniz, a University of Michigan OB-GYN who worked on the study. “Even though they have insurance, they still have these very high bills.”

Nationwide polls suggest millions of these families end up in debt, with sometimes devastating consequences.

About three-quarters of U.S. adults with debt related to pregnancy or childbirth have cut spending on food, clothing, or other essentials, KFF polling found.

About half have put off buying a home or delayed their own or their children's education.

These burdens have spurred calls to limit what families must pay out-of-pocket for medical care related to pregnancy and childbirth.

In Massachusetts, state Sen. Cindy Friedman has proposed legislation to exempt all these bills from copays, deductibles, and other cost sharing. This would parallel federal rules that require health plans to cover recommended preventive services like annual physicals without cost sharing for patients. “We want … healthy children, and that starts with healthy mothers,” Friedman said. Massachusetts health insurers have warned the proposal will raise costs, but an independent state analysis estimated the bill would add only $1.24 to monthly insurance premiums.

Tough Lessons

For her part, Crivilare said she wishes new parents could catch their breath before paying down medical debt.

“No one is in the right frame of mind to deal with that when they have a new baby,” she said, noting that college graduates get such a break. “When I graduated with my college degree, it was like: ‘Hey, new adult, it's going to take you six months to kind of figure out your life, so we'll give you this six-month grace period before your student loans kick in and you can get a job.'”

Rita is now 2. The family scraped by on their payment plans, retiring the medical debt within a year, with help from Crivilare's side job selling resources for teachers online.

But they are now back in debt, after Rita's recurrent ear infections required surgery last year, leaving the family with thousands of dollars in new medical bills.

Crivilare said the stress has made her think twice about seeing a doctor, even for Rita. And, she added, she and her husband have decided their family is complete.

“It's not for us to have another child,” she said. “I just hope that we can put some of these big bills behind us and give [Rita] the life that we want to give her.”

About This Project

“Diagnosis: Debt” is a reporting partnership between KFF Health News and NPR exploring the scale, impact, and causes of medical debt in America.

The series draws on original polling by KFF, court records, federal data on hospital finances, contracts obtained through public records requests, data on international health systems, and a yearlong investigation into the financial assistance and collection policies of more than 500 hospitals across the country.

Additional research was conducted by the Urban Institute, which analyzed credit bureau and other demographic data on poverty, race, and health status for KFF Health News to explore where medical debt is concentrated in the U.S. and what factors are associated with high debt levels.

The JPMorgan Chase Institute analyzed records from a sampling of Chase credit card holders to look at how customers' balances may be affected by major medical expenses. And the CED Project, a Denver nonprofit, worked with KFF Health News on a survey of its clients to explore links between medical debt and housing instability.

KFF Health News journalists worked with KFF public opinion researchers to design and analyze the “KFF Health Care Debt Survey.” The survey was conducted Feb. 25 through March 20, 2022, online and via telephone, in English and Spanish, among a nationally representative sample of 2,375 U.S. adults, including 1,292 adults with current health care debt and 382 adults who had health care debt in the past five years. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample and 3 percentage points for those with current debt. For results based on subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.

Reporters from KFF Health News and NPR also conducted hundreds of interviews with patients across the country; spoke with physicians, health industry leaders, consumer advocates, debt lawyers, and researchers; and reviewed scores of studies and surveys about medical debt.

——————————
By: Noam N. Levey
Title: Their First Baby Came With Medical Debt. These Illinois Parents Won't Have Another.
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/babies-come-with-medical-debt/
Published Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Post Views: 69

Kaiser Health News

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’: Newly Minted Doctors Are Avoiding Abortion Ban States

Published

3 days ago

May 9, 2024

Staff Editor

Thu, 09 May 2024 19:30:00 +0000

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News' weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

A new analysis finds that graduating medical students were less likely to apply this year for residency training in states that ban or restrict abortion. That was true not only for aspiring OB-GYNs and others who regularly treat pregnant patients, but for all specialties.

Meanwhile, another study has found that more than 4 million children have been terminated from Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program since the federal government ended a covid-related provision barring such disenrollments. The study estimates about three-quarters of those children were still eligible and were kicked off for procedural reasons.

This week's panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University schools of nursing and public health and Politico Magazine, and Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week's episode:

More medical students are avoiding applying to residency programs in states with abortion restrictions. That could worsen access problems in areas that already don't have enough doctors and other health providers in their communities.
New threats to abortion care in the United States include not only state laws penalizing abortion pill possession and abortion travel, but also online misinformation campaigns — which are trying to discourage people from supporting abortion ballot measures by telling them lies about how their information might be used.
The latest news is out on the fate of Medicare, and a pretty robust economy appears to have bought the program's trust fund another five years. Still, its overall health depends on a long-term solution — and a long-term solution depends on Congress.
In Medicaid expansion news, Mississippi lawmakers' latest attempt to expand the program was unsuccessful, and a report shows two other nonexpansion states — Texas and Florida — account for about 40% of the 4 million kids who were dropped from Medicaid and CHIP last year. By not expanding Medicaid, holdout states say no to billions of federal dollars that could be used to cover health care for low-income residents.
Finally, the bankruptcy of the hospital chain Steward Health Care tells a striking story of what happens when private equity invests in health care.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News' Katheryn Houghton, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a patient who went outside his insurance network for a surgery and thought he had covered all his bases. It turned out he hadn't. If you have an outrageous or incomprehensible medical bill you'd like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: The Nation's “The Abortion Pill Underground,” by Amy Littlefield.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times' “In Medicine, the Morally Unthinkable Too Easily Comes to Seem Normal,” by Carl Elliott.

Anna Edney: ProPublica's “Facing Unchecked Syphilis Outbreak, Great Plains Tribes Sought Federal Help. Months Later, No One Has Responded,” by Anna Maria Barry-Jester.

Lauren Weber: Stat's “NYU Professors Who Defended Vaping Didn't Disclose Ties to Juul, Documents Show,” by Nicholas Florko.

Also mentioned on this week's podcast:

KFF Health News' “Medical Residents Are Increasingly Avoiding States With Abortion Restrictions,” by Julie Rovner and Rachana Pradhan.
CNBC's “Abortion Bans Drive Away up to Half of Young Talent, New CNBC/Generation Lab Youth Survey Finds,” by Jason Gewirtz.
The Washington Post's “Texas Man Files Legal Action To Probe Ex-Partner's Out-of-State Abortion,” by Caroline Kitchener.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News' “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

——————————
Title: KFF Health News' ‘What the Health?': Newly Minted Doctors Are Avoiding Abortion Ban States
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/podcast/what-the-health-346-abortion-ban-residency-decline-may-9-2024/
Published Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 19:30:00 +0000

Post Views: 40