Kaiser Health News
An Arm and a Leg: Attack of the Medicare Machines
Dan Weissmann
Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:00:00 +0000
Covering the American health care system means we tell some scary stories. This episode of “An Arm and a Leg” sounds like a real horror movie.
It uses one of Hollywood’s favorite tropes: machines taking over. And the machines belong to the private health insurance company UnitedHealth Group.
Host Dan Weissmann talks to Stat News reporter Bob Herman about his investigation into Medicare Advantage plans that use an algorithm to make decisions about patient care. The algorithm is owned by a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.
Herman tells Weissmann that some of UnitedHealth’s own employees say the algorithm creates a “moral crisis” in which care is unfairly denied.
Scary stuff! Such reporting even has caught the eye of powerful people in government, putting Medicare Advantage plans under scrutiny.
Dan Weissmann
Host and producer of “An Arm and a Leg.” Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago’s WBEZ. His work also appears on All Things Considered, Marketplace, the BBC, 99 Percent Invisible, and Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting.
Credits
Emily Pisacreta
Producer
Adam Raymonda
Audio Wizard
Ellen Weiss
Editor
Click to open the Transcript
Transcript: Son of Medicare: Attack of the Machines
Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.
Dan: Hey there–
So this is kind of a horror story. But it’s not quite the kind of story it might sound like at first.
Because at first, it might sound like a horror story about machines taking over, making all the decisions– and making terrible, horrifying choices. Very age-of-Artificial Intelligence.
But this is really a story about decisions made by people. For money.
It’s also kind of a twofer sequel– like those movies that pit two characters from earlier stories against each other. Like Godzilla vs King Kong, or Alien vs Predator.
Although in this case, I’ve gotta admit, the two monsters are not necessarily fighting each other.
Let’s get reacquainted with them.
On one side, coming back from our very last episode, we’ve got Medicare Advantage: This is the version of Medicare that’s run by private insurance companies.
It’s got a bright and appealing side, compared to the traditional Medicare program run by the federal government, because: It can cost a lot less, month to month — saving people money on premiums. And it often comes with extra benefits, like dental coverage, which traditional Medicare doesn’t offer. [I know.]
But Medicare Advantage can have a dark side, which is basically: Well, you end up dealing with private insurance companies for the rest of your life. You need something — a test, a procedure, whatever — they might decide not to cover it.
Which can be scary.
Our other returning monster — am I really calling them a monster? — well, last time we talked about them, in 2023, we had an expert calling them a behemoth. That’s United HealthGroup. You might remember, they’re not only one of the biggest insurance companies
— and maybe not-coincidentally the very biggest provider of Medicare Advantage plans —
they’ve also got a whole other business– under the umbrella name Optum. And Optum has spent the last bunch of years buying up a gazillion other health care companies of every kind.
That includes medical practices — they employ more doctors than anyone else, by a huge margin. It includes surgery centers, and home-health companies, and every kind of middleman company you can imagine that works behind the scenes — and have their hands in a huge percentage of doctor bills and pharmacy visits.
A few years ago, United bought a company called NaviHealth, which provides services to insurance companies that run Medicare Advantage plans.
NaviHealth’s job is to decide how long someone needs to stay in a nursing home, like if you’re discharged from a hospital after surgery, but you’re not ready to go home yet.
And the horror story– the stories, as dug up by reporters — starts after United bought NaviHealth.
And according to their reports, it involves people getting kicked out of those nursing homes who aren’t ready to go home.
People getting sent home who can’t walk up the stairs in their house. Who can’t walk at all. Who are on feeding tubes. People who NaviHealth’s own employees are saying, “Wait. This person isn’t ready to go home.”
But their new bosses have told them: You’re not really making these decisions anymore.
This is where machines do enter the picture.
NaviHealth’s distinctive offering has always been its proprietary algorithm– an algorithm that makes predictions about how long any given patient might need to stay.
Before United bought the company, that algorithm was used as a guide, a first-guess. Humans weighed in with their own judgment about what patients needed.
After United bought the company, people inside have told reporters, that changed: The new owners basically told their employees, If the algorithm says someone can go home after x days, that’s when we’re cutting them off.
Like pretty much any horror movie, this story’s got people running around trying to tell everyone: HEY, WATCH OUT! THERE’S SOMETHING BIG AND DANGEROUS HAPPENING HERE.
And in this case, they’ve actually gotten the attention of some people who might have the power to do something about it. Now, what those people will do? We don’t know yet.
And, by the way: Yes, I said at the end of our last episode that we’d be talking about Medicaid this time around. That’s coming! But for now, strap in for this one.
This is An Arm and a Leg, a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So our job on this show is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life, and bring you something entertaining, empowering, and useful.
So. I said that, like every horror movie, this one has people who are seeing what’s going on and are trying to warn everybody?
Like those movies, we’re gonna follow one of those people, watch them discover the problem, see how deep it goes, and start ringing alarm bells. Let’s meet our guy.
Bob Herman: My name is Bob Herman. I’m a reporter at STAT News
Dan: Stat is an amazing medical news publication. Bob covers the business of medicine there. Bob started working on this story in November 2022, after talking to a source who runs nursing homes. Bob’s source was complaining about Medicare Advantage.
Bob Herman: There were a lot of payment denials. They just weren’t able to get paid. And just offhandedly, the source mentioned like, um, you know, and they’re attributing everything to this algorithm. This algorithm said, You know, only 17 days for our patients and then time’s up and I went running to Casey Ross
Dan: Casey is a reporter at Stat who focuses on tech and AI in healthcare. Bob said, hey, what do you think of this? Wanna team up?
Bob Herman: And he was hooked.
Dan: They started talking to people who worked at nursing homes, talking to experts, and talking to families. And it was clear: They were onto something.
Bob Herman: It took so many families by surprise to be like, what do you mean we’re going home? The, you know, my husband, my wife, my grandma, my grandpa, they can’t go to the bathroom on their own. Like, what do you? It was just, it was so confusing to people. It seemed like such a, a cold calculation,
Dan: One person they ended up talking with was Gloria Bent. Her husband Gary was sent to a nursing home for rehab after brain surgery for cancer. He was weak. He couldn’t walk. And he had something called “left neglect”: His brain didn’t register that there was a left side of his body. Here’s Gloria testifying before a Senate committee about how — when Gary arrived at the nursing home — the first thing he got was a discharge date. That is…
Gloria Bent: Before the staff of the facility could even evaluate my husband or develop a plan of care, I was contacted by someone who identified themselves as my Navi Health Care Coordinator
Dan: Gloria says when she told the nursing home staff she’d heard from NaviHealth, they groaned. And told her what to expect.
Gloria Bent: I was told that I had just entered a battlefield, that I could expect a series of notices of denial of Medicare payment accompanied by a discharge date that would be two days after I got that notice.
Dan: Yeah, they said she’d get two days notice. Gloria says the nursing home staff told her she’d have 24 hours to appeal each of those, but even if she won, the denials would keep coming. In fact, they said,
Gloria Bent: If we won a couple of appeals, then we could expect that the frequency with which these denials were going to come would increase.
Dan: All of which happened. NaviHealth started issuing denials July 15, 2022, after Gary had been at the home for a month.
Gloria appealed. She told senators what the doctor who evaluated the appeal found: Gary couldn’t walk. He couldn’t even move — like from bed to a chair — without help from two people.. That reviewer took Gloria’s side.
Her husband’s next denial came a week after the first. Gloria won that appeal too. She says the reviewer noted that Gary needed maximum assistance with activities of daily living.
The third denial came four days later, and this time Gloria lost.
Gary came home in an ambulance: As Gloria testified, he couldn’t get into or out of a car without assistance from someone with special training.
And when he got into the ambulance, he had a fever. The next morning, he wound up in another ambulance — headed to a hospital with meningitis. He lost a lot of the functioning he’d picked up at the nursing home.
He died at home a few months later. When Gloria testified in the Senate, all of it was still fresh. She told them that as awful as Gary’s illness and decline had been, the fights with insurance were an added trauma.
Gloria Bent: This should not be happening to families and patients. It’s cruel. Our family continues to struggle with the question that I hear you asking today. Why are people who are looking at patients only on paper or through the lens of an algorithm
making decisions that deny the services judged necessary by health care providers who know their patients.
Dan: Bob Herman calls Gloria’s story heartbreaking, like so many others he’s seen.
And his attention goes to one part of Gloria’s story beyond denial-by-algorithm.
Because: It’s not just one denial. It’s that series of denials. You can appeal, but as Gloria testified, the denials speed up. And you have to win every single time. The company only has to win once.
I mean, unless you’re ready to get a lawyer and take your chances in court– which, in addition to being a major undertaking, also means racking up nursing home bills and legal bills you may never get reimbursed for, while the court process plays out.
Bob Herman: This appeal system is designed in such a way that people will give up. If you have a job, you know, even if you don’t, and you’re, and you’re also trying to take care of a family member, um, it’s a rigorous monotonous process that will chew people up and spit them out and then the people are inevitably going to give up. And I think in some ways insurers know that.
Dan: Going out on a limb to say: I think so too. So Bob and Casey’s first story on NaviHealth came out in March of 2023. They were the characters in the movie who go, “HEY, I THINK THERE’S SOMETHING REALLY BAD HAPPENING HERE.”
And people started paying attention. Like the U.S. Senate. which held that hearing where Gloria Bent told her story.
And like the federal agency that runs Medicare — the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS.
CMS finalized a rule that told insurers: You can’t deny care to people just from using an algorithm.
And something else happened too: Bob and Casey started suddenly getting a lot MORE information.
Bob Herman: We received so many responses from people and it just opened the floodgates for former employees, just patients and family members, just everyone across the board.
Dan: And not just former employees. Current employees. And what they learned was: There was absolutely a strategy at work in how this algorithm was being used. It was strategy some people on the inside didn’t feel good about.
And this strategy got developed after United HealthGroup — and its subsidiary, Optum– bought NaviHealth in 2020. And here’s what NaviHealth employees started telling Casey and Bob about that strategy.
Bob Herman: For some of us, it’s creating this moral crisis. Like we know that we are having to listen to an algorithm to essentially kick someone out of a nursing home, even though we know that they can barely walk 20 feet.
Dan: What Bob and Casey learned from insiders– and how it connects to United’s role as a health care behemoth– that’s next.
This episode of An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a nonprofit newsroom covering healthcare in America. Their reporters do amazing work, and I’m honored to work with them. We’ll have a little more about KFF Health News at the end of this episode.
So, NaviHealth — the company with the algorithm — got started in 2015.. And the idea behind it was to use data to get people home faster from nursing homes if they didn’t actually need to be there.
Because there was a lot of evidence that some people were being kept longer than they needed.
Bob Herman: There is some validity to the idea that there’s, there’s wasteful care in Medicare, like, you know, there’s been cases in the past proving that people stay in a nursing home for way longer than is necessary. And obviously there’s financial incentives for nursing homes to keep people as long as possible.
Dan: Traditional Medicare does have limits on nursing home care — but if you need “post-acute care” — help getting back on your feet after leaving a hospital traditional Medicare pays in full for 20 days– pretty much no questions asked. One of the selling points of Medicare Advantage — like selling points to policy nerds and politicians — was that it could cut waste, by asking those kinds of questions. NaviHealth and its algorithm were designed to help Medicare Advantage plans ask those questions in a smart way.
Bob Herman: There were… a lot of believers within NaviHealth that were like, okay, I think we’re doing the right thing. We’re trying to make sure people get home sooner because who doesn’t want to be at home.
Dan: And as those employees told Bob and Casey: Before United and Optum came in, the algorithm had been there as a guide — a kind of first guess — but not the final word.
NaviHealth has staff people who interact directly with patients. And back in the day, the pre-United day, Bob and Casey learned that those staff could make their own judgments.
Which made sense, because the algorithm doesn’t know everything about any individual case. It’s just making predictions based on the data it has.
Bob Herman: And there was just, just this noticeable change after United and OptiMentor that it felt more rigid. There’s no more variation.
Dan: If the algorithm says you go, you are pretty much going.
Bob Herman: United has said, no, that’s not the case, but obviously these documents and other communications that we’ve gotten kind of say otherwise.
Dan: Because these employees weren’t just talking. They were sharing. Internal memos. Emails. Training materials. All making clear: The company wanted people shipped out on the algorithm’s timetable.
Bob Herman: Documents came in showing that like this was a pretty explicit strategy. You know, UnitedHealth was telling its employees. Listen, we have this algorithm. We think it’s really good. So when it tells you how many, how many days someone should be in a nursing home, stick to it.
Dan: Stick to it or maybe be fired. Bob and Casey got documents — employee performance goals– saying: How close you stick to the algorithm’s recommendations? That’s part of how we’re evaluating your job performance.
Bob Herman: It’s okay. Algorithm said 17 days, you better not really go outside of that because your job is on the line.
Dan: Here’s how closely people were expected to stick to it. In 2022, employee performance goals shared with STAT showed that workers were expected to keep actual time in nursing homes to within three percent of what the algorithm said it should be. Across the board.
So, say you had 10 patients, and the algorithm said they each should get 10 days. That’s 100 days. Your job was to make sure that the total actual days for those patients didn’t go past 103 days.
Then, in 2023, the expectations got more stringent: Stay within one percent of the algorithm’s predictions. 10 patients, the algorithm says 100 days total? Don’t let it get past a hundred and one.
Bob Herman: Like that is, almost nothing. Like what, what, your hands are tied. If you’re that employee, what are you going to do? Are you going to get fired? Are you going to do what you’re told?
Dan: And one person who ended up talking, to did get fired.
Bob Herman: Correct. Yes. Uh, Amber Lynch did get fired And what she said was what we had also heard just more broadly was it, it created this internal conflict, like, Oh my God, what I’m doing doesn’t feel right.
Dan: Amber Lynch was a case manager. She told Bob and Casey about onepatient who couldn’t climb the stairs in his home after knee surgery. But the algorithm said he was ready. Amber’s supervisor said, “Have you asked the nursing home staff if they’ve tried to teach him butt bumping?” Amber grit her teeth and made the suggestion to the rehab director.
Amber Lynch: And she looked at me like I had two heads. She’s like, he is 78 years old. He’s not going to do that. He’s not safe to climb the stairs yet. He’s not doing it. We’re not going to have it butt bump the stairs.
Dan: Amber told Bob and Casey that when she got fired, it was partly for failing to hit the one percent target and partly for being late with paperwork– which she told Bob and Casey she fell behind because her caseload was so heavy.
She wasn’t the only one with that complaint.
Bob and Casey’s story shows another NaviHealth case manager– not named in the story because they’re still on the job — in their home office, struggling to keep up.
That week, they were supposed to work with 27 patients and their families. Gather documents, hold meetings. Another week, shortly before, they’d had 40 patients.
“Do you think I was able to process everything correctly and call everyone correctly the way I was supposed to?” the case manager asked. “No. It’s impossible. No one can be that fast and that effective and capture all of the information that’s needed.”
Bob and Casey watched this case manager fill out a digital form, feeding the algorithm the information it asked for on a man in his 80s with heart failure, kidney disease, diabetes and trouble swallowing, who was recovering from a broken shoulder.
A few minutes later, the computer spat out a number: 17 days.
The case manager didn’t have a lot of time or leeway to argue, but they were skeptical that the algorithm could get that number exactly right based on only the data it had.
And what data is the algorithm working with? What’s it comparing the data on any given patient TO? Bob Herman says that’s a big question.
Bob Herman: It’s something that for sure, like Casey and I, it’s been bothering us. Like, what, how is this whole system? Like, what is it based on? And we were never really given straight answers on that. NaviHealth and Optum and United have said it’s based on millions of patient records over time. The sources of that, it’s, it’s a little unclear, where all that’s coming from.
Dan: Bob and Casey talked with an expert named Ziad Obermeyer, a professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health, who is not anti-algorithm. He actually builds algorithmic tools for decision making in public health.
AND he’s done research showing that some widely-used algorithms just scale up and automate things like racial bias.
He told Bob and Casey: Using an algorithm based on how long other, earlier patients have stayed in a nursing home — that’s not a great idea.
Because people get forced out of nursing homes, in his words, “because they can’t pay or because their insurance sucks.” He said, “So the algorightm is basically learning all the inequalities of our current system.”
And leaving aside that kind of bias, it seems unlikely to Bob that any algorithm could predict exactly what every single patient will need every single time.
No matter how much data it’s got, it’s predicting from averages.
Bob Herman: It reminds me of, like, a basketball game where let’s say someone averages 27 points per game. They don’t have 27 points every single, the game they go out there. It just varies from time to time.
Dan: But the NaviHealth algorithm doesn’t have to be right every time for United to make money using it.
Using it to make decisions can allow United to boost profits coming and going.
Bob Herman: United health and the other insurance companies that use Navi health. Are using this technology to more or less kick people out of nursing homes before they’re ready. And that is the claims denial side where it’s like, okay, let’s save as much money as we can instead of having to pay it to a nursing home.
Dan: And that’s just one side of it. The insurance side. Claims denial. But United isn’t just in the insurance business.
United’s Optum side is in every other part of health care.
Including — in the years since United took over NaviHealth — home health services. The kind of services you’re likely to need when you leave a nursing home.
In 2022, Optum bought one top home health company in what one trade publication called a “monster, jaw-dropping mega-deal” — more than 5 billion dollars. In 2023, Optum made a deal to buy a second mega-provider.
Bob and Casey’s story says NaviHealth’s shortening nursing home stays is integral to United’s strategy for these acquisitions. It does seem to open up new opportunities.
Bob Herman: You’re out of the nursing home because our algorithm said so. Now we’re going to send you to a home health agency or we’re going to send some home health aides into your home. And by the way, we own them.
Dan: Oh, right, because: If you’re in a Medicare Advantage plan, your insurer can tell you which providers are covered.
Bob Herman: So the real question becomes, how much is United potentially paying itself?
Dan: That is: How much might United end up taking money out of one pocket — the health insurance side — and paying itself into another pocket, Optum’s home-health services?
We don’t know the answer to how much United is paying itself in this way, or hoping to. And United has said its insurance arm doesn’t favor its in-house businesses.
But it seems like a reasonable question to ask. Actually, it’s a question the feds seem to be asking.
Optum hasn’t wrapped up its purchase of that second home-health company yet, and in February 2024, the Wall Street Journal and other outlets reported that the U.S. Department of Justice had opened an anti-trust investigation.
And you don’t have to be in a Medicare Advantage plan run by United to get kicked out of a nursing home on an algorithm’s say-so.
Bob Herman says NaviHealth sells its algorithm-driven services to other big insurance companies
He says, put together, the companies that use NaviHealth cover as many as 15 million people — about half of everybody in Medicare Advantage.
Bob Herman: Odds are, if you’re in a Medicare Advantage plan, there’s a, there’s a really good shot that your coverage policies, if you get really sick and need nursing home care, for example, or any kind of post acute care, an algorithm could be at play at some point.
Dan: This is the dark side of Medicare Advantage.
Bob Herman: Everyone loves their Medicare Advantage plan when they first sign up, right? Because it’s offering all these bells and whistles. It’s, here’s a gym membership. It’s got dental and vision, which regular Medicare doesn’t have. And it’s also just, it’s, it’s cheaper. Like, if it’s just from a financial point of view, if, if you’re a low income senior, How do you turn it down? There’s, there’s so many plans that offer like free, there’s no monthly premiums in addition to all the bells and whistles. But Nobody understands the trade offs , When you’re signing up for Medicare and Medicare Advantage, you’re on the healthier side of, of being a senior, right?
Dan: And none of us can count on staying healthy forever. When you sign up for Medicare you’re signing up your future self — whether that’s ten or twenty or more years out. That future you, might really need good medical care.
And at that point, as we explained in our last episode, if Medicare Advantage isn’t working for you, you may not be able to get out of it.
Bob Herman: You could potentially not fully get the care that you need. We shouldn’t assume that, that this couldn’t happen to us because it can.
Dan: So, yeah. Kind of a horror story. But: Unlike some horror movies, when Bob and Casey started publishing their stories, they started getting people’s attention.
We mentioned the new rules from the feds and the senate hearings after Bob and Casey’s first story in March 2023
Later in the year, when Bob and Casey published their story with documents and stories from inside NaviHealth, a class-action lawsuit got filed.
Since then, CMS has said it will step up audits under its new rules.
Bob Herman: There was a memo that CMS sent out to Medicare advantage plans that said, Hey, listen, we’re telling you again, do not deny care solely on any AI or algorithms. Like just don’t do it.
Dan: And in February 2024, the Senate held another hearing.
Here’s Senator Elizabeth Warren at that hearing, saying these CMS rules aren’t enough. We need stronger guardrails.
Elizabeth Warren: Until CMS can verify that AI algorithms reliably adhere to Medicare coverage standards by law, then my view on this is CMS should prohibit insurance companies from using them in their MA plans for coverage decisions. They’ve got to prove they work before they put them in place.
Dan: So people — people with at least some power– are paying some attention.
Bob Herman: I don’t think this is necessarily going to escape. Political scrutiny for a while.
Dan: So, basically, the story isn’t over.
This isn’t one of those horror movies where the monster’s been safely defeated at the end, and everybody just starts cleaning up the mess. And it’s not one where the monster is just on the loose, unleashing the apocalypse.
Because it’s not a movie. There’s no ending. There’s just all of us trying to figure out what’s going on, and what we can maybe do about it.
One last thing: I got a lot of emails after our last episode, where we laid out a lot of information about Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Most of it was along the lines of, Thank you! That was really helpful! Which made me feel really good.
And we got a couple notes about things we could have done better. Especially this: We said Traditional Medicare leaves you on the hook for 20 percent of everything, without an out of pocket limit.
Which is true — but only for Medicare Part B: Doctor visits, outpatient surgeries and tests. Which can add up, for sure.
Medicare Part A — if you’re actually hospitalized — covers most services at 100 percent, after you meet the deductible. In 2024 that’s one thousand, six hundred thirty-two dollars.
Thanks to Clarke Lancina for pointing that out.
There have been a bunch of other, amazing notes in my inbox recently, and I want to say: Please keep them coming.
If you go to arm and a leg show dot com, slash, contact, whatever you type there goes straight to my inbox. You can attach stuff too: documents… voice memos.
Please let me hear from you. That’s arm and a leg show dot com, slash contact.
I’ll catch you in a few weeks.
Till then, take care of yourself.
This episode of an arm and a leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta, and edited by Ellen Weiss.
Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and blue dot sessions. Extra music in this episode from Epidemic Sound.
Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. She edits the first aid kit newsletter.
Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. Sarah Ballama is our operations manager.
And Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in depth journalism about healthcare in America and a core program at KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism.
Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show.
And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN. org.
Finally, thanks to everybody who supports this show financially– you can join in any time at arm and a leg show dot com, slash, support — and thanks for listening.
“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.
To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to the newsletter. You can also follow the show on Facebook and the social platform X. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.
To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.
And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
——————————
By: Dan Weissmann
Title: An Arm and a Leg: Attack of the Medicare Machines
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/podcast/attack-of-the-medicare-machines/
Published Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:00:00 +0000
Kaiser Health News
Dual Threats From Trump and GOP Imperil Nursing Homes and Their Foreign-Born Workers
In a top-rated nursing home in Alexandria, Virginia, the Rev. Donald Goodness is cared for by nurses and aides from various parts of Africa. One of them, Jackline Conteh, a naturalized citizen and nurse assistant from Sierra Leone, bathes and helps dress him most days and vigilantly intercepts any meal headed his way that contains gluten, as Goodness has celiac disease.
“We are full of people who come from other countries,” Goodness, 92, said about Goodwin House Alexandria’s staff. Without them, the retired Episcopal priest said, “I would be, and my building would be, desolate.”
The long-term health care industry is facing a double whammy from President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigrants and the GOP’s proposals to reduce Medicaid spending. The industry is highly dependent on foreign workers: More than 800,000 immigrants and naturalized citizens comprise 28% of direct care employees at home care agencies, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and other long-term care companies.
But in January, the Trump administration rescinded former President Joe Biden’s 2021 policy that protected health care facilities from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The administration’s broad immigration crackdown threatens to drastically reduce the number of current and future workers for the industry. “People may be here on a green card, and they are afraid ICE is going to show up,” said Katie Smith Sloan, president of LeadingAge, an association of nonprofits that care for older adults.
Existing staffing shortages and quality-of-care problems would be compounded by other policies pushed by Trump and the Republican-led Congress, according to nursing home officials, resident advocates, and academic experts. Federal spending cuts under negotiation may strip nursing homes of some of their largest revenue sources by limiting ways states leverage Medicaid money and making it harder for new nursing home residents to retroactively qualify for Medicaid. Care for 6 in 10 residents is paid for by Medicaid, the state-federal health program for poor or disabled Americans.
“We are facing the collision of two policies here that could further erode staffing in nursing homes and present health outcome challenges,” said Eric Roberts, an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
The industry hasn’t recovered from covid-19, which killed more than 200,000 long-term care facility residents and workers and led to massive staff attrition and turnover. Nursing homes have struggled to replace licensed nurses, who can find better-paying jobs at hospitals and doctors’ offices, as well as nursing assistants, who can earn more working at big-box stores or fast-food joints. Quality issues that preceded the pandemic have expanded: The percentage of nursing homes that federal health inspectors cited for putting residents in jeopardy of immediate harm or death has risen alarmingly from 17% in 2015 to 28% in 2024.
In addition to seeking to reduce Medicaid spending, congressional Republicans have proposed shelving the biggest nursing home reform in decades: a Biden-era rule mandating minimum staffing levels that would require most of the nation’s nearly 15,000 nursing homes to hire more workers.
The long-term care industry expects demand for direct care workers to burgeon with an influx of aging baby boomers needing professional care. The Census Bureau has projected the number of people 65 and older would grow from 63 million this year to 82 million in 2050.
In an email, Vianca Rodriguez Feliciano, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the agency “is committed to supporting a strong, stable long-term care workforce” and “continues to work with states and providers to ensure quality care for older adults and individuals with disabilities.” In a separate email, Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, said foreigners wanting to work as caregivers “need to do that by coming here the legal way” but did not address the effect on the long-term care workforce of deportations of classes of authorized immigrants.
Goodwin Living, a faith-based nonprofit, runs three retirement communities in northern Virginia for people who live independently, need a little assistance each day, have memory issues, or require the availability of around-the-clock nurses. It also operates a retirement community in Washington, D.C. Medicare rates Goodwin House Alexandria as one of the best-staffed nursing homes in the country. Forty percent of the organization’s 1,450 employees are foreign-born and are either seeking citizenship or are already naturalized, according to Lindsay Hutter, a Goodwin spokesperson.
“As an employer, we see they stay on with us, they have longer tenure, they are more committed to the organization,” said Rob Liebreich, Goodwin’s president and CEO.
Jackline Conteh spent much of her youth shuttling between Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Ghana to avoid wars and tribal conflicts. Her mother was killed by a stray bullet in her home country of Liberia, Conteh said. “She was sitting outside,” Conteh, 56, recalled in an interview.
Conteh was working as a nurse in a hospital in Sierra Leone in 2009 when she learned of a lottery for visas to come to the United States. She won, though she couldn’t afford to bring her husband and two children along at the time. After she got a nursing assistant certification, Goodwin hired her in 2012.
Conteh said taking care of elders is embedded in the culture of African families. When she was 9, she helped feed and dress her grandmother, a job that rotated among her and her sisters. She washed her father when he was dying of prostate cancer. Her husband joined her in the United States in 2017; she cares for him because he has heart failure.
“Nearly every one of us from Africa, we know how to care for older adults,” she said.
Her daughter is now in the United States, while her son is still in Africa. Conteh said she sends money to him, her mother-in-law, and one of her sisters.
In the nursing home where Goodness and 89 other residents live, Conteh helps with daily tasks like dressing and eating, checks residents’ skin for signs of swelling or sores, and tries to help them avoid falling or getting disoriented. Of 102 employees in the building, broken up into eight residential wings called “small houses” and a wing for memory care, at least 72 were born abroad, Hutter said.
Donald Goodness grew up in Rochester, New York, and spent 25 years as rector of The Church of the Ascension in New York City, retiring in 1997. He and his late wife moved to Alexandria to be closer to their daughter, and in 2011 they moved into independent living at the Goodwin House. In 2023 he moved into one of the skilled nursing small houses, where Conteh started caring for him.
“I have a bad leg and I can’t stand on it very much, or I’d fall over,” he said. “She’s in there at 7:30 in the morning, and she helps me bathe.” Goodness said Conteh is exacting about cleanliness and will tell the housekeepers if his room is not kept properly.
Conteh said Goodness was withdrawn when he first arrived. “He don’t want to come out, he want to eat in his room,” she said. “He don’t want to be with the other people in the dining room, so I start making friends with him.”
She showed him a photo of Sierra Leone on her phone and told him of the weather there. He told her about his work at the church and how his wife did laundry for the choir. The breakthrough, she said, came one day when he agreed to lunch with her in the dining room. Long out of his shell, Goodness now sits on the community’s resident council and enjoys distributing the mail to other residents on his floor.
“The people that work in my building become so important to us,” Goodness said.
While Trump’s 2024 election campaign focused on foreigners here without authorization, his administration has broadened to target those legally here, including refugees who fled countries beset by wars or natural disasters. This month, the Department of Homeland Security revoked the work permits for migrants and refugees from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who arrived under a Biden-era program.
“I’ve just spent my morning firing good, honest people because the federal government told us that we had to,” Rachel Blumberg, president of the Toby & Leon Cooperman Sinai Residences of Boca Raton, a Florida retirement community, said in a video posted on LinkedIn. “I am so sick of people saying that we are deporting people because they are criminals. Let me tell you, they are not all criminals.”
At Goodwin House, Conteh is fearful for her fellow immigrants. Foreign workers at Goodwin rarely talk about their backgrounds. “They’re scared,” she said. “Nobody trusts anybody.” Her neighbors in her apartment complex fled the U.S. in December and returned to Sierra Leone after Trump won the election, leaving their children with relatives.
“If all these people leave the United States, they go back to Africa or to their various countries, what will become of our residents?” Conteh asked. “What will become of our old people that we’re taking care of?”
KFF 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 KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
The post Dual Threats From Trump and GOP Imperil Nursing Homes and Their Foreign-Born Workers appeared first on kffhealthnews.org
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This content primarily highlights concerns about the impact of restrictive immigration policies and Medicaid spending cuts proposed by the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers on the long-term care industry. It emphasizes the importance of immigrant workers in healthcare, the challenges that staffing shortages pose to patient care, and the potential negative effects of GOP policy proposals. The tone is critical of these policies while sympathetic toward immigrant workers and advocates for maintaining or increasing government support for healthcare funding. The framing aligns with a center-left perspective, focusing on social welfare, immigrant rights, and concern about the consequences of conservative economic and immigration policies without descending into partisan rhetoric.
Kaiser Health News
California’s Much-Touted IVF Law May Be Delayed Until 2026, Leaving Many in the Lurch
California lawmakers are poised to delay the state’s much-ballyhooed new law mandating in vitro fertilization insurance coverage for millions, set to take effect July 1. Gov. Gavin Newsom has asked lawmakers to push the implementation date to January 2026, leaving patients, insurers, and employers in limbo.
The law, SB 729, requires state-regulated health plans offered by large employers to cover infertility diagnosis and treatment, including IVF. Nine million people will qualify for coverage under the law. Advocates have praised the law as “a major win for Californians,” especially in making same-sex couples and aspiring single parents eligible, though cost concerns limited the mandate’s breadth.
People who had been planning fertility care based on the original timeline are now “left in a holding pattern facing more uncertainty, financial strain, and emotional distress,” Alise Powell, a director at Resolve: The National Infertility Association, said in a statement.
During IVF, a patient’s eggs are retrieved, combined with sperm in a lab, and then transferred to a person’s uterus. A single cycle can total around $25,000, out of reach for many. The California law requires insurers to cover up to three egg retrievals and an unlimited number of embryo transfers.
Not everyone’s coverage would be affected by the delay. Even if the law took effect July 1, it wouldn’t require IVF coverage to start until the month an employer’s contract renews with its insurer. Rachel Arrezola, a spokesperson for the California Department of Managed Health Care, said most of the employers subject to the law renew their contracts in January, so their employees would not be affected by a delay.
She declined to provide data on the percentage of eligible contracts that renew in July or later, which would mean those enrollees wouldn’t get IVF coverage until at least a full year from now, in July 2026 or later.
The proposed new implementation date comes amid heightened national attention on fertility coverage. California is now one of 15 states with an IVF mandate, and in February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order seeking policy recommendations to expand IVF access.
It’s the second time Newsom has asked lawmakers to delay the law. When the Democratic governor signed the bill in September, he asked the legislature to consider delaying implementation by six months. The reason, Newsom said then, was to allow time to reconcile differences between the bill and a broader effort by state regulators to include IVF and other fertility services as an essential health benefit, which would require the marketplace and other individual and small-group plans to provide the coverage.
Newsom spokesperson Elana Ross said the state needs more time to provide guidance to insurers on specific services not addressed in the law to ensure adequate and uniform coverage. Arrezola said embryo storage and donor eggs and sperm were examples of services requiring more guidance.
State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Democrat who authored the original IVF mandate, acknowledged a delay could frustrate people yearning to expand their families, but requested patience “a little longer so we can roll this out right.”
Sean Tipton, a lobbyist for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, contended that the few remaining questions on the mandate did not warrant a long delay.
Lawmakers appear poised to advance the delay to a vote by both houses of the legislature, likely before the end of June. If a delay is approved and signed by the governor, the law would immediately be paused. If this does not happen before July 1, Arrezola said, the Department of Managed Health Care would enforce the mandate as it exists. All plans were required to submit compliance filings to the agency by March. Arrezola was unable to explain what would happen to IVF patients whose coverage had already begun if the delay passes after July 1.
The California Association of Health Plans, which opposed the mandate, declined to comment on where implementation efforts stand, although the group agrees that insurers need more guidance, spokesperson Mary Ellen Grant said.
Kaiser Permanente, the state’s largest insurer, has already sent employers information they can provide to their employees about the new benefit, company spokesperson Kathleen Chambers said. She added that eligible members whose plans renew on or after July 1 would have IVF coverage if implementation of the law is not delayed.
Employers and some fertility care providers appear to be grappling over the uncertainty of the law’s start date. Amy Donovan, a lawyer at insurance brokerage and consulting firm Keenan & Associates, said the firm has fielded many questions from employers about the possibility of delay. Reproductive Science Center and Shady Grove Fertility, major clinics serving different areas of California, posted on their websites that the IVF mandate had been delayed until January 2026, which is not yet the case. They did not respond to requests for comment.
Some infertility patients confused over whether and when they will be covered have run out of patience. Ana Rios and her wife, who live in the Central Valley, had been trying to have a baby for six years, dipping into savings for each failed treatment. Although she was “freaking thrilled” to learn about the new law last fall, Rios could not get clarity from her employer or health plan on whether she was eligible for the coverage and when it would go into effect, she said. The couple decided to go to Mexico to pursue cheaper treatment options.
“You think you finally have a helping hand,” Rios said of learning about the law and then, later, the requested delay. “You reach out, and they take it back.”
This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
KFF 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 KFF.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).
KFF 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 KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
The post California’s Much-Touted IVF Law May Be Delayed Until 2026, Leaving Many in the Lurch appeared first on kffhealthnews.org
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This content is presented in a factual, balanced manner typical of center-left public policy reporting. It focuses on a progressive healthcare issue (mandated IVF insurance coverage) favorably highlighting benefits for diverse family structures and individuals, including same-sex couples and single parents, which often aligns with center-left values. At the same time, it includes perspectives from government officials, industry representatives, opponents, and patients, offering a nuanced view without overt ideological framing or partisan rhetoric. The emphasis on healthcare access, social equity, and patient impact situates the coverage within a center-left orientation.
Kaiser Health News
Push To Move OB-GYN Exam Out of Texas Is Piece of AGs’ Broader Reproductive Rights Campaign
Democratic state attorneys general led by those from California, New York, and Massachusetts are pressuring medical professional groups to defend reproductive rights, including medication abortion, emergency abortions, and travel between states for health care in response to recent increases in the number of abortion bans.
The American Medical Association adopted a formal position June 9 recommending that medical certification exams be moved out of states with restrictive abortion policies or made virtual, after 20 attorneys general petitioned to protect physicians who fear legal repercussions because of their work. The petition focused on the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s certification exams in Dallas, and the subsequent AMA recommendation was hailed as a win for Democrats trying to regain ground after the fall of Roe v. Wade.
“It seems incremental, but there are so many things that go into expanding and maintaining access to care,” said Arneta Rogers, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at the University of California-Berkeley’s law school. “We see AGs banding together, governors banding together, as advocates work on the ground. That feels somewhat more hopeful — that people are thinking about a coordinated strategy.”
Since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, 16 states, including Texas, have implemented laws banning abortion almost entirely, and many of them impose criminal penalties on providers as well as options to sue doctors. More than 25 states restrict access to gender-affirming care for trans people, and six of them make it a felony to provide such care to youth.
That’s raised concern among some physicians who fear being charged if they go to those states, even if their home state offers protection to provide reproductive and gender-affirming health care.
Pointing to the recent fining and indictment of a physician in New York who allegedly provided abortion pills to a woman in Texas and a teen in Louisiana, a coalition of physicians wrote in a letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology that “the limits of shield laws are tenuous” and that “Texas laws can affect physicians practicing outside of the state as well.”
The campaign was launched by several Democratic attorneys general, including Rob Bonta of California, Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, and Letitia James of New York, who each have established a reproductive rights unit as a bulwark for their state following the Dobbs decision.
“Reproductive health care and gender-affirming care providers should not have to risk their safety or freedom just to advance in their medical careers,” James said in a statement. “Forcing providers to travel to states that have declared war on reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights is as unnecessary as it is dangerous.”
In their petition, the attorneys general included a letter from Joseph Ottolenghi, medical director at Choices Women’s Medical Center in New York City, who was denied his request to take the test remotely or outside of Texas. To be certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, physicians need to take the in-person exam at its testing facility in Dallas. The board completed construction of its new testing facility last year.
“As a New York practitioner, I have made every effort not to violate any other state’s laws, but the outer contours of these draconian laws have not been tested or clarified by the courts,” Ottolenghi wrote.
Rachel Rebouché, the dean of Temple University’s law school and a reproductive law scholar, said “putting the heft” of the attorneys general behind this effort helps build awareness and a “public reckoning” on behalf of providers. Separately, some doctors have urged medical conferences to boycott states with abortion bans.
Anti-abortion groups, however, see the campaign as forcing providers to conform to abortion-rights views. Donna Harrison, an OB-GYN and the director of research at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, described the petition as an “attack not only on pro-life states but also on life-affirming medical professionals.”
Harrison said the “OB-GYN community consists of physicians with values that are as diverse as our nation’s state abortion laws,” and that this diversity “fosters a medical environment of debate and rigorous thought leading to advancements that ultimately serve our patients.”
The AMA’s new policy urges specialty medical boards to host exams in states without restrictive abortion laws, offer the tests remotely, or provide exemptions for physicians. However, the decision to implement any changes to the administration of these exams is up to those boards. There is no deadline for a decision to be made.
The OB-GYN board did not respond to requests for comment, but after the public petition from the attorneys general criticizing it for refusing exam accommodations, the board said that in-person exams conducted at its national center in Dallas “provide the most equitable, fair, secure, and standardized assessment.”
The OB-GYN board emphasized that Texas’ laws apply to doctors licensed in Texas and to medical care within Texas, specifically. And it noted that its exam dates are kept under wraps, and that there have been “no incidents of harm to candidates or examiners across thousands of in-person examinations.”
Democratic state prosecutors, however, warned in their petition that the “web of confusing and punitive state-based restrictions creates a legal minefield for medical providers.” Texas is among the states that have banned doctors from providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, and it has reportedly made efforts to get records from medical facilities and professionals in other states who may have provided that type of care to Texans.
The Texas attorney general’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
States such as California and New York have laws to block doctors from being extradited under other states’ laws and to prevent sharing evidence against them. But instances that require leveraging these laws could still mean lengthy legal proceedings.
“We live in a moment where we’ve seen actions by executive bodies that don’t necessarily square with what we thought the rules provided,” Rebouché said.
This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
KFF 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 KFF.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).
KFF 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 KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
The post Push To Move OB-GYN Exam Out of Texas Is Piece of AGs’ Broader Reproductive Rights Campaign appeared first on kffhealthnews.org
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
The article presents a viewpoint largely aligned with progressive and Democratic positions on reproductive rights and gender-affirming care. It highlights efforts led by Democratic attorneys general and the American Medical Association to protect abortion access and transgender healthcare amid restrictive state laws, portraying these actions positively. While it includes perspectives from anti-abortion advocates, their views are presented briefly and framed as opposition to the broader pro-choice initiatives. The overall tone and framing emphasize support for reproductive freedom and healthcare protections, reflecting a center-left leaning stance typical of mainstream health policy reporting sympathetic to Democratic policy goals.
-
News from the South - Tennessee News Feed6 days ago
Thieves take thousands of dollars in equipment from Union County Soccer League
-
Mississippi Today4 days ago
Defendant in auditor’s ‘second largest’ embezzlement case in history goes free
-
News from the South - Texas News Feed6 days ago
Robert Nichols to retire from Texas Senate
-
News from the South - Louisiana News Feed6 days ago
3 lawsuits filed against CVS, Louisiana AG announces
-
News from the South - Missouri News Feed6 days ago
Residents provide feedback in Kearney Street Corridor redevelopment meeting
-
News from the South - Alabama News Feed6 days ago
News 5 NOW at 12:30pm | June 24, 2025
-
The Conversation6 days ago
The Vera C. Rubin Observatory will help astronomers investigate dark matter, continuing the legacy of its pioneering namesake
-
News from the South - Florida News Feed6 days ago
DeSantis signs bill into law that ensures public access to Florida beaches | Florida