Trump Administration Cuts The Size Of Fines For Health Violations In Nursing Homes
Federal records show that the average fine for a health or safety infraction by a nursing home dropped to $28,405 under the Trump administration, down from $41,260 in 2016, President Obama’s final year in office.
Fancy/Veer/Corbis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Fancy/Veer/Corbis/Getty Images
The Trump administration’s decision to alter the way it punishes nursing homes has resulted in lower fines against many facilities found to have endangered or injured residents.
Federal records show that the average fine dropped to $28,405 under the current administration, down from $41,260 in 2016, President Obama’s final year in office.
Loading…
Don’t see the graphic above? Click here.
The decrease in fines is one of the starkest examples of how, in response to industry prodding, the Trump administration is rolling back Obama’s aggressive regulation of health care services.
Encouraged by the nursing home industry, the Trump administration switched from fining nursing homes for each day they were out of compliance — as the Obama administration typically did — to issuing a single fine for two-thirds of infractions, the records show.
That reduces the impact of the penalty, critics say, giving nursing homes less incentive to fix faulty and dangerous practices before someone gets hurt.
“It’s not changing behavior [at nursing homes] in the way that we want,” says Dr. Ashish Jha, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “For a small nursing home, it could be real money, but for bigger ones, it’s more likely a rounding error.”
Since President Trump took office, the administration has heeded complaints from the nursing home industry about zealous oversight. It granted facilities an 18-month moratorium from being penalized for violating eight new health and safety rules. It also revoked an Obama-era rule barring the facilities from pre-emptively requiring residents to submit to arbitration to settle disputes rather than go to court.
The reduction in total fines occurred even as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued financial penalties 28 percent more frequently than it did under Obama. That increase in the frequency of citations with financial consequences arose because of a policy begun near the end of Obama’s term that required regulators to punish a facility every time a resident was harmed, instead of leaving it to their discretion.
While that policy increased the number of smaller fines, larger fines became less common. The total amount collected under Trump fell by 10 percent compared with the total in Obama’s final year — from $127 million under Obama to $114 million under Trump. (We compared penalties during 2016, Obama’s last year in office, with penalties under Trump from April 2017 through March 2018, the most recent month for which federal officials say data is reliably complete.)
CMS says it has revised multiple rules governing fines under both administrations to make its punishments fairer, more consistent and better tailored to prod nursing homes to improve care. “We are continuing to analyze the impact of these combined events to determine if other actions are necessary,” CMS said in a written statement.
The move toward smaller financial penalties is broadly consistent with the Trump administration’s other industry-friendly policies in the health care sector. For instance, the administration has expanded the role of short-term health insurance policies that don’t cover all types of services, has given states more leeway to change their Medicaid programs and has urged Congress to allow physicians to open their own hospitals.
Beth Martino, a spokeswoman for the American Health Care Association, a trade group for nursing homes, says the federal government has “returned to a method of applying fines in a way that incentivizes solving problems” rather than penalizing “facilities that are trying to do the right thing.”
Penalty guidelines were toughened in 2014 when the Obama administration instructed officials to favor daily fines. By 2016, that approach was applied in two-thirds of cases. Those fines averaged $61,000.
When Trump took over, the nursing home industry complained that fines had spun “out of control” and had become disproportionate to the deficiencies. “We have seen a dramatic increase in [fines] being retroactively issued and used as a punishment,” Mark Parkinson, president and CEO of the American Health Care Association, wrote in March 2017.
CMS agreed that daily fines sometimes resulted in punishments that were determined by the random timing of an inspection rather than the severity of the infraction. If inspectors visited a home in April, for instance, and discovered that an improper practice had started in February, the accumulated daily fines would be twice as much as if the inspectors had come in March.
But switching to a preference for per-instance fines means much smaller penalties, since fines are capped at $21,393 whether they are levied per instance or per day. Nursing homes that pay without contesting the fine receive a 35 percent discount, meaning they currently pay at most $13,905.
Those maximums apply even to facilities found to have committed the most serious level of violations, which are known as immediate jeopardy because the nursing home’s practices place residents at imminent risk of harm. For instance, a Mississippi nursing home was fined $13,627 after it ran out of medications because it had been relying on a pharmacy 373 miles away, in Atlanta. CMS also reduced $54,600 in daily fines to a single fine of $20,965 for a New Mexico home where workers hadn’t been properly disinfecting equipment to prevent infectious diseases from spreading.
On average, per-instance fines under Trump were below $9,000, records show.
“These are multimillion-dollar businesses — $9,000 is nothing,” says Toby Edelman, a senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy, a nonprofit in Washington.
Big daily fines, averaging $68,080, are still issued when a home hasn’t corrected a violation after being cited. But even in those cases, CMS officials are allowed to make exceptions and issue a single fine if the home has no history of substantial violations.
The agency cautioned that comparing average fines is misleading because the overall number of inspections resulting in fines increased under Trump, from 3.5 percent in 2016 to 4.7 percent. The circumstances now warranting fines that weren’t issued before tend to draw penalties on the lower side.
However, Kaiser Health News found that financial penalties for immediate jeopardies were issued in fewer cases under Trump. And when they were issued, the fines averaged 18 percent less than they did in 2016.
The frequency of immediate-jeopardy fines may decrease even more. CMS told inspectors in June that they were no longer required to fine facilities unless immediate-jeopardy violations resulted in “serious injury, harm, impairment or death.” Regulators still must take some action, but that could be ordering the nursing home to arrange training from an outside group or mandating specific changes to the way the home operates.
Barbara Gay, vice president of public policy communications at LeadingAge — an association of nonprofit organizations that provide elder services, including nursing homes — says that nursing homes “don’t feel they’ve been given a reprieve” under Trump.
But consumer advocates say penalties have reverted to levels too low to be effective.
“Fines need to be large enough to change facility behavior,” says Robyn Grant, director of public policy and advocacy at the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. “When that’s not the case and the fine is inconsequential, care generally doesn’t improve.”
Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service supported by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. KHN is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. You can follow Jordan Rau on Twitter: @jordanrau.
A Marriage Proposal For Memphis Fans
At an NBA game, a woman was delighted when her boyfriend asked into a microphone, “Will you Grit N Grind with me forever and ever babe?” It’s the slogan for the Memphis Grizzlies.
Why An ER Visit Can Cost So Much — Even For Those With Health Insurance
Vox reporter Sarah Kliff spent over a year reading thousands of ER bills and investigating the reasons behind the costs, including hidden fees, overpriced supplies and out-of-network doctors.
TERRY GROSS, HOST:
This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. You wouldn’t believe what some emergency rooms charge, or maybe you would because you’ve gotten bills. For example, one hospital charged $76 for Bacitracin antibacterial ointment. One woman who fell and cut her ear and was given an ice pack but no other treatment was billed $5,751. My guest, Sarah Kliff, is a health policy journalist at vox.com who spent over a year investigating why ER bills are so high even with health insurance and why the charges vary so widely from one hospital to the next.
Through crowdsourcing, she collected over a thousand ER bills from around the country. She interviewed many of the patients and the people behind the billing. She’s reported her findings in a series of articles on Vox. She’s also spent years reporting on the battle over health insurance policy. We’ll get some updates on the state of Obamacare a little later in the interview.
Sarah Kliff, welcome back to FRESH AIR. Why did you want to do an investigation into emergency room billing?
SARAH KLIFF: You know, I wanted to do this because the emergency room is such a common place where Americans interact with the health care system. There are about 140 million ER visits each year. It’s a place where you can’t really shop for health care. You can’t make a lot of decisions about where you want to go. So I think that is big-picture what got me interested.
Small picture was actually a bill that someone sent me almost three years ago now, where they took their daughter to the emergency room. A Band-Aid was put on the daughter’s finger, and they left. And they got a $629 bill. And they said – you know, they – the parents sent this to me, saying, how could a Band-Aid cost $629? And I said, I don’t know, but I’m going to find out. And that kind of opened up the door to this, you know, multi-year project I’ve been working on right now. It started with trying to figure out why a Band-Aid would cost $629.
GROSS: OK. So let’s get to that $629 for treatment that was basically a Band-Aid placed on a finger. You investigated that bill.
KLIFF: Yes.
GROSS: Why’d it cost so much?
KLIFF: So what cost so much was really the facility fee. So this is a charge I hadn’t heard about before as a health care reporter. This is a charge that hospitals make for just keeping their doors open, keeping the lights on, the cost of running an emergency room 24/7. So if you look at that particular patient’s bill, the Band-Aid – you know, I hesitate to say only – but the Band-Aid only cost $7, which, as anyone who’s bought Band-Aids knows, is quite expensive for a single Band-Aid.
But the other $622 of that bill were the hospital’s facility fees for just walking in the door and seeking service. And these fees are not made public. They vary wildly from one hospital to another. And usually patients only find out what the facility fee of their hospital is when they receive the bill afterwards, like that patient, you know, that sent me this particular bill.
GROSS: And does the facility fee vary from facility to facility?
KLIFF: It does significantly. You know, I’ve seen some that are in the low hundreds. I’ve seen some that are in the high thousands. And it’s impossible to know what facility fee you’re going to be charged until you actually get the billing documents from your hospital. And if you try and call up a hospital and ask what the facility fee is, usually you won’t get very far.
So it’s this fee that, from all the ER bills I’ve read, is usually the biggest line item on the bill. But it’s also one that is very, very difficult to get good information about until you’ve already been charged.
GROSS: So you’re paying the facility fee to basically share in the cost of running the emergency room.
KLIFF: Yes, that’s how hospital executives would describe the fee.
GROSS: But you don’t know that when you’re going to the emergency room.
KLIFF: You don’t, no. And you don’t know how much it’ll be. You don’t know how it’s being split up between different patients. You don’t know any of that.
GROSS: So is this also why one bill had $60 for the treatment of ibuprofen and another $238 for the treatment of eyedrops?
KLIFF: Yeah. And, you know, this is something I see all the time reading emergency bills – I’ve read about 1,500 of them at this point – is that things you could buy in a drugstore often cost significantly more in the emergency room. And the people I talked to who run hospitals will say this is because they have to be open all the time. They have to have so many supplies ready.
But I think one of the things that I find pretty frustrating is, you know, patients aren’t usually told, we can give you an ibuprofen here, or you can pick some up at the drugstore if you leave, and the cost will be a fraction of what we would charge you here. That information often isn’t conveyed to patients who are well enough, you know, to go to a drugstore on their own. But it’s just huge variation for these simple items.
One place I see this a lot is pregnancy tests. If you’re a woman who’s of childbearing age, you go to the emergency room, they will often want to check if you’re pregnant. I’ve seen pregnancy tests that cost a few dollars in emergency room. The most expensive one I saw was over $400. I believe that was at a hospital in Texas. It’s just widespread variation for, you know, some pretty simple pieces of medical equipment.
GROSS: I want to get back to the $60 ibuprofen. Is that – does that include the facility fee? Or is that just for the ibuprofen, and the facility fee is separate?
KLIFF: That’s just for the ibuprofen. The facility fee is totally separate.
GROSS: So how do they justify that?
KLIFF: They say they have to stock, like, a wide array of medicine, so they have to have everything on hand from ibuprofen, from, you know, expensive rabies treatments – I’ve talked to a lot of people who’ve been to the emergency room for exposure to bats and raccoons – and that they need to have all these things in stock. And, you know, one of the things you pay for at the emergency room is the ability to get any medication at any hour of the day right when you need it. I don’t necessarily buy that explanation, to be clear. That’s what I’ve heard from hospital executives.
I think it’s pretty telling that ibuprofen has a very, very different price depending on which emergency room you go to. The fact that there’s so much widespread price variation suggests to me that it’s not just the cost of doing business driving it, that there’s also business decisions being made behind ibuprofen that are driving the prices different hospitals are setting.
GROSS: Now, of course, trips to the emergency room aren’t always as simple as getting a Band-Aid or ibuprofen or some eyedrops. I want you to describe the case of a young man who was hit by a pole on a city bus in San Francisco.
KLIFF: Yeah. So this patient, his name is Justin. He was a community college student in northern California, was walking down a sidewalk in downtown San Francisco one day. And there was a pole hanging off the back of the bus that wasn’t where it’s supposed to be. It essentially flew off the back of the bus, hit him in the face and knocked him unconscious.
And the next thing he knows, he’s waking up at Zuckerberg San Francisco General, which is the only Level I trauma center in the city. He ends up needing a CT scan to check out some brain injuries. He needs some stitches. And then he’s discharged. He ends up with a bill for $27,000.
But, you know, as I began figuring out through my reporting, San Francisco General does not contract with private insurance, and they end up pursuing him for the vast majority of that bill. He has $27,000 outstanding. And somewhat ironically, San Francisco General, it is the city hospital. It is run by the city of San Francisco. So this student is hit by a city bus, taken by an ambulance to the city hospital and ends up with a $27,000 bill as a result.
GROSS: So did he have insurance?
KLIFF: He did. He had insurance through his dad.
GROSS: So why doesn’t Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital contract with private insurers?
KLIFF: So what they have told me when I’ve talked to some spokespeople there is that they are a safety net hospital, and that is, you know, definitely true. They generally serve a lower-income, often indigent population in San Francisco that would have trouble getting admitted and seeking care at other hospitals in the city. So they have told me that their focus is on serving those patients and that therefore, you know, they’re not going to contract with private insurance companies.
The thing I found a little bit confusing about that, though, is there are lots of public hospitals, say, that, you know, also serve low-income populations. And some of them for their inpatient units, you know, for their scheduled surgeries, they’re not going to contract with private insurance because they want to make sure beds are available for the publicly insured folks and people on Medicaid and Medicare.
But when it comes to the emergency room, you know, every other public hospital I was in touch with would contract with private insurers there because people don’t decide if they’re going to end up in the emergency room. So, you know, that’s the justification they offered, that it is a hospital meant to serve those with public insurance. But it is not something you see public hospitals typically doing.
GROSS: Isn’t – I think legislation was proposed in California to change that. Did that pass?
KLIFF: It’s still pending in the California State Assembly. And the hospital has also promised to reform its billing practices, although we haven’t seen what exactly their new plan is yet.
GROSS: So the position that Justin was in is that, like, he’s unconscious. He’s not asking to be taken anyplace. (Laughter) But he’s unconscious. He’s taken to the emergency room and ends up getting this $27,000 bill. I mean, that just seems so unfair, especially since he has insurance.
KLIFF: Yeah.
GROSS: Like, it’s supposed to cover him for things like that (laughter).
KLIFF: Yeah. You know, there’s one other patient who kind of makes this point really well who was also seen at San Francisco General. Her name is Nelly. And she fell off a climbing wall and, somewhat amazingly, you know, turns out she had a concussion. But one of the first things she does is she calls her insurance’s nursing hotline to ask, should I go to the ER?
And they say yes. And she says, can I go to Zuckerberg San Francisco General? It’s the closest. They say, no, don’t go there. It’s not in network. Go to another hospital. She gets to the other hospital, but the other hospital won’t see her because she’s a trauma patient. She fell from a really high height. And San Francisco General is the only trauma center in San Francisco. So she tries to go to an in-network hospital. She’s then ambulance-transferred to Zuckerberg San Francisco General, and she ends up with another bill over $20,000 that the hospital was pursuing from her until I started asking questions from it, and the hospital ultimately dropped the bill.
But I think it’s just such a frustrating situation for someone like Justin, for someone like Nellie (ph). They’re either shopping for this good unconscious, they’re really trying to do the right thing, and the health care system is just so stacked against the patient. It’s so stacked for the hospital to be able to bill the prices that they want to bill.
GROSS: So apparently, the moral of the story is if you want to challenge your emergency room bill, you should get Sarah Kliff to write about you. (Laughter).
KLIFF: It’s – (laughter). That’s what some people have said. But there’s only one of me, and there’s about 2,000 bills in our database. And, you know, we have had over $100,000 in bills reversed as a result of our series. But I don’t think it’s a great way to run a health care system where we just, you know, the people who get their bills reversed are those who are lucky enough to have a reporter write a story about them.
GROSS: Yes. Agreed. Let me reintroduce you. If you’re just joining us, my guest is Sarah Kliff. She’s a senior policy correspondent at Vox, where she focuses on health policy. She also hosts the Vox podcast, “The Impact,” about how policy actually affects people.
So we’re going to take a short break, and then we’ll talk more about emergency billing. And then later, we’ll talk about what’s left of Obamacare, and what the president and Congress and candidates are saying about health care, after this break. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF ALEXANDRE DESPLAT’S “SPY MEETING”)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you’re just joining us, my guest is Sarah Kliff. We’re talking about emergency room billing and why it’s so unpredictable and often so incredibly high. She’s a senior policy correspondent at Vox, where she focuses on health policy. She also hosts the Vox podcast, “The Impact,” about how policy affects people.
So we were talking about the hidden facility fee, which most people don’t know exists, and is responsible for a large chunk of a lot of emergency room bills. There’s also, like, a trauma unit fee. It’s a similar hidden fee in hospitals that have trauma centers in their emergency rooms. So explain the trauma fee and how that kicks in.
KLIFF: Yeah. This is something I also had never heard of till I started reading a lot of emergency room bills, and this is the fee that trauma centers charge for essentially assembling a trauma team to meet you when you’re coming in and those folks out in the field, maybe the EMTs, for example, have determined that you meet certain trauma criteria.
So I’ve talked to people who have been charged trauma fees who were in serious car accidents. One case was a baby who fell from more than 3 feet, and that’s considered to trigger a trauma activation. So this is essentially the price for having a robust trauma team – a surgeon, an anesthesiologist, nurses – all at the ready to receive you when you get to the hospital.
And again, these fees can be pretty hefty. San Francisco General, which, I’ve done the most reporting on their billing, you know, they can charge up to $18,000 for their trauma activation services. I wrote about one family who was visiting San Francisco from Korea when their young son rolled out of the hotel bed. They were nervous. They didn’t know the American health care system well. So they called 911, which sent an ambulance, brought him over to the hospital. Turns out, he was fine. They gave him a bottle of formula. He took a nap and went home.
And then a few months later, they get an $18,000 charge for the trauma team that assembled for when that baby came to the hospital. And these are another, you know, pretty significant fee that, again, you don’t really know about. You have no idea that the trauma team is assembling to meet you when you’re coming into the hospital. You just find out after the fact. And you also have no say in the decision to assemble trauma. That’s really left up to the hospital, not the patient.
GROSS: So I’m going to have you compare two possibilities. You go to an emergency room, and the bill is very high. There’s two people who have the same problem who go to the emergency room. One of them has a copay. One of them has a high deductible that they haven’t paid off yet. How are they treated differently, in terms of what they’re billed for the emergency room visit?
KLIFF: Well, the person with the deductible will likely be billed significantly more. You know, if they’re just, let’s say, at the start of the year, they are going to essentially have to bear the costs of that emergency room visit up until the point they hit their deductible and the insurance kicks in, whereas the person who has a co-payment, they’re just going to have to pay that flat fee and, you know, probably not worry about paying more, but there’s often surprise bills lurking in the corner that could affect both of those patients as well.
GROSS: Like what?
KLIFF: So one of the most common things we see is out-of-network doctors working at in-network emergency rooms. So you know, you have an emergency, you look up a hospital, you see their ER is in network, so you go there. It turns out that emergency room is staffed by doctors who aren’t in your insurance. There’s pretty compelling academic research that suggests 1 in 5 emergency room visits involves a surprise bill like that one.
GROSS: That seems so unfair. How are you to know – if you’re choosing a hospital that’s in network, how are you to know whether the doctor treating you is in network or not?
KLIFF: You know, you really – there isn’t a great way to tell, to be honest. This is – you know, when I had to go to the emergency room over the summer, you know, this is something I worried about. You know, I was seeing a doctor who worked for the hospital, but they were sending off my ultrasound to be read by a radiologist who I was never going to meet. I couldn’t ask them if they were in-network. I just kind of had to cross my fingers and hope for the best, and luckily, I didn’t get a surprise bill.
But I’ve talked to multiple patients who, you know, tried to do their research, who thought they were in network, only to get a bill, often for thousands of dollars, after leaving the emergency room, from someone who, you know, never mentioned to them, hey, I’m not in your network like this hospital is.
GROSS: So the bill that you’d get would be for the difference between what you pay when somebody is – when a doctor’s in network and what you pay when they’re not in network?
KLIFF: Yeah, often it’s just what that out-of-network doctor wants to charge. So a good example of this is a patient I wrote about in Texas named Scott (ph), who was attacked in downtown Austin, left on the street unconscious, some bystander called him an ambulance, and he woke up at a hospital. And one of the first things he does, because this is the United States, is he gets on his phone and tries to figure out which hospital he is at, and, you know, is that in his insurance network? And he finds out – good news – it is. And a surgeon comes by, tells him he’s going to need emergency jaw surgery because of the attack that happened.
So he says, OK. You know, he’s not really in a place to go anywhere. Gets the surgery. Goes home. A few weeks later, he gets an $8,000 bill from that oral surgeon, who the insurance companies paid a smaller amount. The oral surgeon didn’t have a contract with the insurance and said, you know, I think my services are worth a lot more, so pursued the balance of the bill from Scott.
GROSS: I have to say, I mean, that does seem unfair to the patient because they haven’t been informed. They can’t make a choice about it if they don’t know. And, like, $8,000 is a lot of money.
KLIFF: Yeah. And I think, you know, even more, let’s say he did say he was out of network. It kind of puts the patient in an unfair situation, too. You know, one of the things we talk about a lot in health policy is, what if we had more transparency? What if we let patients know the prices? What if we let patients know who is in and out of network? And that – it would be a good step.
But, you know, I think with someone like Scott, sitting in a hospital with a broken jaw, there’s not much you can do with that information. He doesn’t have, you know, the ability to go home, like, research, like, make an appointment with a new surgeon. So, you know, it’d be great if he knew that the doctor was out of network. It’d be even better if he had some kind of protections against those type of bills.
GROSS: What kind of protection could there be?
KLIFF: So we’re actually seeing a lot of action on this in Congress. There’s some pretty strong bipartisan support for tackling this specific issue and essentially holding the patient harmless. When there is a situation like Scott’s, for example, where there’s this $8,000 bill, that’s really a dispute between a health insurance company and a doctor, where the doctor says, I want more money, the insurer says, I want to pay you less money. And what Congress wants to do – what a few states have already done with their laws – is said, you can’t go to the patient for that money. You, the hospital, and you, the health insurance company, you have to get down to a table and work things out together.
And some state laws will set certain amounts that are allowed to be charged, other ones will force the insurance company and the hospital into an arbitration process. But the general concept is to take the patient out of this billing situation because, like you said, Terry, they really aren’t in a position to negotiate. They aren’t in a position to shop. They shouldn’t be the ones who are left holding the bag at the end of the day.
GROSS: My guest is Sarah Kliff. She covers health policy for Vox. After a break, we’ll talk more about why ER bills can have some unpleasant surprises, and she’ll give us an update on Obamacare. And Maureen Corrigan will review two books about forgotten stories from Hollywood. I’m Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF JESSICA WILLIAMS TRIO’S “KRISTEN”)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. Let’s get back to my interview with journalist Sarah Kliff, who covers health policy and how it affects people for Vox. For the past year and a half, she’s been writing about why emergency room visits can be so expensive and the pricing so secretive and mysterious, as well as inconsistent from one hospital to the next. She collected over 1,000 bills and tracked down stories behind the billing. She interviewed many of the patients and the people behind the billing to decipher why ER bills can have some surprise costs.
Here’s another surprise that often awaits people who go to emergency rooms – some insurance plans only cover true emergencies, and whether it is a true emergency is sometimes determined after the diagnosis is made. So how are you supposed to know before the diagnosis whether you’re going to be categorized as a true emergency or not? Like, if you go to the hospital, you don’t know if you have a broken bone or not.
KLIFF: Right.
GROSS: Somebody needs to X-ray it and tell you.
KLIFF: Right. The whole point you go to the emergency room is to help them figure out what the emergency is and what treatment you need. This is a policy that the insurance company Anthem has been pioneering for a few years. It’s been in Kentucky. It’s been in Georgia – a few other states. And, you know, I wrote about one patient out in Kentucky named Brittany, who – she was having really severe abdominal pain. She called her mom who is a nurse, and the nurse said, that might be appendicitis. You’ve got to get to the emergency room. Turns out it wasn’t appendicitis. It was an ovarian cyst. She got it treated elsewhere later down the line.
And Anthem, you know, sent her a letter saying, we’re not going to cover that visit because it was not a true emergency. She appealed it. Her appeal was denied. This is another one where, once I started asking them about it, the bill suddenly disappeared. But – and it seems like as Anthem has gotten more attention for this policy – they haven’t announced it publicly, but some pretty compelling data The New York Times got their hands on suggest they’ve backed off this policy.
But it’s just, you know – there are so many traps you can fall into going into an emergency room. It just feels like you’re walking into this minefield, and this is kind of one of those mines that’s lurking in there.
GROSS: Hospital pricing and emergency room pricing seems to vary so much from hospital to hospital. Are there, like, national guidelines that help determine what a hospital or a hospital emergency room charges for services? I mean, who decides, and why is there such a variation?
KLIFF: So hospital executives get to decide, and I think that is why there is such variation. There aren’t really guidelines that they’re following. You know, one thing you could do as a hospital executive – you could look at what Medicare charges – those prices are public – and, you know, maybe use that as a benchmark. There are some databases. There’s one called FAIR Health, for example, where you could look and see, you know, some information on what local prices typically are. But in terms of, you know, what you want to charge, that’s kind of up to you as someone running a hospital.
One of the things that’s really, really unique about the United States, compared to our peer countries, is that we don’t regulate health care prices. Nearly every other country in the developed world – they see health care something as, you know, akin to a utility that everyone needs, like electricity or water. It’s so important that the government is going to step in and regulate the prices. That doesn’t happen in the United States. You know, if you’re a hospital, you just choose your prices. And, you know, that is, I think, why you see so much variation and why you see some really high prices in American health care.
GROSS: So what advice do you have for people who actually need an emergency room and don’t want to get hit with a shocking bill afterwards?
KLIFF: Yeah, this is, you know, one of those questions – it just makes me a little frustrated that – ’cause this is the most common question I get – right? – is, how do I – how do we – how do I prevent a surprise bill? And I find it kind of upsetting that, you know, it has to be on the patient because honestly, there really isn’t a great way to do this. I’ve talked to so many patients who tried so hard to avoid a big medical bill and weren’t able to.
You know, there’s certain things, yes, you can do. You can look up the network status of your hospital. You can try and badger each doctor you see about whether they are in network. You can try to be a really proactive patient, but I think that’s just such a huge burden on people who are in, like, really emergent situations. And some people don’t have that opportunity, you know, like Justin Zanders, the guy we were talking about earlier who was taken to a hospital while he was unconscious. I cannot think of anything he could’ve done to avoid that bill. It just was not possible.
GROSS: So your advice is, good luck.
KLIFF: Short of that, I mean, good luck. You know, I’m actually in the middle of reporting a story right now about people who have successfully negotiated down their bills. And, you know, you can certainly – if you do end up with a surprise bill, you can call up the hospital, see if there’s a discount. Sometimes there will be. Sometimes there won’t. You can call again. Customer service representatives – different ones – often offer you different discounts, I’ve learned from interviewing patients. You can ask for a prompt pay discount if you pay right away.
You can – you know, one health attorney who negotiates these a lot on behalf of patients – he says one of his favorite tactics is to choose the amount you want to pay; send a check with that amount; and in the note, write, paid in full; and hope they don’t come after you after that. I have no idea if that works or not, but he says it works for his patients. But it’s a mixed bag. And at the end of the day, the hospital has all the power. You can ask for discounts. You can ask nicely. You can ask angrily. It’s up to the hospital if they want to grant you that or not.
GROSS: So what is the status of Obamacare now? You know, Republicans promised to repeal and replace. That didn’t work out. So have Republicans given up on repeal and replace?
KLIFF: For the time, it seems pretty clear that repeal and replace is dead on arrival, especially with Democrats taking control of the House this year. Those proposals aren’t being talked about as much. They’re not really going anywhere. The one big thing we did see Republicans succeed at is repealing Obamacare’s individual mandate, the requirement that all of us carry health insurance. That happened as part of the big tax package that passed at the end of 2017.
So we’ve seen, you know, President Trump, for example, essentially declare victory, declare that repealing the individual mandate is repealing Obamacare, so we’re good on that goal. But, you know, generally, Obamacare is still standing. There are millions of people getting their coverage through the Affordable Care Act still today.
GROSS: So now that there’s no individual mandate, conservative attorney generals are challenging Obamacare – the Affordable Care Act – and saying it’s no longer constitutional after Congress’s repeal of the individual mandate. Could you explain that?
KLIFF: Yeah, so this is a challenge that’s come up through the courts in the past few months. Obamacare is constantly being challenged in court. It’s been through multiple Supreme Court suits. This one – you know, it’s a multiple-part argument, so I’ll try my best to walk through it.
GROSS: OK.
KLIFF: So essentially, it starts with the fact that the individual mandate – they weren’t quite able to repeal it for boring technical reasons. But what they were able to do is change the fee for not having health insurance from $700 to $0. So it – in all practical terms, it feels like repealing it because there is no fee for not carrying health insurance. The individual mandate was upheld as a tax when the Supreme Court said, yes, this is constitutional. The government has a right to tax people. Now that there is no fee associated with not carrying health insurance, the conservative attorneys general who are bringing this case argue that it’s not a tax anymore, and therefore, it is not constitutional. That whole defense that John Roberts wrote in 2012 is moot. So that’s the first part of it.
They go even further and say the individual mandate is so core to the Affordable Care Act, it is not severable. And if you, the courts, rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, then you need to rule all of Obamacare unconstitutional. And the first judge who heard this case – he is a, you know, judge in a district court in Texas. He agreed with them. He agreed that – first step – that the individual mandate is no longer constitutional. And second step, that means that the entirety of Obamacare has to fall. This is now being appealed up to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
And I will say there are a lot of critics of this case. There are a lot of people who were parties to previous Supreme Court challenges to Obamacare who think this is a bad legal argument and that it will not succeed. But it is already, you know, gone through the district court level. It’s moving up to the appellate court level. It is something that is in the mix that could become a threat to the Affordable Care Act.
GROSS: Well, if it goes to the Supreme Court, it would be very interesting to see what Justice Roberts says since he voted for the ACA, saying that the individual mandate was a tax.
KLIFF: Yeah. You know, and I think where some legal scholars would see it shaking out is that the – someone like John Roberts, he might agree, OK, yeah, the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but would not make the leap to the second half of this, that the rest of the law has to fall.
I think one of the most compelling arguments against this case is that Congress knew what they were doing when they repealed the individual mandate. You know, they had the opportunity to repeal Obamacare. They didn’t. They’d specifically took aim at this one specific part. So it feels like it might be a bit of a reach to argue that what Congress really meant to do was repeal all these other parts of the Affordable Care Act. But, you know, the Supreme Court is changing. We have a new justice. You know, we have a lot in the mix. So it’s always an open question of how a decision like this could go.
GROSS: So correct me if I’m wrong here – the Department of Justice has sided with the conservative attorneys general who are challenging Obamacare, saying it’s no longer constitutional, and I think that the Justice Department is also asking the judge to strike down the ACA’s mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions.
KLIFF: Yeah, that’s right. So it’s a kind of unusual situation. Usually, it’s the Justice Department that is going to defend a federal law in court. But, you know, given the Trump administration’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act, they have decided to side with the conservative attorneys general. They have a slightly different argument. They don’t think all of Obamacare should fall if the mandate falls, but they do think some big parts, like you mentioned, the protections for pre-existing conditions, should be ruled unconstitutional if the mandate falls.
So this has led to a bit of an unusual situation where you’ve had this coalition of Democratic attorneys general step in and take over the case, basically saying that the federal government is going – is not going to defend the Affordable Care Act. We are going to defend the Affordable Care Act. So you have this coalition of Democratic attorneys general, led by the attorney general of California, stepping in and, you know, offering a defense as this case works its way up through the court system.
GROSS: Let’s take a short break here, and then we’ll talk some more. If you’re just joining us, my guest is Sarah Kliff. She’s senior policy correspondent at Vox, where she focuses on health policy. And she hosts the Vox podcast “The Impact,” about how policy actually affects people. We’ll be right back. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF THE WEE TRIO’S “LOLA”)
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you’re just joining us, my guest is Sarah Kliff, senior policy correspondent at Vox, where she focuses on health policy.
Do you think health insurance is shaping up to be a big issue in the 2020 campaign?
KLIFF: I do, and I think it’s going to be a big issue both in the primary, where you’re already seeing candidates get pressed on, should we still have private health insurance, and giving pretty different answers to that question.
And then I think one of the things you’re also going to see is whoever is the Democratic nominee is probably going to run on Obamacare. They are going to point at the fact that President Trump tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That’s pretty different than, you know, the 2012 election, where Democrats were pretty scared to run on Obamacare. It still wasn’t popular. The benefits hadn’t rolled out. In this past midterm and now again in the 2020 election, it seems pretty clear that Democrats are pretty excited to point out that Republicans wanted to repeal Obamacare. So I think it really will come up.
GROSS: What are some of the biggest falsehoods you’ve heard from politicians about health insurance costs or health insurance policy?
KLIFF: You know, one of the ones that’s come up a lot is actually around the role of private health insurance. So I’ve – I don’t know if it counts as a falsehood, but I think it’s a bit of a misunderstanding of how health insurance often works is, you know, when I talk to single-payer supporters, most of them want to eliminate private insurance completely. They just don’t think there is a role for it in the health care system.
And one of the things I think that’s actually pretty interesting, when you look at any other country – you look at Canada, you look at the U.K., you look at France, which all have national health care systems – all of them have a private health insurance market, too. There are always some kind of gap in the system that the public insurance can’t cover, where the government step – where the private industry steps in and offers coverage. In Canada, for example, their public health plan doesn’t cover prescription drugs, so two-thirds of Canadians take out a private plan, often through their employer, like us, to cover prescription drugs, to cover their eyeglasses, to cover their dental. So I think that’s a confusion I see a lot in the “Medicare for All” debate coming up right now.
I think the other thing I see a lot of confusion around – and we’ve talked about this a little bit with emergency room billing – is the role of transparency in health care. I see a lot of, you know, if we just made the prices public, like, that is what we need to do to fix the system, and I think that really misses the fact that, even if the prices were public, health care is so different from everything else we shop for. It might be – I think it is the only thing we purchase when we are unconscious.
GROSS: (Laughter).
KLIFF: And when you’re unconscious, you’re not really going to be great at price shopping. So I see that as, you know, a halfway solution that I often hear talked about here in Washington that would be great but is not going to suddenly result in, you know, prices dropping because they’ve been exposed in a spotlight.
GROSS: Is there a country that you think has a good health care model that we could borrow?
KLIFF: Oh, yeah. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately actually. So I’ve gotten very interested in the Australia health care system, which is a little far away. But I think they’re a really interesting model because they have a public system, everyone’s enrolled in it, but they also really aggressively try and get people to buy a private plan, too, and that private plan will get you sometimes faster access to doctors, maybe a private room at a hospital.
It’s really hard for me to see the U.S. creating a health care system, similar to Canada’s actually, where you can’t buy private insurance, where if you’re rich or you’re poor, everyone waits in the exact same queue, you can’t jump to the front of the line. Because I think wealthier Americans have gotten so used to having really good access to health care that they would be very upset with a system like that.
I think Australia is a kind of interesting hybrid between, you know, where we’re at in the U.S. right now and what Canada is like, where it says, yes, we’re going to create a public system for everybody, but we’re also going to have these private plans that compete against the public system. So I’ve become increasingly, you know, interested in how Australia’s system works. And they have – about 47 percent of Australians are buying a private plan to cover the same benefits that the public plan does.
GROSS: So it’s not supplemental. It’s instead of.
KLIFF: Right. So it’s very different from Canada. So in Canada, you can buy complementary insurance, you know, to cover the benefits the public plan doesn’t but the government expressly outlaws supplemental insurance. You know, like, what people buy here to cover the gaps in Medicare, that is not allowed. You cannot buy your way to the front of the line in Canada.
One of my favorite sayings about the Canadian health care system is from a doctor in a book I read about Canadian health care is they said, you know, we’re fine waiting in lines for health care in Canada as long as the rich people and the poor people have to wait in the exact same line. Their system is all about equality. And I just don’t know that we’re at a place as a country where we value the same sort of equality in our health care system.
GROSS: Is there any developed country around the world that has a system similar to ours with all these competing insurance companies and, you know, some government plans and, like, a thousand different bureaucracies that doctors have to deal with and that patients have to deal with?
KLIFF: Absolutely not. There’s nothing like it. I mean, our system is so unique. I’d say the closest but it’s not even close are a few countries that have national health care systems, but they do it through tightly regulated private health insurance plans. So if you look at, like, Netherlands or Israel, there isn’t a government-run plan. Instead, in both countries, you actually have four tightly regulated health insurance plans that compete against each other for the citizens’ business. I guess that’s the closest, but that is so different from what we have here right now. There’s really nothing like it in any developed country.
GROSS: Sarah Kliff, thank you so much for talking with us.
KLIFF: Well, thank you for having me.
GROSS: Sarah Kliff covers health policy for Vox, where you’ll find her series about emergency room bills. After we take a short break, Maureen Corrigan will review two books about forgotten stories from Hollywood. This is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF GEORGE FENTON AND PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA’S “MISS SHEPHERD’S WALTZ”)
Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
Opioid Litigation Brings Company Secrets Into The Public Eye
“What’s important to me is that the facts come to light and we get justice and accountability,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said about litigation that has made internal Purdue Pharma documents public.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
America’s big drugmakers and pharmacy chains are scrambling to respond to hundreds of lawsuits tied to the deadly opioid epidemic. Billions of dollars are at stake if the companies are found liable for fueling the crisis.
Even before judgments are rendered, companies like Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson and CVS are already suffering damage to their reputations as evidence in civil suits reveals more about their internal workings.
“The narrative is clearly shifting on this story,” said David Armstrong, a senior reporter with ProPublica, who has covered the drug industry for years. “People want some sort of reckoning, some sort of accounting.”
One reason for the shift is that cities and states filing these suits are moving more aggressively to pull back the curtain on the drug industry’s practices, urging courts to make internal memos, marketing strategies and reams of other documents public.
“Our next battle is to get the depositions and the documents that are being produced made available to the public, instead of everything being filed under confidentiality agreements,” said Joe Rice, one of the lead attorneys bringing lawsuits against drug companies on behalf of local governments in Ohio.
A growing number of documents have already been released, or been leaked to the press, and many of the revelations they contain have been troubling. In internal memos, Purdue executives acknowledged that their prescription opioids are far more addictive and dangerous than the company was telling doctors. At the same time company directives pushed sales representatives to get even more opioids into the hands of vulnerable people, including seniors and military veterans.
Memos also show that Purdue executives developed a secret plan, never implemented, called Project Tango in which they acknowledged the escalating risk of the opioid epidemic. The program was allegedly designed to help Purdue profit from the growing wave of opioid dependency, by selling the company’s addiction treatment services to people hooked on products like their own OxyContin.
This increased transparency represents a big shift in the way opioid lawsuits are being handled. “We’ve done something that hasn’t been done before,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who appeared in February on NPR and WBUR’s program On Point.
Massachusetts is suing Purdue, like dozens of other states, and Healey fought successfully to make all the documents her office had uncovered public, without redactions. “What Purdue’s own documents show is the extent of deception and deceit. What’s important to me is that the facts come to light and we get justice and accountability,” Healey said.
Purdue Pharma declined to speak with NPR, but the drug industry has fought these disclosures at every turn. They describe the information in these documents as proprietary, asserting that it should be viewed by the courts as corporate property. For years governments pursuing these cases mostly went along with those arguments.
In past opioid settlements, companies paid fines but insisted on gag orders. “The way it usually works is the language in the settlement requires either that the records be destroyed very quickly after the settlement or that they physically actually return the records to the drug company,” said ProPublica’s Armstrong.
That happened in 2007 when the Justice Department ended a criminal case against Purdue Pharma. It happened again a few years ago when the state of Kentucky settled a civil case with the company and that state’s attorney general destroyed thousands of pages of documents. As a result, few people in the wider public knew how serious the allegations were.
As more information has been revealed, it’s sparking fury. At a February hearing on Capitol Hill, Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., blasted industry executives. “Companies like Janssen and Purdue Pharma fueled this epidemic, employing deceptive and truly unconscionable marketing tactics despite the known risk, so you could sell more drugs to maximize your profits,” she said.
Jennifer Taubert heads the Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit of Johnson & Johnson, which makes and sells opioids. The company faces escalating lawsuits over its products, but Taubert denied any wrongdoing at the hearing. “Everything that we have done with our products when we’ve promoted opioid products, which we stopped marketing a long time ago, was appropriate and responsible,” she told lawmakers.
Yet according to the drug companies’ internal documents, firms including Johnson & Johnson pushed unscientific theories about drug addiction. They allegedly did so as part of an effort to convince doctors to prescribe even more opioids after patients showed signs of dependency.
This kind of industry backlash has happened before, such as when tobacco companies faced lawsuits in the 1990s. As those trials unfolded, the public learned for the first time about widespread corporate wrongdoing.
The difference here is that drug companies and their researchers have been seen by many in the public as healers and innovators, part of a trusted health care system.
There could be more revelations. With another big opioid trial set to begin in May in Oklahoma state court, attorneys are still fighting over millions of pages of documents, most of which the public has still never seen.
One possibility is that companies could agree to what’s known as a global settlement of these opioid cases, paying billions of dollars in compensation in hopes of winning new secrecy agreements.
If that happens, says ProPublica’s Armstrong, documents that help tell the full story of this drug epidemic could be destroyed or locked away for years. “I worry that we’re going to lose all this valuable information about how we got to this point with this crisis, who knew what when,” he said.
Westbrook-Fan Incident May Spur NBA To Do More To Shield Players
David Greene talks to William C. Rhoden, who writes for ESPN’s website The Undefeated, about how some basketball fans abuse players, and whether greater protections need to be put in place.
Physician Discusses Treatment Of 6-Year-Old Boy In 2017 Tetanus Case
NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly talks with Dr. Carl Eriksson, assistant professor of pediatrics at Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine, about treating a case of tetanus in a 6-year-old boy.
Refugee Soccer Player Hakeem al-Araibi Granted Australian Citizenship
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison fastens an Australian flag pin on Hakeem al-Araibi, a Bahraini refugee soccer player who was granted citizenship in the country on Tuesday in Melbourne.
Stefan Postles/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Stefan Postles/Getty Images
On Tuesday, a Bahraini refugee soccer player who was jailed and facing deportation arguably got his biggest goal — citizenship in a foreign country.
Hakeem al-Araibi, 25, was one of about 200 people who became Australia citizens at a ceremony in Melbourne.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison fastened his own Australia flag pin to Araibi’s jacket. “I’ll take the new one,” he said. “But this is for you, which you can wear very proudly, as our newest Australian but as someone whose Australian values have always been deep in his heart.”
The developments in Araibi’s life triggered outcry among human rights activists, sports enthusiasts and lawmakers across the globe.
Araibi used to play on the national soccer team in the small Persian Gulf state of Bahrain. In 2012, authorities arrested him. In 2014, a court convicted him in absentia of torching a police station, handing him a prison sentence of 10 years. The professional soccer player fled Bahrain that year.
He had been living in Australia as a refugee until last November, when he landed in Thailand during his honeymoon. Thai officials arrested him on an Interpol red notice. He spent two months in jail, facing extradition to Bahrain.
“I could still remember the tone in Hakeem’s voice,” Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, the director of advocacy for the London-based Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, tells NPR. “He was telling me about his sleepless nights, like it was a film running back in his head. Remembering everything in detail about how he was abused in Bahrain detention.”
Araibi was beaten, especially on his legs and feet just to remind him that he would not play soccer again, Alwadaei says.
He says video footage showed that Araibi was playing in a televised soccer match when the alleged vandalism occurred.
Inside Bangkok Remand Prison, Araibi told The Guardian that “Bahrain wants me back to punish me” for speaking publicly about human rights abuses and discrimination against Shia Muslims by Sunni leaders.
Under international pressure, Thai prosecutors dropped the case in February and Araibi was released from a Bangkok prison cell. Bahrain withdrew its extradition request but on the same day, the minister of foreign affairs gave the ambassador of Australia to Bahrain a memorandum with the international arrest warrant issued against Araibi.
On Tuesday, the soccer player announced that he finally felt safe. “No one can follow me now,” he tweeted.
In attendance at the ceremony was Craig Foster, an Australian sports analyst and retired soccer player who worked tirelessly to raise awareness of Araibi’s case. “May we learn from the experience as a nation, treat every asylum seeker as supportively, with corresponding compassion as Hakeem. All deserve equal dignity, opportunity,” he said.
Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Marise Payne told a crowd from the podium about the widespread concern for Araibi’s welfare. Public support “played an enormous part in ensuring he was returned to Australia,” she said.
His soccer club, Pascoe Vale, described Tuesday’s event as “a moment we all have been waiting for.” It added that his example showed how soccer can break down barriers and unite people.
Araibi is currently training and trying to regain the strength he lost while away from soccer, according to The Guardian.
Alwadaei says Tuesday’s joy only goes so far.
“Although someone managed to escape the torture doesn’t mean that their family members will be immune from consequences from the government,” he says. Araibi’s brother, who was imprisoned on the same charges, remains behind bars, Alwadaei says.
He adds that many more political prisoners are languishing in Bahrain.
“Although Hakeem got unprecedented support from the international community simply for his affiliation with [soccer],” he says, “there are thousands of other individuals who simply have no one to advocate on their behalf simply because they don’t happen to be a famous athlete or to have the community behind them.”
Are Doctors Overpaid?
picture alliance/Julian Stratenschulte/picture alliance via Getty Images
NOTE: This is an excerpt of Planet Money’s newsletter. You can sign up here.
Every year, medical students apply for residencies at hospitals around the country through the National Resident Matching Program. It’s like a dating app for med students and hospitals, and it culminates this Friday, which is Match Day, when more than 30,000 students find out who they’ve got a really long date with.
Constanza Gallardo/Creative Commons/NPR
Some people view Match Week as a beautifully engineered dance between supply and demand that ensures the best and brightest learn how to be good doctors at top hospitals. Others, like Dean Baker, Senior Economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, say this residency system makes health care dramatically more expensive for Americans. A 2011 study in Health Affairs found American doctors, who make an average salary of almost $300,000, are paid around twice as much as doctors in other rich countries.
Baker says “doctors are seriously overpaid” and a big reason is rules that restrict the number of people who can get residencies. He calls these rules the work of “a cartel,” and in economics, those are fighting words. A cartel limits the supply of something in order to increase the amount of money they can charge. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, is a classic example.
The residency bottleneck
Baker argues that the U.S. residency system turns away thousands of perfectly qualified students every year. These include many foreign doctors, who are barred from practicing here unless they complete a residency within the country. While the number of residencies has increased about 26% over the last decade, Baker (and the Association of American Medical Colleges) argues it’s a bottleneck preventing an adequate supply of doctors.
Most of the funding for residencies comes from the Medicare program, and Congress capped the number of residencies the program funds in 1997. “It was originally frozen as a response to lobbying from doctors who were complaining that there were too many doctors,” Baker says. Trade groups for doctors have also been lobbying against allowing nurse practitioners, physician assistants and other medical professionals to play a larger role in treating patients. The result of policies like these, Baker argues, is a market with less competition, driving up prices for everyone.
Baker estimates that the salaries of the roughly one million doctors in the U.S. account for about eight percent of total healthcare spending. He estimates that allowing an increased supply of doctors to lower their salaries to competitive levels would save Americans $100 billion a year — or roughly $300 per person.
A second opinion
There are strong arguments that doctors aren’t overpaid. They are highly skilled professionals who save lives and have the brains and work ethic to make lots of money in other sectors, like law or finance. On top of that, many work long hours and are saddled with lots of student debt after years of education.
The American Medical Association, one of the main organizations representing U.S. doctors, says the total number of doctors has more than quadrupled since 1965, greatly outpacing population growth. The association says it’s “actively working to alleviate a maldistribution of physicians that is responsible for [a doctor] shortage in many states.” This includes increasing the size and number of med schools and funding for residencies. It currently supports the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2019, which would increase the number of Medicare-funded residency slots by 15,000 over five years.
But, Baker argues, just because the AMA now supports expanding the number of residencies doesn’t mean they and other doctor organizations don’t have their fingers on the scale. “OPEC sometimes votes to increase the supply of oil,” Baker says. “That doesn’t mean that OPEC isn’t restricting the supply of oil and pushing up the price.”
But what about economists…
Awkwardly, it did occur to us that there might be another cartel of professionals limiting their supply in order to increase their incomes. It’s a group we talk a lot about at Planet Money: economists. Are they also colluding to make it hard to enter their ranks?
“It is somewhat of a cartel,” Baker says about his profession. “So, yeah, there’s a natural tendency for any profession to try to limit its supply and push up wages for its members, but really none have been as successful as doctors.”
Did you enjoy this newsletter? Well, it looks even better in your inbox! You can sign up here.
Former Royal Marine Becomes 1st Amputee To Row Solo Across Atlantic
Lee Spencer, a 49-year-old single-leg amputee, celebrates after rowing solo across the Atlantic.
Anthony Upton via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Anthony Upton via Getty Images
Ninety-six days, 12 hours, 45 minutes. That was the record for an able-bodied person to do an unsupported row solo across the Atlantic Ocean from east to west.
Former Royal Marine Lee Spencer did it in 60 days. And Spencer, an amputee, did it with one leg — becoming the first disabled person to row unsupported from mainland Europe to South America, according to the BBC.
“No one should be defined by disability,” the 49-year-old told reporters after he smashed the able-bodied record.
HE’S ONLY JUST GONE AND BLOODY DONE IT! Lee has smashed the able-bodied record for rowing the Atlantic, solo, from mainland Europe to mainland South America, by a whopping 36 days #NotDefinedByDisability
— Lee Spencer (@_leejspencer) March 11, 2019
Spencer, a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq, lost his leg in a 2014 Good Samaritan incident gone wrong. According to the Telegraph, he was helping extricate people from a car crash when another vehicle crashed, severing his leg below the right knee.
While in the hospital, Spencer met another veteran who inspired him to join an all-amputee rowing team, which in 2016 became the first amputee team to cross the Atlantic. Spencer then decided to make the journey solo, raising money for the Royal Marines Charity and the Endeavour Fund.
He set off Jan. 9, battling 40-foot waves, two bouts of gastroenteritis and the temptation of a bottle of whiskey he had brought with him. He often considered having a spot of whiskey at night, he told reporters, but he stopped himself. You can’t drink anything on this journey, he said, “because you are just waiting constantly for something to go wrong, and you’ve got to react instantly.”
Spencer completed the 3,800-mile journey early Monday, Guyana time.
“If I can beat a record, an able-bodied record, as a disabled man … that is the reason why I wanted to do that,” Spencer told the BBC. “To prove that no one should be defined by disability.”
YouTube
Fresh Challenges To State Exclusions On Transgender Health Coverage
Anna Lange, who works for the sheriff’s office in Houston County, Ga., discovered that her health insurance plan excludes transgender services. She is seeking to challenge that policy.
Audra Melton for NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Audra Melton for NPR
When Sgt. Anna Lange moved with her young family from Columbus, Ga., to the state’s more rural Houston County, her main priority was being able to stay near her son.
After five years of marriage — and many more years of internal turmoil — Lange had realized that despite being assigned male at birth, she’d felt female her entire life.
She had decided to undergo gender transition and knew it would eventually end her marriage. She also knew her soon-to-be ex-wife would want to move back home to Houston County, an hour and a half’s drive from Columbus.
“I wasn’t going to be that far from my son,” Lange said. “It wasn’t like I was thinking of, you know, the super-open community,” she said with more than a hint of sarcasm.
Although she’d loved working at the police department in Columbus, she took a job with a national insurance company in Houston County, hoping for a more accepting, less conservative environment than law enforcement.
She found the corporate structure so stifling, she didn’t even make it out of training. Within three months, she was once more wearing a badge and gun as a patrol officer at the Houston County Sheriff’s Office. She’s been there since 2006 and has been promoted twice.
That’s why it stung so much when she learned late last fall that the county’s employee health insurance plan wouldn’t cover any of her transition-related surgery. Although federal law prohibits health insurance plans from discriminating against transgender individuals, the plan adopted by Houston County specifically excludes trans-related health care from coverage.
The exclusion came as a shock. After Lange was told by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield that her insurance would cover gender-confirmation surgery — and had her New York City-based surgeon confirm it — she traveled to Manhattan last November for a consultation. Shortly after she returned, she received a letter informing her that her employer’s plan would not, in fact, cover her procedure.
She then contacted Transcend Legal, a New York City-based nonprofit organization, and is now represented by Noah Lewis, the organization’s executive director. After the Houston County Board of Commissioners didn’t respond to a Jan. 16 letter from Lewis requesting that the board remove the exclusion, Lange and Lewis made their request in person during a meeting of the board on Feb. 19. Their request was denied; Lange now plans to sue Houston County in district court.
“The board is not considering any changes to the law at this time,” said Houston County Attorney Tom Hall in response to Lewis’ request, adding that he’d directed the commissioners themselves not to comment given the possibility of future litigation.
Lange’s is one of two Georgia cases challenging transgender exclusions in employee health plans. Skyler Jay, a trans man who appeared on an episode of the popular Netflix series Queer Eye, is currently suing his employer, the University of Georgia, in a lawsuit challenging its health plan’s similar exclusion. Jay is also represented by Lewis.
Within the past six months, transgender government employees in Wisconsin and Iowa have won similar cases and were awarded a total of $900,000 by juries. “It’s definitely going to be more expensive for them to defend it in court,” said Lewis of the Georgia state employee policy exclusion adopted by Houston County. “They can avoid that result by just voluntarily removing the exclusion.”
Lange grills burgers for friends Mike Balducci and Heather Buchanon-Romano at home.
Audra Melton for NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Audra Melton for NPR
Gender dysphoria is the American Psychiatric Association’s name for the distress caused by discordance between one’s assigned gender at birth and the gender they identify as. Multiple major medical societies, including the American Medical Association, have endorsed the medical necessity of treating gender dysphoria with “gender-affirming care,” which may include hormones, surgeries or neither.
As the medical community has shifted from viewing gender-affirming care as cosmetic to understanding it as medically necessary, many insurers, including Medicare and many Medicaid programs, have likewise shifted to covering both surgical and nonsurgical trans-related health care.
Alongside them, the law has evolved to forbid discrimination against trans Americans. Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits entities that receive federal funding for health coverage from denying coverage based on sex, gender identity and sex stereotyping. And the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act have also been broadly interpreted by courts to protect transgender individuals from discrimination.
Despite both medical and legal consensus, 30 states allow health insurance plans to exclude transgender-related health care from coverage. Most of these states are in the South, Midwest and Great Plains, and most have a relatively high proportion of rural residents.
Shortages in rural health care workforces, low rates of insurance coverage, and long distances from health care facilities have made it challenging for many Americans outside urban areas to find high-quality, affordable health care. Transgender people in rural areas often face particularly acute challenges when it comes to finding competent providers and obtaining health insurance.
Douglas Knutson, a psychologist who studies health and resiliency among LGBTQ populations at the University of Illinois in Carbondale, said rural trans populations often have high rates of anxiety, depression and suicidality.
That doesn’t mean they’re all eager to flee. Connections to home, land, language and heritage are powerful, said Knutson: “People have specific reasons for living in rural areas.”
Lange certainly does. Although she would love to be in a more welcoming environment, she remains in Houston County because of her son. “I’m a good parent,” she said. “I love him too much and I’m not going anywhere.”
She also has no intention of leaving law enforcement. If she did, she’d be leaving behind a retirement plan. Plus, she was recently promoted to sergeant in criminal investigations, and she finds it deeply satisfying to help people and solve crimes.
Lange enjoys her job working in criminal investigations and was recently promoted to sergeant.
Audra Melton for NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Audra Melton for NPR
When trans people challenge employers’ policies in stereotypically conservative settings, they often encounter resistance, said Knutson. “There’s the feeling, ‘Why does the battleground have to be here?‘ ” he said.
Although it might seem easier to switch employers than fight an unwelcoming institution for equal treatment, he said, job searches are often expensive and require a financial cushion that many people – especially public servants — don’t have. Additionally, he said, for many, “there’s a commitment to vocation”; like Lange, many people simply like their jobs.
Studies assessing the financial implications of covering transgender-related health care have demonstrated that the cost of care to insurers, including hormones and surgical therapies, is relatively small. Hormone therapy, which around 75 percent of transgender people seek, starts at $20 to $80 a month and is usually taken for the duration of a person’s life after transition. Surgeries range widely in type and cost anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000 each, although many trans people don’t desire surgical treatment.
Perhaps of even greater significance is the finding that providing this coverage is cost-effective. Untreated gender dysphoria leads to high rates of adverse — and expensive – outcomes, including HIV infection, depression, suicidality and drug abuse. The cost of accepting these outcomes outweighs the cost of treating their cause.
Still, state and local governments have pursued costly court battles to maintain these exclusions. “Officials look at this as a political issue instead of as the medical and equal employment issue that it should be,” said Harper Jean Tobin, policy director of the National Center for Transgender Equality.
Lange hangs out at home with friends Balducci and Buchanon-Romano, who came over for a cookout.
Audra Melton for NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Audra Melton for NPR
Although there is no consensus on transgender acceptance, according to the Pew Research Center, 39 percent of Americans surveyed in 2017 said society hasn’t gone far enough in accepting transgender people. Thirty-two percent said society has gone too far and 27 percent said society’s response has been about right.
Respondents were divided along partisan lines, with 60 percent of Democrats saying society hasn’t done enough compared with 12 percent of Republicans saying that.
Nevertheless, said Tobin, persistent transgender stigma in certain circles causes some lawmakers to assume that inclusive policies will be unpopular in their communities.
“Increasingly,” she said, “I think they’d be surprised.”
Keren Landman, a practicing physician and writer based in Atlanta, covers topics in medicine and public health.

