California’s Office of Health Care Affordability faces a herculean task in its plan to slow runaway health care spending.

The goal of the agency, established in 2022, is to make care more affordable and accessible while improving health outcomes, especially for the most disadvantaged state residents. That will require a sustained wrestling match with a sprawling, often dysfunctional health system and powerful industry players who have lots of experience fighting one another and the state.

Can the new agency get insurers, hospitals, and medical groups to collaborate on containing costs even as they jockey for position in the state’s $405 billion health care economy? Can the system be transformed so that financial rewards are tied more to providing quality care than to charging, often exorbitantly, for a seemingly limitless number of services and procedures?

The jury is out, and it could be for many years.

California is the ninth state — after Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington — to set annual health spending targets.

Massachusetts, which started annual spending targets in 2013, was the first state to do so. It’s the only one old enough to have a substantial pre-pandemic track record, and its results are mixed: The annual health spending increases were below the target in three of the first five years and dropped beneath the national average. But more recently, health spending has greatly increased.

In 2022, growth in health care expenditures exceeded Massachusetts’ target by a wide margin. The Health Policy Commission, the state agency established to oversee the spending control efforts, warned that “there are many alarming trends which, if unaddressed, will result in a health care system that is unaffordable.”

Neighboring Rhode Island, despite a preexisting policy of limiting hospital price increases, exceeded its overall health care spending growth target in 2019, the year it took effect. In 2020 and 2021, spending was largely skewed by the pandemic. In 2022, the spending increase came in at half the state’s target rate. Connecticut and Delaware, by contrast, both overshot their 2022 targets.

It’s all a work in progress, and California’s agency will, to some extent, be playing it by ear in the face of state policies and demographic realities that require more spending on health care.

And it will inevitably face pushback from the industry as it confronts unreasonably high prices, unnecessary medical treatments, overuse of high-cost care, administrative waste, and the inflationary concentration of a growing number of hospitals in a small number of hands.

“If you’re telling an industry we need to slow down spending growth, you’re telling them we need to slow down your revenue growth,” says Michael Bailit, president of Bailit Health, a Massachusetts-based consulting group, who has consulted for various states, including California. “And maybe that’s going to be heard as ‘we have to restrain your margins.’ These are very difficult conversations.”

Some of California’s most significant health care sectors have voiced disagreement with the fledgling affordability agency, even as they avoid overtly opposing its goals.

In April, when the affordability office was considering an annual per capita spending growth target of 3%, the California Hospital Association sent it a letter saying hospitals “stand ready to work with” the agency. But the proposed number was far too low, the association argued, because it failed to account for California’s aging population, new investments in Medi-Cal, and other cost pressures.

The hospital group suggested a spending increase target averaging 5.3% over five years, 2025-29. That’s slightly higher than the 5.2% average annual increase in per capita health spending over the five years from 2015 to 2020.

Five days after the hospital association sent its letter, the affordability board approved a slightly less aggressive target that starts at 3.5% in 2025 and drops to 3% by 2029. Carmela Coyle, the association’s chief executive, said in a statement that the board’s decision still failed to account for an aging population, the growing need for mental health and addiction treatment, and a labor shortage.

The California Medical Association, which represents the state’s doctors, expressed similar concerns. The new phased-in target, it said, was “less unreasonable” than the original plan, but the group would “continue to advocate against an artificially low spending target that will have real-life negative impacts on patient access and quality of care.”

But let’s give the state some credit here. The mission on which it is embarking is very ambitious, and it’s hard to argue with the motivation behind it: to interject some financial reason and provide relief for millions of Californians who forgo needed medical care or nix other important household expenses to afford it.

Sushmita Morris, a 38-year-old Pasadena resident, was shocked by a bill she received for an outpatient procedure last July at the University of Southern California’s Keck Hospital, following a miscarriage. The procedure lasted all of 30 minutes, Morris says, and when she received a bill from the doctor for slightly over $700, she paid it. But then a bill from the hospital arrived, totaling nearly $9,000, and her share was over $4,600.

Morris called the Keck billing office multiple times asking for an itemization of the charges but got nowhere. “I got a robotic answer, ‘You have a high-deductible plan,’” she says. “But I should still receive a bill within reason for what was done.” She has refused to pay that bill and expects to hear soon from a collection agency.

The road to more affordable health care will be long and chock-full of big challenges and unforeseen events that could alter the landscape and require considerable flexibility.

Some flexibility is built in. For one thing, the state cap on spending increases may not apply to health care institutions, industry segments, or geographic regions that can show their circumstances justify higher spending — for example, older, sicker patients or sharp increases in the cost of labor.

For those that exceed the limit without such justification, the first step will be a performance improvement plan. If that doesn’t work, at some point — yet to be determined — the affordability office can levy financial penalties up to the full amount by which an organization exceeds the target. But that is unlikely to happen until at least 2030, given the time lag of data collection, followed by conversations with those who exceed the target, and potential improvement plans.

In California, officials, consumer advocates, and health care experts say engagement among all the players, informed by robust and institution-specific data on cost trends, will yield greater transparency and, ultimately, accountability.

Richard Kronick, a public health professor at the University of California-San Diego and a member of the affordability board, notes there is scant public data about cost trends at specific health care institutions. However, “we will know that in the future,” he says, “and I think that knowing it and having that information in the public will put some pressure on those organizations.”

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

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Medicaid — the state-federal health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans — has cut more than 22 million recipients since spring 2023.

One of them was the son of Ashley Eades. Her family lost their Medicaid coverage in the “unwinding” of protections that had barred states from dropping people for years during the covid pandemic.

Many families, including Ashley’s, still qualify for Medicaid but lost it for “procedural reasons.” Basically, missing paperwork.

The unwinding process has been messy.

In this episode, host Dan Weissmann talks with Ashley about the months she spent fighting to get her son reenrolled in 2023 to get an on-the-ground look at how the unwinding is affecting families.

Then, Dan hears from staff at the Tennessee Justice Center, Joan Alker of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, and KFF Health News correspondent Brett Kelman, who has been covering Medicaid in Tennessee for years.

Dan Weissmann

@danweissmann

Host and producer of “An Arm and a Leg.” Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago’s WBEZ. His work also appears on All Things Considered, Marketplace, the BBC, 99 Percent Invisible, and Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Credits

Emily Pisacreta
Producer

Adam Raymonda
Audio wizard

Ellen Weiss
Editor

Click to open the Transcript

‘An Arm and a Leg’: Medicaid Recipients Struggle To Stay Enrolled

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there. You know what we have NEVER talked about on this show? Medicaid. The big, federally-funded health insurance program for folks with lower incomes. And I did not realize: That’s been a huge omission. Because it turns out, Medicaid covers a TON of people. Like about a quarter of all Americans. And about forty percent of all children. That’s four out of every ten kids in this country who are insured by Medicaid. 

And this is the perfect time to look at Medicaid because– well: tens of millions of people are losing their Medicaid coverage right now. It seems like a lot of these people? Well, a lot of them may actually still qualify for Medicaid. 

This is all kind of a “Back to the Future” moment, which started when COVID hit: The feds essentially hit pause on a thing that used to happen every year– requiring people on Medicaid to re-enroll, to re-establish whether they were eligible. And back then, tons of people got dropped every year, even though a lot of them probably still qualified. 

The pause lasted through the COVID “public health emergency,” which ended in spring 2023. Since then, states have been un-pausing: Doing years and years of re-enrollments– and un-enrollments– all at once. People call it the “unwinding.” And it’s been messy. And, another thing I’ve been learning: Medicaid operates really differently from one state to another. It even has different names. In California, it’s called Medi-Cal. In Wisconsin, it’s BadgerCare. And this unwinding can look completely different from one state to the next.

We’re gonna look mostly at one state– Tennessee, where the program is called TennCare. And in some ways, according to the numbers on the unwinding, TennCare is… kinda average. 

But the problems some people have had, trying to keep from getting kicked off TennCare? Before this unwinding and during it? They sound pretty bad. We’re gonna hear from one of those people– a mom named Ashley Eades. 

Ashley Eades: Yeah. TennCare. Put me through the wringer, I tell you what. 

Dan: We’ll hear how Ashley spent months fighting to keep her son Lucas from getting kicked off TennCare. And we’ll hear from some folks who can help us put her story in perspective. Including folks who helped Ashley ultimately win her fight. Folks who are fighting– in Tennessee and around the country– to keep programs like TennCare from putting people like Ashley through the wringer. 

This is An Arm and a Leg– a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So the job we’ve chosen around here is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life, and to bring you a show that’s entertaining, empowering, and useful. Ashley Eades is a single mom in Nashville. She works in the kitchen at Red’s Hot Chicken, near Vanderbilt University. 

Ashley Eades: We’re just like every other person in Nashville trying to say they got the best hot chicken. 

Dan: Ashley buys her insurance from the Obamacare marketplace, but her son Lucas– he’s 12 — is on TennCare. In April 2023, Ashley got a notice from TennCare saying, “It’s time to renew your coverage!” Meaning Lucas’s coverage. Meaning, welcome to the unwinding! When I talk with Ashley, she uses one word about a half-dozen times: 

Ashley Eades: it just was a nightmare. It was a nightmare. So that was the nightmare. A terrible nightmare you can’t wake up from. Oh my god, that was a nightmare. 

Dan: So: After Ashley filled out the renewal packet, she got another notice, saying “We need more information from you.” TennCare wanted proof of “unearned income”– like bank statements, or a letter saying she was entitled to something like workers compensation– or a court-ordered payment. But Ashley didn’t have any unearned income. Lucas’s dad was supposed to pay child support, but– as Ashley later wrote to state officials– he didn’t have regular employment so couldn’t pay. 

Ashley says she called TennCare for advice and got told, “Never mind. There’s nothing to send, so you don’t have to send us anything.” Which turned out to be wrong. A few weeks later, in May, TennCare sent Ashley a letter saying “Why your coverage is ending.” 

It gave two reasons: First, it said “We sent you a letter asking for more facts… but you did not send us what we needed.” It also said “We’ve learned that you have other insurance” for Lucas. But she didn’t. And not having insurance for Lucas was going to be an immediate problem. He got diagnosed with epilepsy a few years ago, and he needed ongoing treatment. 

Ashley Eades: he was on three different medications. I mean, that alone would cost me about $1,500 a month with no health insurance. And this is anti-seizure medication. Like we can’t just stop it 

Dan: Yeah. Ashley says she did everything she could think of: mailed in paper forms, submitted information online, and made a lot of phone calls.

Ashley Eades: like back and forth on the phone with people I don’t even know who Italked to, just dozens and dozens of people I talked to. And every single time it was go through the same story over and over and over and over and over again and just get transferred Put on holds, you know disconnected yelled at, told I’m wrong like 

Dan: It went on for months. She reapplied. She was approved. Then she was un-approved. She appealed. The appeal was denied. Then, in July, the full nightmare: Lucas ended up in the emergency room after a seizure. While he was officially uninsured. 

Ashley Eades: I just didn’t know what to do. Like, I was shutting down mentally. 

Dan: And then, out of nowhere, a relative mentioned that a nonprofit called the Tennessee Justice Center had helped *her* out with a TennCare application. Ashley called the group right away. 

Ashley Eades: and I’m not a spiritual person, but they were like a fudging godsend. You know what I mean? Like, it was amazing

 Dan: A client advocate named Luke Mukundan looked at all of TennCare’s letters to Ashley and confirmed one thing right away: Ashley wasn’t wrong to be confused. 

Ashley Eades: He’s like going through all of these letters and he’s like, it doesn’t even make sense 

Dan: Later I talked with Luke, on kind of a lousy Zoom connection. But he said to me: This was confusing, even to him. 

Luke Mukundan: she was providing the information that they asked for, um, 

Dan: But they kept asking the same questions. And they kept saying that her son had some other insurance. 

Luke Mukundan: when I knew and she knew that wasn’t the case

Dan: Luke’s boss at the Tennessee Justice Center, Diana Gallaher, told me she wasn’t surprised that Ashley got confused by that early question about un-earned income. She says the process can be really confusing. 

Diana Gallaher: Heck, I get confused. I still, I’ll look at a question and say, you know, wait, what are they asking? How do I answer this one? 

Dan: And you’ve been doing this for a while, right? 

Diana Gallaher: Oh, yeah. Yeah. 

Dan: How long have you been doing this? 

Diana Gallaher: Since 2003, 2004. 

Dan: More than twenty years. Of course, Ashley’s been going through this process at an especially rough time: The unwinding. When so many people were going through this process at once. 

For instance, Luke and Diana say the help lines at TennCare were super-jammed– like, it wasn’t unusual to spend 45 minutes or an hour on hold. 

By the time Ashley found the Tennessee Justice Center, it was August. She’d been fighting alone for months. Luke helped Ashley with a new appeal. And on September 22, TennCare sent Ashley an update. Her son is approved. “You qualify for the same coverage you had before,” it says. “And you’ll have no break in coverage.” 

So Ashley’s “nightmare” was one person’s experience of the unwinding. But it’s not a one-off: According to reports from KFF and Georgetown University, more than two-thirds of the people who lost Medicaid in the last year were disenrolled, like Ashley, for what are called “procedural reasons.” Missing paperwork.

Now, some of those people who got dropped for “procedural reasons” probably didn’t even try to renew Medicaid because they didn’t need it anymore. They had new jobs that came with insurance.

But we know those folks are in a minority. Researchers at KFF– the parent group of our journalist pals at KFF Health News– did a survey of folks who got dropped from Medicaid. Most of them– seventy percent– ended up either uninsured or, the biggest group, back on Medicaid. And again, more than two-thirds of the folks who got dropped were cut for “procedural reasons”– paperwork. Like Ashley’s son Lucas. 

So, when a lot of people can’t renew their Medicaid for “procedural” reasons, it seems worth looking at that procedure. And what’s happening in the unwinding isn’t actually a new phenomenon. It’s just un-pausing an old procedure– a system that always had these problems. And that’s really clear in Tennessee, because people in Tennessee have been documenting– and fighting– these problems for a long time. 

Next up: Taking TennCare to court. 

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of Public Road Productions and KFF Health News. The folks at KFF health news are amazing journalists– and in fact, we’re about to hear from one of them, right now. 

Brett Kelman: My name is Brett Kelman. 

Dan: Brett’s an enterprise correspondent with KFF Health News 

Brett Kelman: And I report from the city of Nashville, where I have lived for about seven years. 

Dan: Brett came to Nashville initially to cover health care for the local daily, the Tennessean. Which meant he heard about Medicaid– about people losing medicaid– a lot. 

Brett Kelman: You hear two versions of the same story. You hear patients who get to the doctor’s office and suddenly discover they don’t have Medicaid when they used to, and they thought they still did. And then you hear the other side of that coin. You hear doctors, particularly a lot of pediatricians, where their patients get to their office and then discover in their waiting rooms they don’t have Medicaid. 

Dan: And by the way– you noticed how Brett said he heard especially from pediatricians about this issue in Tennessee. That’s because Tennessee is one of the states that never expanded Medicaid after the Affordable Care Act took effect. In those states, Medicaid still covers a lot of kids but a lot fewer adults than other states. Docs treating patients with Medicaid– a lot of them are gonna be pediatricians. 

So, Brett’s hearing all of this seven years ago– the before-time. Before the unwinding. Before COVID. People kept losing Medicaid and not knowing about it until they got to the doctor’s office. And Brett wanted to know: how did that happen? He and a colleague ended up doing a huge investigation. And came back with a clear finding: 

Brett Kelman: Most of the time, when people lose their Medicaid in Tennessee, it is not because the state looked at their finances and determined they aren’t qualified. Paperwork problems are the primary reason that people lose Medicaid coverage in Tennessee. 

Dan: Brett and his reporting partner used a public-records request to get a database with the form letters sent to about three hundred thousand people who needed to renew their Medicaid coverage. 

Brett Kelman: And what we determined was that, you know, 200,000 plus children, had been sent a form letter saying that they were going to lose their Medicaid in Tennessee, again, not because the state determined they were ineligible, but because they couldn’t tell. 

Dan: About two thirds of people in that database got kicked off Medicaid for “procedural reasons”– paperwork issues. This is years before the current “unwinding” but that two-thirds number, it’s pretty similar to what we’re seeing today.

Brett Kelman: And, you know, that raises a lot of questions about if we’re doing the system correctly, because do we really want to take health care away from a family who is low income? Because somebody messed up a form or a form got lost in the mail. 

Dan: Around the time Brett published that story in 2019, the Lester family found out that they had lost their Medicaid– because a form had gotten lost in the mail. It took them three years to get it back. Brett met them at the end of that adventure 

Brett Kelman: they were a rural Tennessee family, a couple of rambunctious boys who seemed to injure themselves constantly. And honestly, I saw him almost get hurt while I was there doing the interview. One of the young boys had. Climbed up to the top of a cat tower. And I believe jumped off as I was interviewing his parents and I could see the insurance, I could see the medical claims racking up before my eyes. 

Dan: In 2019, one of the boys had broken his wrist jumping off the front porch. And when the Lesters took him to the doctor, that’s when they learned they’d been cut from Medicaid. Over the next three years, they racked up more than a hundred thousand dollars in medical debt– dealing with COVID, with more injuries, with the birth of another child. Finally, the Tennessee Justice Center helped them get Medicaid back– and figure out what had gone wrong. 

Brett Kelman: And when it all came down to it, we eventually determined that this paperwork that their health insurance hinged on, the health insurance that they were entitled to, they had lost it because the state had mailed that paperwork to the wrong place. 

Dan: Oh, and where had the state been mailing that paperwork to? A horse pasture. 

Brett Kelman: It wasn’t far from their house, but there was certainly no one receiving mail there 

Dan: Was there like a mailbox for the horses? Like where did they, where did it even go? Get left. 

Brett Kelman: I don’t remember if there was a mailbox for the horses. I don’t think so. I mean, if you think about this chain of events, they were sent paperwork they were supposed to fill out and return to keep their health insurance, but it went to the horse pasture, so they didn’t fill it out. Then they were sent a letter saying, Hey, you never filled out that paperwork. We’re gonna take your health insurance away. But it went to the horse pasture, so they didn’t fix it, and then they were sent paperwork saying, we’ve cut off your health insurance. You won’t have health insurance as of this date But it was sent to the horse pasture, so they didn’t know about it. 

Dan: And their three-year fight to get Medicaid back took place AFTER Brett published his initial story. So, some things, it seemed, hadn’t changed a whole lot. But one thing had happened: In 2020, the Tennessee Justice Center had filed a class-action lawsuit, demanding that TennCare re-enroll about a hundred thousand people who had gotten cut off– the lawsuit alleges, without due process. Here’s Brett’s take: 

Brett Kelman: And yes, I recognize that there could just have a Medicaid recipient who is not on top of this and ignores the paperwork and lets it rot in a pile of mail on their kitchen counter. I have some mail like that. I’m not going to pretend like I have never done this, but how do you tell the difference between that person and somebody who never got this paperwork that their child’s health care hinges upon? 

Dan: This exact question comes up in the lawsuit. In a filing, the state’s lawyers say TennCare does not owe a hearing to anybody who says they just didn’t get paperwork. “The simple reason for this policy is that it is well known that mail is ordinarily delivered as addressed, TennCare enrollees have a responsibility to keep the program apprised of address changes (as explained to them in TennCare’s notices), and it is exceedingly common for individuals who have missed a deadline to claim they did not receive notice.” 

Class action lawsuits move slowly. This one, filed more than four years ago, only went to trial recently. A judge’s decision is … pending. In a post-trial filing, the Tennessee Justice Center tells the stories of 17 people cut off from Medicaid allegedly due to errors by TennCare. 

In TennCare’s filings, the state’s lawyers say, in effect: None of this proves there’s a systemic problem. And as a couple people have said to me: You don’t have to set out to build a bad system. If you don’t take care to build a good one, your system will definitely have problems.

 We sent TennCare a long note about what we’ve been learning: About Brett Kelman’s reporting, about the class-action lawsuit, and about what happened to Ashley Eades. We asked them for any comment– or to let us know if they thought we’d gotten anything wrong. We haven’t heard back from them. 

So, let’s zoom out a little bit to look at how these systems are working across 50 states. The person to talk to here is Joan Alker. She’s a professor at Georgetown, and she runs the university’s Center for Children and Families. 

Joan Alker: Yeah, Medicaid really is my jam. I have been working on Medicaid issues for about 25 years now, which is a little frightening. 

Dan: So of course she and her colleagues have been tracking how all 50 states have been dealing with the unwinding, compiling all kinds of data. When we talked, they’d just updated a ticker showing how many kids have been dropped in each state. 

Joan Alker: We just hit 5 million net child Medicaid decline just today. Um, so that’s very troubling. 

Dan: And according to Joan Alker’s report, kids were even more likely to be dropped for “procedural reasons”– paperwork issues– than adults. 

Joan Alker: Most of these children are probably still eligible for Medicaid and many of them won’t have another source of coverage. And that’s what I worry a lot about. 

Dan: But it varies a TON. A couple states– Maine and Rhode Island– actually have MORE kids enrolled than when the unwinding started. A half-dozen others have dropped very few kids. 

Joan Alker: But then we had some states that went out really assertively and aggressively to, um, to To have fewer people enrolled in Medicaid 

Dan: Her numbers show that Texas is a standout. They’ve got one point three million fewer kids enrolled in Medicaid than they did before the unwinding… Tennessee– with all the problems documented by Brett Kelman and the Tennessee Justice Center– is kind of around the middle of the pack. 

Joan Alker: Unfortunately, this is the norm. Right? When you look at the number of disenrollments nationwide, the average for procedural red tape reasons is 70%. Only 30 percent of those people losing Medicaid nationwide have lost it because they’ve clearly been determined to be ineligible. 

Dan: Obviously, Joan Alker is not happy about this. But she is also not hopeless! The unwinding has been an example of what happens– what can happen– when you require people to renew their enrollment every year. But now some states are experimenting with … not requiring that anymore, at least not for young kids. 

Joan Alker: …because we know so many of them are going to remain eligible. They’re cheap to insure. They’re not where the money is being spent in our healthcare system. But they need regular care. 

Dan: Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico now keep kids enrolled through age six. Another seven states are aiming to do the same. 

Joan Alker: This is an idea that we’ve been promoting for like 15 years and we were kind of crying out in the wilderness for a long time, but it’s breaking through now 

Dan: I’m not gonna lie. There’s a ton that’s not gonna get fixed with Medicaid anytime soon. We don’t know yet how the judge in the Tennessee Justice Center’s class-action lawsuit is gonna rule. But seeing these fights, it reminds me of something I’ve said before on this show: We are not gonna win them all. But we don’t have to lose them all either.

By the way, a little news about Ashley Eades– our mom in Nashville, who fought to keep her son on TennCare. 

Ashley Eades: Last year, I started going back to school, and I’m going to school full time, and I’m working full 

Dan: Oh my gosh! 

Dan: And she’s home-schooling Lucas. 

Ashley Eades: I was like, “we’re going to go to school together, buddy.” Like, we share a desk, you know, and he’s like in class and I’m in class. 

Dan: Wow 

Ashley Eades: I had to get creative. um, so, yeah, I’m like, working this really crappy, stinky job and going to school 

Dan: And it’s working out. 

Ashley Eades: I, um, made Dean’s List this semester, like got straight A’s. 

Dan: Yeah! 

Dan: Ashley wants to go to Medical school. I thought you’d want to know. 

Before we go, I just want to say THANK YOU. In our last episode, we asked you to help us understand sneaky facility fees, by sending your own medical bills, and you have been coming through in a big way. We’ve heard from more than 30 people at this point. Some of you have been annoyed by these fees for years– a couple of you have told us about driving 30 or 40 miles across town, hoping to avoid them. And we’ve been hearing from folks inside the medical billing world, offering us some deeper insight. And I could not be pleased-er. Thank you so much! 

If you’ve got a bill to share, it’s not too late to pitch in, at arm-and-a-leg-show, dot com, slash FEES. I’ll catch you in a few weeks. Till then, take care of yourself. 

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta, and edited by Ellen Weiss. Thanks this time to Phil Galewitz of KFF Health News, Andy Schneider of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, and Gordon Bonnyman of the Tennessee Justice Center for sharing their expertise with us. Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and blue dot sessions. Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. Gabe Bullard is our brand-new engagement editor. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. Sarah Ballama is our operations manager. 

And Armand a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about healthcare in America and a core program at KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show. 

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN. org. Finally, thanks to everybody who supports this show financially– you can join in any time at arm and a leg show dot com, slash, support– thanks for pitching in if you can, and thanks for listening.

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to the newsletter. You can also follow the show on Facebook and the social platform X. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Lawmakers and state officials are turning up the heat on federal regulators to stop unscrupulous, commission-hungry insurance agents from enrolling thousands of people in Affordable Care Act plans, or switching their coverage, without their knowledge.

Customers often don’t discover the changes until they’re denied medical coverage or get stuck with a bill for ACA tax credits they have to repay.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said he’ll propose legislation to allow the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to hold fraudulent brokers “criminally responsible” for their actions. The agency, which oversees the ACA exchanges, can fine individuals up to $250,000 for submitting false information in an application for a health plan, but it hasn’t done so, Wyden said.

“I am disappointed these penalties have not yet been used to hold bad actors accountable,” Wyden wrote last week in a sharply worded letter to CMS Chief Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

Jimmy Patronis, who oversees agencies including insurance regulators as Florida’s chief financial officer, called on Congress to push CMS to require two-factor authentication on healthcare.gov and related platforms that agents use to sign people up for coverage. According to Patronis, the state has opened more than 900 investigations into problem enrollments.

“It’s far easier to prevent fraud from occurring in the first place than it is to ask state regulators to chase down these bad actors after the fact,” Patronis wrote.

The problem appears concentrated among the 32 states using the federal marketplace — healthcare.gov — because, brokers say, it’s too easy for rogue agents to access policyholder information. All they need is a name, date of birth and state.

States that run their own insurance markets generally have additional security requirements.

CMS tallied 90,000 complaints about unauthorized sign-ups or plan switching in just the first quarter of 2024, out of more than 16 million enrollments.

Jeff Wu, acting director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at CMS, has said his agency is preparing regulatory and technological fixes, investigating brokers and working to restore consumers to chosen plans.

But even with Wyden’s legislation on the way, Congress looks unlikely to act. Lawmakers are in the middle of an election year in which President Biden is trying to win votes for bolstering enrollment in ACA plans while knocking his opponent, former president Donald Trump, for his unsuccessful attempt to repeal the law.

Sabrina Corlette, who follows the ACA market as co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, said the feds can do more, including coordinating better with state investigations.

But states like Florida should also regulate the marketplaces, she said.

“If there’s a lot of bad brokers in Florida, then Florida needs to look inward and maybe do a better job of policing brokers,” she said.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact [email protected].

When Cassie Cox ended up in the emergency room in January, the Bainbridge, Georgia, resident was grateful for the Obamacare insurance policy she had recently selected for coverage in 2024.

Cox, 40, qualified for an Affordable Care Act marketplace plan with no monthly premium due to her relatively low income. And after she cut her hand severely, the 35 stitches she received in the ER led to an out-of-pocket expense of about $300, she said.

“I can’t imagine what the ER visit would have cost if I was uninsured,” she said.

Cox is among 1.3 million people enrolled in health coverage this year through the ACA marketplace in Georgia, which has seen a 181% increase in enrollment since 2020.

Many people with low incomes have been drawn to plans offering $0 premiums and low out-of-pocket costs, which have become increasingly common because of the enhanced federal subsidies introduced by President Joe Biden.

Southern states have seen the biggest enrollment bump of any region. Ten of the 15 states that more than doubled their marketplace numbers from 2020 to 2024 are in the South, according to a KFF policy brief. And the five states with the largest increases in enrollment — Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina, all in the South — have yet to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, driving many residents to the premium-free health plans.

But with the federal incentives introduced by the Biden administration set to expire at the end of 2025, and the possibility of a second Donald Trump presidency, the South could be on track to see a significant dip in ACA enrollment, policy analysts say.

“Georgia and the Southern states generally have lower per-capita income and higher uninsured rates,” said Gideon Lukens, a senior fellow and the director of research and data analysis for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan, Washington, D.C.-based research organization. If the enhanced subsidies go away, he said, the South, especially states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, will likely feel a bigger effect than other states. “There’s no other safety net” for many people losing coverage in non-expansion states, Lukens said.

When Cox was enrolling in Obamacare last fall, she qualified for premium tax credits that were added to two major congressional legislative packages: the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, and the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Those incentives — which gave rise to many plans with no premiums and low out-of-pocket costs — have helped power this year’s record Obamacare enrollment of 21 million. The extra subsidies were added to the already existing subsidies for marketplace coverage.

The states that didn’t expand Medicaid and have high uninsured rates “got most of the free plans,” said Cynthia Cox, a KFF vice president who directs the health policy nonprofit’s program on the ACA. Zero-premium plans existed before the new subsidies, she added, but they generally came with high deductibles that potentially would lead to higher costs for consumers.

A Trump presidency could jeopardize those extra subsidies. Brian Blase, a former Trump administration official who advised him on health care policy, said that eliminating the extra subsidies would bring the marketplace back to the ACA’s original intent.

“It’s not sustainable or wise to have fully taxpayer-subsidized coverage,” said Blase, who is now president of the Paragon Health Institute, a health policy research firm. People would still qualify for discounts, he said, but they wouldn’t be as generous.

Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for Trump, did not answer a reporter’s questions on the future of the enhanced subsidies under a new Trump administration. Despite his comments at the end of last year that he is “seriously looking at alternatives” to Obamacare, Leavitt said Trump is not campaigning to terminate the Affordable Care Act.

“He is running to make health care actually affordable, in addition to bringing down inflation, cutting taxes, and reducing regulations to put more money back in the pockets of all Americans,” she said.

While views on Obamacare may be divided, the wide support for subsidies crosses political lines, according to a KFF Health Tracking Poll released in May.

About 7 in 10 voters support the extension of enhanced federal financial assistance for people who purchase ACA marketplace coverage, the poll found. That support included 90% of Democrats, 73% of independents, and 57% of Republicans surveyed.

The enhanced assistance also allowed many people with incomes higher than 400% of the poverty level, or $58,320 for an individual in 2023, to get tax credits for coverage for the first time.

Besides the financial incentives, other reasons cited for the explosion in ACA enrollment include the end of continuous Medicaid coverage protections related to the covid public health emergency. About a year ago, states started redetermining eligibility, known as the “unwinding.”

Roughly one-quarter of those who lost Medicaid coverage moved to the ACA marketplace, said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

In Georgia, Republican political leaders haven’t talked much about the effect of the Biden administration’s premium incentives on enrollment increases.

Instead, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, among others, has touted the performance of Georgia Access, an online portal that links consumers directly to the ACA marketplace’s website or to an agent or broker. That agent link can create a more personal connection, said Bryce Rawson, a spokesperson for the state’s insurance department, which runs the portal. Employees from the agency and from consulting firms helped market the no-premium plans throughout the state, he said.

Yet Georgia Access didn’t become fully operational until last fall, during open enrollment for the marketplace. Republicans also credit a reinsurance waiver that, according to Rawson, increased the number of health insurers offering marketplace coverage in the state, leading to more competition.

Reinsurance is likely not a major reason for a state’s increased Obamacare enrollment, said Georgetown’s Park. And a study published in Health Affairs found that Georgia’s reinsurance program had the unintended consequences of increasing the minimum cost of subsidized ACA coverage and reducing enrollment among individuals at a certain income level, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently reported.

The state’s insurance department said the study “does not accurately reflect the overall benefits the reinsurance program has brought to Georgia consumers.”

When asked whether the governor would support renewal of the enhanced subsidies, Garrison Douglas, Kemp’s spokesperson, said the matter is up to Congress to decide.

Another reason for the soaring ACA enrollment is the 2023 fix to the “family glitch” that had prevented dependents of workers who were offered unaffordable family coverage by employers from getting marketplace subsidies.

States that have run their own marketplaces, though, generally have not seen the same level of enrollment increases. Those 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, have expanded Medicaid. Georgia will join the list of states running their own exchanges this fall, making it the only state to operate one that has not expanded Medicaid.

The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services credits a national marketing campaign and more federal funding for navigators, the insurance counselors who provide education about marketplace health coverage and free help with enrollment.

That level of financial support for navigators may be in jeopardy if Trump returns to the White House.

The Biden administration injected nearly $100 million in funding for navigators in the enrollment period for coverage this year. The Trump administration, on the other hand, awarded just $10 million a year for navigators from 2018 to 2020.

The marketplace is usually “a transitional place” for people coming in and out of coverage, KFF’s Cox said. “That marketing and outreach is pretty essential to help people literally navigate the process.”

The Host

With abortion shaping up as a key issue for the November elections, the movement that united to overturn Roe v. Wade is divided over going further, faster — including by punishing those who have abortions and banning contraception or IVF. Politicians who oppose abortion are already experiencing backlash in some states.

Meanwhile, bad actors are bilking the health system in various new ways, from switching people’s insurance plans without their consent to pocket additional commissions, to hacking the records of major health systems and demanding millions of dollars in ransom.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• It appears that abortion opponents are learning it’s a lot easier to agree on what you’re against than for. Now that the constitutional right to an abortion has been overturned, political leaders are contending with vocal groups that want to push further — such as by banning access to IVF or contraception.
• A Louisiana bill designating abortion pills as controlled substances targets people in the state, where abortion is banned, who are finding ways to get the drug. And abortion providers in Kansas are suing over a new law that requires patients to report their reasons for having an abortion. Such state laws have a cumulative chilling effect on abortion access.
• Some Republican lawmakers seem to be trying to dodge voter dissatisfaction with abortion restrictions in this election year. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama introduced legislation to protect IVF by pulling Medicaid funding from states that ban the fertility procedure — but it has holes. And Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland declared he is pro-choice, even though he mostly dodged the issue during his eight years as governor.
• Former President Donald Trump is in the news again for comments that seemed to leave the door open to restrictions on contraception — which may be the case, though he is known to make such vague policy suggestions. Trump’s policies as president did restrict access to contraception, and his allies have proposed going further.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Shefali Luthra of The 19^th about her new book on abortion in post-Roe America, “Undue Burden.”

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

Julie Rovner: The 19^th’s “What Happens to Clinics After a State Bans Abortion? They Fight To Survive,” by Shefali Luthra and Chabeli Carrazana. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “How Doctors Are Pressuring Sickle Cell Patients Into Unwanted Sterilizations,” by Eric Boodman.  

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “What Science Tells Us About Biden, Trump and Evaluating an Aging Brain,” by Joel Achenbach and Mark Johnson.  

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “Toxic Gaslighting: How 3M Executives Convinced a Scientist the Forever Chemicals She Found in Human Blood Were Safe,” by Sharon Lerner; and The Guardian’s “Microplastics Found in Every Human Testicle in Study,” by Damian Carrington. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

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.

GRASS VALLEY, Calif. — Here in the rugged foothills of California’s Sierra Nevada, the streets aren’t littered with needles and dealers aren’t hustling drugs on the corner.

But meth is almost as easy to come by as a hazy IPA or locally grown weed.

Quinn Coburn knows the lifestyle well. He has used meth most of his adult life, and has done five stints in jail for dealing marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin. Now 56, Coburn wants to get sober for good, and he says an experimental program through Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, which covers low-income people, is helping.

As part of an innovative approach called “contingency management,” Coburn pees in a cup and gets paid for it — as long as the sample is clean of stimulants.

In the coming fiscal year, the state is expected to allocate $61 million to the experiment, which targets addiction to stimulants such as meth and cocaine. It is part of a broader Medi-Cal initiative called CalAIM, which provides social and behavioral health services, including addiction treatment, to some of the state’s sickest and most vulnerable patients.

Since April 2023, 19 counties have enrolled a total of about 2,700 patients, including Coburn, according to the state Department of Health Care Services.

“It’s that little something that’s holding me accountable,” said Coburn, a former construction worker who has tried repeatedly to kick his habit. He is also motivated to stay clean to fight criminal charges for possession of drugs and firearms, which he vociferously denies.

Coburn received $10 for each clean urine test he provided the first week of the program. Participants get a little more money in successive weeks: $11.50 per test in week two, $13 in week three, up to $26.50 per test.

They can earn as much as $599 a year. As of mid-May, Coburn had completed 20 weeks and made $521.50.

Participants receive at least six months of additional behavioral health treatment after the urine testing ends.

The state has poured significant money and effort into curbing opioid addiction and fentanyl trafficking, but the use of stimulants is also exploding in California. According to the state Department of Health Care Services, the rate of Californians dying from them doubled from 2019 to 2023.

Although the cutting-edge treatment can work for opioids and other drugs, California has prioritized stimulants. To qualify, patients must have moderate to severe stimulant use disorder, which includes symptoms such as strong cravings for the drug and prioritizing it over personal health and well-being.

Substance use experts say incentive programs that reward participants, even in a small way, can have a powerful effect with meth users in particular, and a growing body of evidence indicates they can lead to long-term abstinence.

“The way stimulants work on the brain is different than how opiates or alcohol works on the brain,” said John Duff, lead program director at Common Goals, an outpatient drug and alcohol counseling center in Grass Valley, where Coburn receives treatment.

“The reward system in the brain is more activated with amphetamine users, so getting $10 or $20 at a time is more enticing than sitting in group therapy,” Duff said.

Duff acknowledged he was skeptical of the multimillion-dollar price tag for an experimental program. “You’re talking about a lot of money,” he said. “It was a hard sell.”

What convinced him? “People are showing up, consistently. To get off stimulants, it’s proving to be very effective.”

California was the first state to cover this approach as a benefit in its Medicaid program, according to the Department of Health Care Services, though other states have since followed, including Montana.

Participants in Nevada County must show up twice a week to provide a urine sample, tapering to once a week for the second half of treatment. Every time the sample is free of stimulants, they get paid via a retail gift card — even if the sample is positive for other kinds of drugs, including opioids.

Though participants can collect the money after each clean test, many opt for a lump sum after completing the 24-week program, Duff said. They can choose gift cards from companies such as Walmart, Bath & Body Works, Petco, Subway, and Hotels.com.

Charlie Abernathybettis — Coburn’s substance use disorder counselor, who helps run the program for Nevada County — said not everyone consistently produces a clean urine test, and he has devised a system to stop people from rigging their results.

For example, he uses blue toilet cleaner to prevent patients from watering down their urine, and has dismantled a spigot on the bathroom faucet to keep them from using warm water for the same purpose.

If participants fail, there are no consequences. They simply don’t get paid that day, and can show up and try again.

“We aren’t going to change behavior by penalizing people for their addiction,” Abernathybettis said, noting the ultimate goal is to transition participants into long-term treatment. “Hopefully you feel comfortable here and I can convince you to sign up for outpatient treatment.”

Abernathybettis has employed a tough love approach to addiction therapy that has helped keep Coburn sober and accountable since he started in January. “It’s different this time,” Coburn said as he lit a cigarette on a sunny afternoon in April. “I have support now. I know my life is on the line.”

Growing up in the Bay Area, Coburn never quite felt like he fit in. He was adopted at an early age and dropped out of high school. His erratic home life set him on a course of hard drug use and crime, including manufacturing and selling drugs, he said.

“When I first did crank, it made me feel like I was human for the first time. All my phobias about being antisocial left me,” Coburn said, using a street name for meth.

Coburn escaped to the solitude of the mountains, trees, and rivers that define the rural landscape in Grass Valley, but the area was also rife with drugs.

Construction accidents in 2012 left him in excruciating pain — and unable to work.

Coburn fell deeper into the drug scene, as both a user and a manufacturer. “You wouldn’t believe the market up here for it — more than you can even imagine,” he said. “It’s not an excuse, but I had no way to make a living.”

Financially strapped, he rented a cheap, converted garage from another local drug dealer, he said. Law enforcement officers raided the house in October, and authorities found a gun and large amounts of fentanyl and heroin. Coburn, who faces up to 30 years in prison, vigorously defends himself, saying the drugs and weapons were not his. “All the other ones I did. Not this one,” he said.

Coburn is also in an outpatient addiction program and is active in Alcoholics Anonymous, sometimes attending multiple meetings a day.

Every week, the small payments from the Medi-Cal experiment feel like small wins, he said.

He is planning to take his $599 as a lump sum and give it to his foster parents, with whom he is living as he fights his criminal charges.

“It’s the least I can do for them letting me stay with them and get better,” Coburn said, choking back tears. “I’m not giving up.”

This article is part of “Faces of Medi-Cal,” a California Healthline series exploring the impact of the state’s safety-net health program on enrollees.

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

Vincent Wasney and his fiancée, Sarah Eberlein, had never visited the ocean. They’d never even been on a plane. But when they bought their first home in Saginaw, Michigan, in 2018, their real estate agent gifted them tickets for a Royal Caribbean cruise.

After two years of delays due to the coronavirus pandemic, they set sail in December 2022.

The couple chose a cruise destined for the Bahamas in part because it included a trip to CocoCay, a private island accessible to Royal Caribbean passengers that featured a water park, balloon rides, and an excursion swimming with pigs.

It was on that day on CocoCay when Wasney, 31, started feeling off, he said.

The next morning, as the couple made plans in their cabin for the last full day of the trip, Wasney made a pained noise. Eberlein saw him having a seizure in bed, with blood coming out of his mouth from biting his tongue. She opened their door to find help and happened upon another guest, who roused his wife, an emergency room physician.

Wasney was able to climb into a wheelchair brought by the ship’s medical crew to take him down to the medical facility, where he was given anticonvulsants and fluids and monitored before being released.

Wasney had had seizures in the past, starting about 10 years ago, but it had been a while since his last one. Imaging back then showed no tumors, and doctors concluded he was likely epileptic, he said. He took medicine initially, but after two years without another seizure, he said, his doctors took him off the medicine to avoid liver damage.

Wasney had a second seizure on the ship a few hours later, back in his cabin. This time he stopped breathing, and Eberlein remembered his lips being so purple, they almost looked black. Again, she ran to find help but, in her haste, locked herself out. By the time the ship’s medical team got into the cabin, Wasney was breathing again but had broken blood vessels along his chest and neck that he later said resembled tiger stripes.

Wasney was in the ship’s medical center when he had a third seizure — a grand mal, which typically causes a loss of consciousness and violent muscle contractions. By then, the ship was close enough to port that Wasney could be evacuated by rescue boat. He was put on a stretcher to be lowered by ropes off the side of the ship, with Eberlein climbing down a rope ladder to join him.

But before they disembarked, the bill came.

The Patient: Vincent Wasney, 31, who was uninsured at the time.

Medical Services: General and enhanced observation, a blood test, anticonvulsant medicine, and a fee for services performed outside the medical facility.

Service Provider: Independence of the Seas Medical Center, the on-ship medical facility on the cruise ship operated by Royal Caribbean International.

Total Bill: $2,500.22.

What Gives: As part of Royal Caribbean’s guest terms, cruise passengers “agree to pay in full” all expenses incurred on board by the end of the cruise, including those related to medical care. In addition, Royal Caribbean does not accept “land-based” health insurance plans.

Wasney said he was surprised to learn that, along with other charges like wireless internet, Royal Caribbean required he pay his medical bills before exiting the ship — even though he was being evacuated urgently.

“Are we being held hostage at this point?” Eberlein remembered asking. “Because, obviously, if he’s had three seizures in 10 hours, it’s an issue.”

Wasney said he has little memory of being on the ship after his first seizure — seizures often leave victims groggy and disoriented for a few hours afterward.

But he certainly remembers being shown a bill, the bulk of which was the $2,500.22 in medical charges, while waiting for the rescue boat.

Still groggy, Wasney recalled saying he couldn’t afford that and a cruise employee responding: “How much can you pay?”

They drained their bank accounts, including money saved for their next house payment, and maxed out Wasney’s credit card but were still about $1,000 short, he said.

Ultimately, they were allowed to leave the ship. He later learned his card was overdrafted to cover the shortfall, he said.

Royal Caribbean International did not respond to multiple inquiries from KFF Health News.

Once on land, in Florida, Wasney was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, where he incurred thousands of dollars more in medical expenses.

He still isn’t entirely sure what caused the seizures.

On the ship he was told it could have been extreme dehydration — and he said he does remember being extra thirsty on CocoCay. He also has mused whether trying escargot for the first time the night before could have played a role. Eberlein’s mother is convinced the episode was connected to swimming with pigs, he said. And not to be discounted, Eberlein accidentally broke a pocket mirror three days before their trip.

Wasney, who works in a stone shop, was uninsured when they set sail. He said that one month before they embarked on their voyage, he finally felt he could afford the health plan offered through his employer and signed up, but the plan didn’t start until January 2023, after their return.

They also lacked travel insurance. As inexperienced travelers, Wasney said, they thought it was for lost luggage and canceled trips, not unexpected medical expenses. And because the cruise was a gift, they were never prompted to buy coverage, which often happens when tickets are purchased.

The Resolution: Wasney said the couple returned to Saginaw with essentially no money in their bank account, several thousand dollars of medical debt, and no idea how they would cover their mortgage payment. Because he was uninsured at the time of the cruise, Wasney did not try to collect reimbursement for the cruise bill from his new health plan when his coverage began weeks later.

The couple set up payment plans to cover the medical bills for Wasney’s care after leaving the ship: one each with two doctors he saw at Broward Health, who billed separately from the hospital, and one with the ambulance company. He also made payments on a bill with Broward Health itself. Those plans do not charge interest.

But Broward Health said Wasney missed two payments to the hospital, and that bill was ultimately sent to collections.

In a statement, Broward Health spokesperson Nina Levine said Wasney’s bill was reduced by 73% because he was uninsured.

“We do everything in our power to provide the best care with the least financial impact, but also cannot stress enough the importance of taking advantage of private and Affordable Care Act health insurance plans, as well as travel insurance, to lower risks associated with unplanned medical issues,” she said.

The couple was able to make their house payment with $2,690 they raised through a GoFundMe campaign that Wasney set up. Wasney said a lot of that help came from family as well as friends he met playing disc golf, a sport he picked up during the pandemic.

“A bunch of people came through for us,” Wasney said, still moved to tears by the generosity. “But there’s still the hospital bill.”

The Takeaway: Billing practices differ by cruise line, but Joe Scott, chair of the cruise ship medicine section of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said medical charges are typically added to a cruise passenger’s onboard account, which must be paid before leaving the ship. Individuals can then submit receipts to their insurers for possible reimbursement.

He recommended that those planning to take a cruise purchase travel insurance that specifically covers their trips. “This will facilitate reimbursement if they do incur charges and potentially cover a costly medical evacuation if needed,” Scott said.

Royal Caribbean suggests that passengers who receive onboard care submit their paid bills to their health insurer for possible reimbursement. Many health plans do not cover medical services received on cruise ships, however. Medicare will sometimes cover medically necessary health care services on cruise ships, but not if the ship is more than six hours away from a U.S. port.

Travel insurance can be designed to address lots of out-of-town mishaps, like lost baggage or even transportation and lodging for a loved one to visit if a traveler is hospitalized.

Travel medical insurance, as well as plans that offer “emergency evacuation and repatriation,” are two types that can specifically assist with medical emergencies. Such plans can be purchased individually. Credit cards may offer travel medical insurance among their benefits, as well.

But travel insurance plans come with limitations. For instance, they may not cover care associated with preexisting conditions or what the plans consider “risky” activities, such as rock climbing. Some plans also require that travelers file first with their primary health insurance before seeking reimbursement from travel insurance.

As with other insurance, be sure to read the fine print and understand how reimbursement works.

Wasney said that’s what they plan to do before their next Royal Caribbean cruise. They’d like to go back to the Bahamas on basically the same trip, he said — there’s a lot about CocoCay they didn’t get to explore.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health News and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us? Tell us about it!

Stronger actions are needed immediately to thwart insurance brokers who fraudulently enroll or switch people in Affordable Care Act coverage, Sen. Ron Wyden, chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, said Monday.

“We want the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to hold these brokers criminally responsible for ripping people off this way,” he told KFF Health News.

In a sharply worded letter sent to CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the Oregon Democrat expressed “outrage” over the practice, which nets unscrupulous agents commission payments while leaving consumers with a potential host of problems, from losing access to their regular doctors or treatments to higher deductibles and even owing taxes.

Noting that tens of thousands of Americans have been victimized, Wyden called on regulators to step up enforcement and be more proactive in notifying potentially affected consumers. He vowed to introduce legislation that would make participating in such schemes subject to criminal penalties.

“CMS must do more and you must do it now,” he wrote in his letter.

Complaints about such unauthorized enrollment schemes have grown in recent months. KFF Health News has reported that unscrupulous brokers or agents can easily access policyholder information to change their coverage through private commercial platforms integrated with the federal Obamacare marketplace, healthcare.gov, which serves 32 states.

The challenge for federal regulators is to thwart the activity without reducing enrollment — a top priority for President Joe Biden’s administration.

CMS, which oversees the federal website, said it’s working on regulatory and technological fixes and can suspend or terminate problem agents’ access to healthcare.gov.

The agency will respond directly to Wyden, said Jeff Wu, acting director of CMS’ Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, in a written statement. He further noted that the agency is “consistently evaluating opportunities to identify and resolve issues sooner, including through outreach, technical assistance, and compliance actions.”

Ronnell Nolan, president and CEO of Health Agents for America, whose group has been outspoken about the need for regulators to do more, welcomed Wyden’s involvement and the potential for criminal penalties for perpetrators.

“It’s a crime when a person’s insurance is taken from them when they’re in the middle of cancer treatment or on a transplant list and they’re put in a predicament where they might lose their life because of the fraudulent activity,” she said.

After initially declining to quantify the problem, CMS this month issued a statement saying it had received more than 90,000 complaints in the first quarter of 2024 about unauthorized enrollments and plan switches. While the number of complaints represents a small percentage of the more than 16 million enrollments processed through healthcare.gov for this year’s coverage, it may understate the breadth of the problem, as complaints likely don’t reflect the magnitude of cases.

Although Wyden lauded CMS’ efforts to fix problems already encountered by consumers, he said in his letter that the agency needs to be more proactive about preventing them.

He urged regulators to contact potentially affected consumers instead of waiting to investigate only after a policyholder files a complaint, which sometimes doesn’t occur until weeks or months after a plan is switched.

It can be difficult for victims to recognize the changes. Rogue agents don’t obtain their consent, and many are signed up for plans that have no monthly premiums, so they don’t get a bill. Other consumers unknowingly enroll when they respond to misleading marketing promising gift cards, “government subsidies,” or other financial help.

Rather than wait for a consumer to complain, regulators could reach out directly when they see a policy submitted or changed by a broker or agency that has been found to be fraudulently enrolling others, Wyden wrote.

Wyden also said CMS should use its authority to impose civil penalties, up to $250,000, against “brokers who submit fraudulent enrollments.”

“I am disappointed these penalties have not yet been used to hold bad actors accountable,” he wrote.

Finally, he wants the agency to review private-sector platforms used by agents and brokers to enroll consumers in ACA plans. Those private companies are not used by 18 states and the District of Columbia, which run their own ACA marketplaces. The state-run marketplaces impose additional layers of identity-proofing and other security measures and have reported far fewer problems with unauthorized enrollment.

Dozens of private “enhanced direct enrollment” entities are certified by CMS to integrate with healthcare.gov. Their involvement was expanded during the Trump administration, which also sharply reduced funding for nonprofits to help with outreach and enrollment.

The platforms were designed to be simpler to use than healthcare.gov. But they have drawn criticism from agents, who say the private websites make it too easy for unscrupulous brokers or others to access policyholder information and make changes. Currently, more than half of federal marketplace enrollments are assisted by agents or brokers, and most act legitimately, regulators and others say.

Angling to tap into strong support for the sweeping health law he helped pass 14 years ago, one of President Joe Biden’s latest reelection strategies is to remind voters that former President Donald Trump tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

“Folks, he’s coming for your health care, and we’re not going to let it happen,” Biden says of Trump in a television and digital ad out this month, part of a $14 million investment in the handful of states expected to decide the presidency in November.

The new ad draws on the popularity of the ACA among independent voters and alludes to Biden’s edge over Trump on health issues, which the current president hopes will help propel him to victory.

Swaying even a tiny percentage of voters could make a difference for Biden, said Kenneth Miller, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.

“It will be so close,” he said. “Any little thing can be a deciding factor.”

Political experts say Biden is wise to draw attention to the ACA, which ended long-standing insurance practices denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions or charging them more — a change that is “popular across the partisan divide” and benefits about half of U.S. households, said Ashley Kirzinger, KFF’s associate director of public opinion and survey research.

“Framing the ACA around those protections is a very smart move,” she said.

A new KFF survey found Biden has an edge with independent voters when it comes to health care issues.

Independents trust Biden more than Trump to ensure access to affordable health insurance (47% to 22%) and maintain protections for people with preexisting conditions (47% to 23%).

Biden holds a smaller advantage over Trump in whom independents trust more to address high health care costs (39% to 26%). The survey also found the issue isn’t a slam dunk for either candidate: About a third of independent voters said they trust neither Biden nor Trump to address costs.

Democrats are fighting to extend higher government subsidies for most people with ACA coverage, which were increased during the pandemic and are set to expire in 2025. They’re also banking on outrage over the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision striking down Roe v. Wade, and strict abortion bans that have followed in many Republican-led states, to juice Democratic turnout.

The stakes “could not be higher for Americans who rely on the Affordable Care Act,” Biden campaign spokesperson Michael Tyler told reporters on a call this month.

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

At least one Democratic-aligned super PAC is also running health-related ads, including on Trump’s appointment of Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the constitutional right to an abortion.

Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said focusing on health care plays to Biden’s strengths.

“Biden has been mired by voter concerns about inflation and immigration, where Republicans are preferred,” he said. “Health care is more favorable territory where the Trump campaign does not have much of a defense to offer.”

Some recent polls have shown Trump leading in most battleground states, with voters expressing pessimism about the economy.

But Trump is vulnerable on health care, Miller said. He unsuccessfully tried to repeal the ACA as president and has alluded to trying again if he returns to the White House. In November, he declared “Obamacare Sucks!” on social media, and in March he said he wants to improve the law without saying how.

“These ads are an effort to shake up the agenda,” Miller said. “Biden needs more work reminding Democrat-leaning independent voters who probably voted for him in 2020 that he is the better choice.”

Biden’s ad also claims his health care policies have helped save Americans $800 a year. The Biden administration has said that’s how much 13 million people buying coverage on ACA insurance marketplaces saved in 2022.

The ad’s primary claim, that 100 million people would be harmed if Trump eliminated preexisting condition protections, is misleading, said Robert Speel, director of the Public Policy Initiative at Penn State Behrend. That’s because many would retain the protections under their coverage, particularly those on Medicare and employer-sponsored insurance.

“The ad looks too generic to have a significant impact on the outcome of the election, though it may get through to enough of the small universe of swing voters to have at least some potential impact on who wins Pennsylvania,” Speel said.

The KFF survey of 1,243 registered voters conducted April 23-May 1 had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.