Kaiser Health News

Lose Weight, Gain Huge Debt: NY Provider Has Sued More Than 300 Patients Who Had Bariatric Surgery

Published

1 year ago

April 20, 2023

by Fred Schulte, KFF Health News
Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:00:00 +0000

Seven months after Lahavah Wallace's weight loss operation, a New York bariatric surgery practice sued her, accusing her of “intentionally” failing to pay nearly $18,000 of her bill.

Long Island Minimally Invasive Surgery, which does business as the New York Bariatric Group, went on to accuse Wallace of “embezzlement,” alleging she kept insurance payments that should have been turned over to the practice.

Wallace denies the allegations, which the bariatric practice has leveled against patients in hundreds of debt-collection lawsuits filed over the past four years, court records in New York state show.

In about 60 cases, the lawsuits demanded $100,000 or more from patients. Some patients were found liable for tens of thousands of dollars in interest charges or wound up shackled with debt that could take a decade or more to shake. Others are facing the likely prospect of six-figure financial penalties, court records show.

Backed by a major private equity firm, the bariatric practice spends millions each year on advertisements featuring patients who have dropped 100 pounds or more after bariatric procedures, sometimes having had a portion of their stomachs removed. The ads have run on TV, online, and on New York City subway posters.

The online ads, often showcasing the slogan “Stop obesity for life,” appealed to Wallace, who lives in Brooklyn and works as a legal assistant for the state of New York. She said she turned over checks from her insurer to the bariatric group and was stunned when the medical practice hauled her into court citing an “out-of-network payment agreement” she had signed before her surgery.

“I really didn't know what I was signing,” Wallace told KFF Health News. “I didn't pay enough attention.”

Dr. Shawn Garber, a bariatric surgeon who founded the practice in 2000 on Long Island and serves as its CEO, said that “prior to rendering services” his office staff advises patients of the costs and their responsibility to pay the bill.

The bariatric group has cited these out-of-network payment agreements in at least 300 lawsuits filed against patients from January 2019 through 2022 demanding nearly $19 million to cover medical bills, interest charges, and attorney's fees, a KFF Health News review of New York state court records found.

Danny De Voe, a partner at Sahn Ward Braff Koblenz law firm in Uniondale, New York, who filed many of those suits, declined to comment, citing attorney-client privilege.

In most cases, the medical practice had agreed to accept an insurance company's out-of-network rate as full payment for its services — with caveats, according to court filings.

In the agreements they signed, patients promised to pay any coinsurance, meeting any deductible, and pass on to the medical practice any reimbursement checks they received from their health plans within seven days.

Patients who fail to do so “will be held responsible for the full amount charged for your surgery, plus the cost of legal fees,” the agreement states.

That “full amount” can be thousands of dollars higher than what insurers would likely pay, KFF Health News found — while legal fees and other costs can layer on thousands more.

Elisabeth Benjamin, a lawyer with the Community Service Society of New York, said conflicts can arise when insurers send checks to pay for out-of-network medical services to patients rather than reimbursing a medical provider directly.

“We would prefer to see regulators step in and stop that practice,” she said, adding it “causes tension between providers and patients.”

That's certainly true for Wallace. The surgery practice sued her last August demanding $17,981 in fees it said remained unpaid after her January 2022 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, an operation in which much of the stomach is removed to assist weight loss.

The lawsuit also tacked on a demand for $5,993 in attorney's fees, court records show.

The suit alleges Wallace signed the contract even though she “had no intention” of paying her bills. The complaint goes on to accuse her of “committing embezzlement” by “willfully, intentionally, deliberately and maliciously” depositing checks from her health plan into her personal account.

The suit doesn't include details to substantiate these claims, and Wallace said in her court response they are not true. Wallace said she turned over checks for the charges.

“They billed the insurance for everything they possibly could,” Wallace said.

In September, Wallace filed for bankruptcy, hoping to discharge the bariatric care debt along with about $4,700 in unrelated credit card charges.

The medical practice fired back in November by filing an “adversary complaint” in her Brooklyn bankruptcy court proceeding that argues her medical debt should not be forgiven because Wallace committed fraud.

The adversary complaint, which is pending in the bankruptcy case, accuses Wallace of “fraudulently” inducing the surgery center to perform “elective medical procedures” without requiring payment upfront.

Both the harsh wording and claims of wrongdoing have infuriated Wallace and her attorney, Jacob Silver, of Brooklyn.

Silver wants the medical practice to turn over records of the payments received from Wallace. “There is no fraud here,” he said. “This is frivolous. We are taking a no-settlement position.”

Gaining Debt

Few patients sued by the bariatric practice mount a defense in court and those who do fight often lose, court records show.

The medical practice won default judgments totaling nearly $6 million in about 90 of the 300 cases in the sample reviewed by KFF Health News. Default judgments are entered when the defendant fails to respond.

Many cases either are pending, or it is not clear from court filings how they were resolved.

Some patients tried to argue that the fees were too high or that they didn't understand going in how much they could owe. One woman, trying to push back against a demand for more than $100,000, said in a legal filing that she “was given numerous papers to sign without anyone of the staff members explaining to me what it actually meant.” Another patient, who was sued for more than $40,000, wrote: “I don't have the means to pay this bill.”

Among the cases described in court records:

A Westchester County, New York, woman was sued for $102,556 and settled for $72,000 in May 2021. She agreed to pay $7,500 upon signing the settlement and $500 a month from September 2021 through May 2032.
A Peekskill, New York, woman in a December 2019 judgment was held liable for $384,092, which included $94,047 in interest.
A Newburgh, New York, man was sued in 2021 for $252,309 in medical bills, 12% interest, and $84,103 in attorneys' fees. The case is pending.

Robert Cohen, a longtime attorney for the bariatric practice, testified in a November 2021 hearing that the lawyers take “a contingency fee of one-third of our recovery” in these cases. In that case, Cohen had requested $13,578 based on his contingency fee arrangement. He testified that he spent 7.3 hours on the case and that his customary billing rate was $475 per hour, which came to $3,467.50. The judge awarded the lower amount, according to a transcript of the hearing.

Dr. Teresa LaMasters, president of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, said suing patients for large sums “is not a common practice” among bariatric surgeons.

“This is not what the vast majority in the field would espouse,” she said.

But Garber, the NYBG's chief executive, suggested patients deserve blame.

“These lawsuits stem from these patients stealing the insurance money rather than forwarding it onto NYBG as they are morally and contractually obligated to do,” Garber wrote in an email to KFF Health News.

Garber added: “The issue is not with what we bill, but rather with the fact that the insurance companies refuse to send payment directly to us.”

‘A Kooky System'

Defense attorneys argue that many patients don't fully comprehend the perils of failing to pay on time — for whatever reason.

In a few cases, patients admitted pocketing checks they were obligated to turn over to the medical practice. But for the most part, court records don't specify how many such checks were issued and for what amounts — or whether the patient improperly cashed them.

“It's a kooky system,” said Paul Brite, an attorney who has faced off against the bariatric practice in court.

“You sign these documents that could cost you tons of money. It shouldn't be that way,” he said. “This can ruin their financial life.”

New York lawmakers have acted to limit the damage from medical debt, including “surprise bills.”

In November, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed legislation that prohibits health care providers from slapping liens on a primary residence or garnishing wages.

But contracts with onerous repayment terms represent an “evolving area of law” and an alarming “new twist” on concerns over medical debt, said Benjamin, the community service society lawyer.

She said contract “accelerator clauses” that trigger severe penalties if patients miss payments should not be permitted for medical debt.

“If you default, the full amount is due,” she said. “This is really a bummer.”

‘Fair Market Value'

The debt collection lawsuits argue that weight loss patients had agreed to pay “fair market value” for services — and the doctors are only trying to secure money they are due.

But some prices far exceed typical insurance payments for obesity treatments across the country, according to a medical billing data registry. Surgeons performed about 200,000 bariatric operations in 2020, according to the bariatric surgery society.

Wallace, the Brooklyn legal assistant, was billed $60,500 for her lap sleeve gastrectomy, though how much her insurance actually paid remains to be hashed out in court.

Michael Arrigo, a California medical billing expert at No World Borders, called the prices “outrageous” and “unreasonable and, in fact, likely unconscionable.”

“I disagree that these are fair market charges,” he said.

LaMasters, the bariatric society president, called the gastrectomy price billed to Wallace “really expensive” and “a severe outlier.” While charges vary by region, she quoted a typical price of around $22,000.

Garber said NYBG “bills at usual and customary rates” determined by Fair Health, a New York City-based repository of insurance claims data. Fair Health “sets these rates based upon the acceptable price for our geographic location,” he said.

But Rachel Kent, Fair Health's senior director of marketing, told KFF Health News that the group “does not set rates, nor determine or take any position on what constitutes ‘usual and customary rates.'” Instead, it reports the prices providers are charging in a given area.

Overall, Fair Health data shows huge price variations even in adjacent ZIP codes in the metro area. In Long Island's Roslyn Heights neighborhood, where NYBG is based, Fair Health lists the out-of-network price charged by providers in the area as $60,500, the figure Wallace was billed.

But in several other New York City-area ZIP codes the price charged for the gastrectomy procedure hovers around $20,000, according to the databank. The price in Manhattan is $17,500, for instance, according to Fair Health.

Nationwide, the average cost in 2021 for bariatric surgery done in a hospital was $32,868, according to a KFF analysis of health insurance claims.

Private Equity Arrives

Garber said in a court affidavit in May 2022 that he founded the bariatric practice “with a singular focus: providing safe, effective care to patients suffering from obesity and its resulting complications.”

Under his leadership, the practice has “developed into New York's elite institution for obesity treatment,” Garber said. He said the group's surgeons are “highly sought after to train other bariatric surgeons throughout the country and are active in the development of new, cutting-edge bariatric surgery techniques.”

In 2017, Garber and his partners agreed on a business plan to help spur growth and “attract private equity investment,” according to the affidavit.

They formed a separate company to handle the bariatric practice's business side. Known as management services organizations, or MSOs, such companies provide a way for private equity investors to circumvent laws in some states that prohibit non-physicians from owning a stake in a medical practice.

In August 2019, the private equity firm Sentinel Capital Partners bought 65% of the MSO for $156.5 million, according to Garber's affidavit. The management company is now known as New You Bariatric Group. The private equity firm did not respond to requests for comment.

Garber, in a September 2021 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery webinar viewable online, said the weight loss practice spends $6 million a year on media and marketing directly to patients — and is on a roll. Nationally, bariatric surgery is growing 6% annually, he said. NYBG boasts two dozen offices in the tri-state area of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut and is poised to expand into more states.

“Since private equity, we've been growing at 30% to 40% year over year,” Garber said.

By: Fred Schulte, KFF Health News
Title: Lose Weight, Gain Huge Debt: NY Provider Has Sued More Than 300 Patients Who Had Bariatric Surgery
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/new-york-bariatric-surgery-provider-patient-lawsuits-medical-debt/
Published Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 09:00:00 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/a-229000-medical-bill-goes-to-court/

Post Views: 411

Related Topics:Featured fightingback hasbeen Health Kaiser Health News News

Up Next

Will They or Won’t They (Block the Abortion Pill)?

Don't Miss

A $229,000 Medical Bill Goes to Court

Kaiser Health News

Millions Were Booted From Medicaid. The Insurers That Run It Gained Medicaid Revenue Anyway.

Published

19 hours ago

April 26, 2024

Staff Editor

Phil Galewitz, KFF Health News
Fri, 26 Apr 2024 13:55:00 +0000

Private Medicaid health plans lost millions of members in the past year as pandemic protections that prohibited states from dropping anyone from the government program expired.

But despite Medicaid's unwinding, as it's known, at least two of the five largest publicly traded companies selling plans have continued to increase revenue from the program, according to their latest earnings reports.

“It's a very interesting paradox,” said Andy Schneider, a research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, of plans' Medicaid revenue increasing despite enrollment drops.

Medicaid, the state-federal health program for low-income and disabled people, is administered by states. But most people enrolled in the program get their health care through insurers contracted by states, including UnitedHealthcare, Centene, and Molina.

The companies persuaded states to pay them more money per Medicaid enrollee under the assumption that younger and healthier people were dropping out — presumably for Obamacare coverage or employer-based health insurance, or because they didn't see the need to get coverage — leaving behind an older and sicker population to cover, their executives have told investors.

Several of the companies reported that states have made midyear and retrospective changes in their payments to plans to account for the worsening health status of members.

In an earnings call with analysts on April 25, Molina Healthcare CEO Joe Zubretsky said 19 states increased their payment rates this year to adjust for sicker Medicaid enrollees. “States have been very responsive,” Zubretsky said. “We couldn't be more pleased with the way our state customers have responded to having rates be commensurate with normal cost trends and trends that have been influenced by the acuity shift.”

Health plans have faced much uncertainty during the Medicaid unwinding, as states began reassessing enrollees' eligibility and dropping those deemed no longer qualified or who lost coverage because of procedural errors. Before the unwinding, plans said they expected the overall risk profile of their members to go up because those remaining in the program would be sicker.

UnitedHealthcare, Centene, and Molina had Medicaid revenue increases ranging from 3% to 18% in 2023, according to KFF. The two other large Medicaid insurers, Elevance and CVS Health, do not break out Medicaid-specific revenue.

The Medicaid enrollment of the five companies collectively declined by about 10% from the end of March 2023 through the end of December 2023, from 44.2 million people to 39.9 million, KFF data shows.

In the first quarter of 2024, UnitedHealth's Medicaid revenue rose to $20.5 billion, up from $18.8 billion in the same quarter of 2023.

Molina on April 24 reported nearly $7.5 billion in Medicaid revenue in the first quarter of 2024, up from $6.3 billion in the same quarter a year earlier.

On April 26, Centene reported that its Medicaid enrollment fell 18.5% to 13.3 million in the first quarter of 2024 compared with the same period a year ago. The company's Medicaid revenue dipped 3% to $22.2 billion.

Unlike UnitedHealthcare, whose Medicaid enrollment fell to 7.7 million in March 2024 from 8.4 million a year prior, Molina's Medicaid enrollment rose in the first quarter of 2024 to 5.1 million from 4.8 million in March 2023. Molina's enrollment jump last year was partly a result of its having bought a Medicaid plan in Wisconsin and gained a new Medicaid contract in Iowa, the company said in its earnings news release.

Molina added 1 million members because states were prohibited from terminating Medicaid coverage during the pandemic. The company has lost 550,000 of those people during the unwinding and expects to lose an additional 50,000 by June.

About 90% of Molina Medicaid members have gone through the redetermination process, Zubretsky said.

The corporate giants also offset the enrollment losses by getting more Medicaid money from states, which they use to pass on higher payments to certain facilities or providers, Schneider said. By holding the money temporarily, the companies can count these “directed payments” as revenue.

Medicaid health plans were big winners during the pandemic after the federal government prohibited states from dropping people from the program, leading to a surge in enrollment to about 93 million Americans.

States made efforts to limit health plans' profits by clawing back some payments above certain thresholds, said Elizabeth Hinton, an associate director at KFF.

But once the prohibition on dropping Medicaid enrollees was lifted last spring, the plans faced uncertainty. It was unclear how many people would lose coverage or when it would happen. Since the unwinding began, more than 20 million people have been dropped from the rolls.

Medicaid enrollees' health care costs were lower during the pandemic, and some states decided to exclude pandemic-era cost data as they considered how to set payment rates for 2024. That provided yet another win for the Medicaid health plans.

Most states are expected to complete their Medicaid unwinding processes this year.

——————————
By: Phil Galewitz, KFF Health News
Title: Millions Were Booted From Medicaid. The Insurers That Run It Gained Medicaid Revenue Anyway.
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/medicaid-unwinding-insurer-revenue/
Published Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 13:55:00 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/california-is-investing-500m-in-therapy-apps-for-youth-advocates-fear-it-wont-pay-off/

Post Views: 18

Kaiser Health News

California Is Investing $500M in Therapy Apps for Youth. Advocates Fear It Won’t Pay Off.

Published

22 hours ago

April 26, 2024

Staff Editor

Molly Castle Work
Fri, 26 Apr 2024 09:00:00 +0000

With little pomp, California launched two apps at the start of the year offering free behavioral health services to youths to help them cope with everything from living with anxiety to body acceptance.

Through their phones, young people and some caregivers can meet BrightLife Kids and Soluna coaches, some who specialize in peer support or substance use disorders, for roughly 30-minute virtual counseling sessions that are best suited to those with more mild needs, typically those without a clinical diagnosis. The apps also feature self-directed activities, such as white noise sessions, guided breathing, and videos of ocean waves to help users relax.

“We believe they're going to have not just great impact, but wide impact across California, especially in places where maybe it's not so easy to find an in-person behavioral health visit or the kind of coaching and supports that parents and young people need,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom's health secretary, Mark Ghaly, during the Jan. 16 announcement.

The apps represent one of the Democratic governor's major forays into health technology and come with four-year contracts valued at $498 million. California is believed to be the first state to offer a mental health app with free coaching to all young residents, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which operates the program.

However, the rollout has been slow. So slow that one of the companies has missed a deadline to make its app available on Android phones. Only about 15,000 of the state's 12.6 million children and young adults have signed up for the apps, and school counselors say they've never heard of them.

Advocates for youth question the wisdom of investing taxpayer dollars in two private companies. Social workers are concerned the companies' coaches won't properly identify youths who need referrals for clinical care. And the spending is drawing lawmaker scrutiny amid a state deficit pegged at as much as $73 billion.

An App for That

Newsom's administration says the apps fill a need for young Californians and their families to access professional telehealth for free, in multiple languages, and outside of standard 9-to-5 hours. It's part of Newsom's sweeping $4.7 billion master plan for kids' mental health, which was introduced in 2022 to increase access to mental health and substance use support services. In addition to launching virtual tools such as the teletherapy apps, the initiative is working to expand workforce capacity, especially in underserved areas.

“The reality is that we are rarely 6 feet away from our devices,” said Sohil Sud, director of Newsom's Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. “The question is how we can leverage technology as a resource for all California youth and families, not in place of, but in addition to, other behavioral health services that are being developed and expanded.”

The virtual platforms come amid rising depression and suicide rates among youth and a shortage of mental health providers. Nearly half of California youths from the ages of 12 to 17 report having recently struggled with mental health issues, with nearly a third experiencing serious psychological distress, according to a 2021 study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. These rates are even higher for multiracial youths and those from low-income families.

But those supporting youth mental health at the local level question whether the apps will move the needle on climbing depression and suicide rates.

“It's fair to applaud the state of California for aggressively seeking new tools,” said Alex Briscoe of California Children's Trust, a statewide initiative that, along with more than 100 local partners, works to improve the social and emotional health of children. “We just don't see it as fundamental. And we don't believe the youth mental health crisis will be solved by technology projects built by a professional class who don't share the lived experience of marginalized communities.”

The apps, BrightLife Kids and Soluna, are operated by two companies: Brightline, a 5-year-old venture capital-backed startup; and Kooth, a London-based publicly traded company that has experience in the U.K. and has also signed on some schools in Kentucky and Pennsylvania and a health plan in Illinois. In the first five months of Kooth's Pennsylvania pilot, 6% of students who had access to the app signed up.

Brightline and Kooth represent a growing number of health tech firms seeking to profit in this space. They beat out dozens of other bidders including international consulting companies and other youth telehealth platforms that had already snapped up contracts in California.

Although the service is intended to be free with no insurance requirement, Brightline's app, BrightLife Kids, is folded into and only accessible through the company's main app, which asks for insurance information and directs users to paid licensed counseling options alongside the free coaching. After KFF Health News questioned why the free coaching was advertised below paid options, Brightline reordered the page so that, even if a child has high-acuity needs, free coaching shows up first.

The apps take an expansive view of behavioral health, making the tools available to all California youth under age 26 as well as caregivers of babies, toddlers, and children 12 and under. When KFF Health News asked to speak with an app user, Brightline connected a reporter with a mother whose 3-year-old daughter was learning to sleep on her own.

‘It's Like Crickets'

Despite being months into the launch and having millions in marketing funds, the companies don't have a definitive rollout timeline. Brightline said it hopes to have deployed teams across the state to present the tools in person by midyear. Kooth said developing a strategy to hit every school would be “the main focus for this calendar year.”

“It's a big state — 58 counties,” Bob McCullough of Kooth said. “It'll take us a while to get to all of them.”

Brightline's contract states that the company was required to launch downloadable apps for iOS and Android phones by January, but so far BrightLife Kids is available only on Apple phones. Brightline said it's aiming to launch the Android version over the summer.

“Nobody's really done anything like this at this magnitude, I think, in the U.S. before,” said Naomi Allen, a co-founder and the CEO of Brightline. “We're very much in the early innings. We're already learning a lot.”

The contracts, obtained by KFF Health News through a records request, show the companies operating the two apps could earn as much as $498 million through the contract term, which ends in June 2027, months after Newsom is set to leave office. And the state is spending hundreds of millions more on Newsom's virtual behavioral health strategy. The state said it aims to make the apps available long-term, depending on usage.

The state said 15,000 people signed up in the first three months. When KFF Health News asked how many of those users actively engaged with the app, it declined to say, noting that data would be released this summer.

KFF Health News reached out to nearly a dozen California mental health professionals and youths. None of them were aware of the apps.

“I'm not hearing anything,” said Loretta Whitson, executive director of the California Association of School Counselors. “It's like crickets.”

Whitson said she doesn't think the apps are on “anyone's” radar in schools, and she doesn't know of any schools that are actively advertising them. Brightline will be presenting its tool to the counselor association in May, but Whitson said the company didn't reach out to plan the meeting; she did.

Concern Over Referrals

Whitson isn't comfortable promoting the apps just yet. Although both companies said they have a clinical team on staff to assist, Whitson said she's concerned that the coaches, who aren't all licensed therapists, won't have the training to detect when users need more help and refer them to clinical care.

This sentiment was echoed by other school-based social workers, who also noted the apps' duplicative nature — in some counties, like Los Angeles, youths can access free virtual counseling sessions through Hazel Health, a for-profit company. Nonprofits, too, have entered this space. For example, Teen Line, a peer-to-peer hotline operated by Southern California-based Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services, is free nationwide.

While the state is also funneling money to the schools as part of Newsom's master plan, students and school-based mental health professionals voiced confusion at the large app investment when, in many school districts, few in-person counseling roles exist, and in some cases are dwindling.

Kelly Merchant, a student at College of the Desert in Palm Desert, noted that it can be hard to access in-person therapy at her school. She believes the community college, which has about 15,000 students, has only one full-time counselor and one part-time bilingual counselor. She and several students interviewed by KFF Health News said they appreciated having engaging content on their phone and the ability to speak to a coach, but all said they'd prefer in-person therapy.

“There are a lot of people who are seeking therapy, and people close to me that I know. But their insurances are taking forever, and they're on the waitlist,” Merchant said. “And, like, you're seeing all these people struggle.”

Fiscal conservatives question whether the money could be spent more effectively, like to bolster county efforts and existing youth behavioral health programs.

Republican state Sen. Roger Niello, vice chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, noted that California is forecasted to face deficits for the next three years, and taxpayer watchdogs worry the apps might cost even more in the long run.

“What starts as a small financial commitment can become uncontrollable expenses down the road,” said Susan Shelley of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

——————————
By: Molly Castle Work
Title: California Is Investing $500M in Therapy Apps for Youth. Advocates Fear It Won't Pay Off.
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/california-youth-teletherapy-apps-rollout-slow/
Published Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Post Views: 33

Kaiser Health News

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’: Abortion — Again — At the Supreme Court

Published

2 days ago

April 25, 2024

Staff Editor

Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:30:00 +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.

Some justices suggested the Supreme Court had said its piece on abortion law when it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. This term, however, the court has agreed to review another abortion case. At issue is whether a federal law requiring emergency care in hospitals overrides Idaho's near-total abortion ban. A decision is expected by summer.

Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid finalized the first-ever minimum staffing requirements for nursing homes participating in the programs. But the industry argues that there are not enough workers to hire to meet the standards.

This week's panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University's nursing and public health schools and Politico Magazine, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week's episode:

This week's Supreme Court hearing on emergency abortion care in Idaho was the first challenge to a state's abortion ban since the overturn of the constitutional right to an abortion. Unlike previous abortion cases, this one focused on the everyday impacts of bans on abortion care — cases in which pregnant patients experienced medical emergencies.
Establishment medical groups and doctors themselves are getting more vocal and active as states set laws on abortion access. In a departure from earlier political moments, some major medical groups are campaigning on state ballot measures.
Medicaid officials this week finalized new rules intended to more closely regulate managed-care plans that enroll Medicaid patients. The rules are intended to ensure, among other things, that patients have prompt access to needed primary care doctors and specialists.
Also this week, the Federal Trade Commission voted to ban most “noncompete” clauses in employment contracts. Such language has become common in health care and prevents not just doctors but other health workers from changing jobs — often forcing those workers to move or commute to leave a position. Business interests are already suing to block the new rules, claiming they would be too expensive and risk the loss of proprietary information to competitors.
The fallout from the cyberattack of Change Healthcare continues, as yet another group is demanding ransom from UnitedHealth Group, Change's owner. UnitedHealth said in a statement this week that the records of “a substantial portion of America” may be involved in the breach.

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

Julie Rovner: NBC News' “Women Are Less Likely To Die When Treated by Female Doctors, Study Suggests,” by Liz Szabo.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: States Newsroom's “Loss of Federal Protection in Idaho Spurs Pregnant Patients To Plan for Emergency Air Transport,” by Kelcie Moseley-Morris.

Tami Luhby: The Associated Press' “Mississippi Lawmakers Haggle Over Possible Medicaid Expansion as Their Legislative Session Nears End,” by Emily Wagster Pettus.

Joanne Kenen: States Newsroom's “Missouri Prison Agency To Pay $60K for Sunshine Law Violations Over Inmate Death Records,” by Rudi Keller.

Also mentioned on this week's podcast:

American Economic Review's “Is There Too Little Antitrust Enforcement in the U.S. Hospital Sector?” by Zarek Brot-Goldberg, Zack Cooper, Stuart Craig, and Lev Klarnet.
KFF Health News' “Medical Providers Still Grappling With UnitedHealth Cyberattack: ‘More Devastating Than Covid,” by Samantha Liss.

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?': Abortion — Again — At the Supreme Court
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/podcast/what-the-health-344-abortion-supreme-court-april-25-2024/
Published Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:30:00 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/mandatory-reporting-laws-meant-to-protect-children-get-another-look/

Post Views: 33