Tag: Aging

Harris, alguna vez la voz de Biden sobre el aborto, tendría un enfoque abierto en temas de salud

A lo largo de su presidencia, Joe Biden se apoyó en Kamala Harris, la ex fiscal y senadora frontal que eligió como vicepresidenta, para ser la voz de apoyo inquebrantable de la Casa Blanca en favor de los derechos de salud reproductiva.

Ahora, mientras los demócratas reconstruyen su candidatura presidencial a pocos meses de las elecciones, se esperaría que, de ser la nueva nominada, Harris adoptase una postura agresiva en apoyo al acceso al aborto, atacando al ex presidente Donald Trump en un tema que podría socavar sus posibilidades de victoria.

Biden respaldó a Harris el domingo 21 de julio cuando anunció su decisión de retirarse de la contienda.

Aunque Biden buscaba mantener el aborto como tema central de su campaña de reelección, defensores seguían teniendo dudas de que el presidente, un católico practicante que ha dicho que no es “muy partidario del aborto”, pudiera ser un abanderado efectivo. Especialmente mientras los esfuerzos republicanos erosionan el acceso al aborto y otros servicios de salud para mujeres en todo el país.

Por otro lado, Harris se convirtió en la primera vicepresidenta en visitar una clínica operada por Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Emprendió una gira nacional centrada en los derechos reproductivos. Y cuando el senador JD Vance de Ohio fue nombrado compañero de fórmula de Trump, Harris utilizó su siguiente mitín de campaña para criticarlo por bloquear protecciones para la fertilización in vitro.

“Lo más significativo es que Harris sería el rostro del impulso para proteger el derecho al aborto”, dijo Larry Levitt, vicepresidente ejecutivo de políticas de salud en KFF, organización sin fines de lucro de información de salud de la que KFF Health News es parte, en una entrevista antes de que Biden se retirara. “El acceso al aborto probablemente sería el tema central en su campaña”.

Una postura firme sobre el aborto no es el único gran contraste con el Partido Republicano (GOP) que ofrece Harris: tiene un gran conocimiento en política de salud. De niña, a menudo acompañaba a su madre al laboratorio donde trabajaba los fines de semana, como investigadora del cáncer de mama.

Durante su campaña presidencial en 2019, apoyó el “Medicare para Todos”, una propuesta de seguro de pagador único, que estableció sus credenciales como una voz más progresista en políticas de salud. Y como fiscal general de California, luchó contra la consolidación en la industria de la salud debido a la preocupación de que esto aumentaría los precios.

En abril, defendió una norma de la administración Biden que establece niveles mínimos de personal en los hogares de adultos mayores financiados con fondos federales.

“Se merece crédito, ha hablado de estos temas en la campaña. No veo ningún cambio en las prioridades sobre lo que los demócratas quieren hacer en salud si ella se convierte en la nominada”, dijo Debbie Curtis, vicepresidenta de McDermott + Consulting.

Un enfoque intensificado en la salud de la mujer y el aborto podría ayudar a consolidar a los votantes demócratas en la recta final hacia las elecciones.

Desde que en 2022 los tres jueces de la Corte Suprema nombrados por Trump ayudaron a derogar Roe vs. Wade, la opinión pública se ha vuelto en contra de los republicanos en el tema del aborto, incluso contribuyendo a un resultado inesperadamente pobre en las elecciones intermedias de ese año.

El 32% de los votantes dijeron que solo votarían por un candidato para un cargo importante que compartiera sus opiniones sobre el aborto, según una encuesta de Gallup realizada en mayo. Ese es un récord alto desde que Gallup hizo la pregunta por primera vez en 1992. Casi el doble de votantes que apoyan el aborto, en comparación con aquellos que se oponen al aborto, tienen esa opinión.

El 63% de los adultos dijeron que el aborto debería ser legal en todos o en la mayoría de los casos, según una encuesta realizada en abril por el Pew Research Center. El 36% dijo que debería ser ilegal en todos o en la mayoría de los casos.

Mientras tanto, los republicanos han estado ansiosos por distanciarse de su propia victoria en este tema. Trump enfureció a algunos miembros de su base al decir que dejaría las decisiones sobre el aborto a los estados.

Sin embargo, defensores advierten que la nueva moderación por omisión del GOP en el tema enmascara su postura real, más extrema. Vance ha sido claro en el pasado sobre su apoyo a una prohibición nacional del aborto.

Y aunque la plataforma del GOP adoptada durante la convención del partido hace pocos días puede no pedir explícitamente una prohibición nacional del aborto, el reconocimiento de los líderes del partido de la “personalidad fetal”, la idea de que tan pronto como se fertiliza un óvulo se convierte en una persona con todos los derechos legales, crearía una prohibición automáticamente si la Corte Suprema la encontrara constitucional.

Esas opiniones contrastan con las de muchos republicanos, especialmente mujeres. Alrededor de la mitad de las votantes republicanas creen que el aborto debería ser legal en todos o en la mayoría de los casos, según una encuesta nacional reciente de KFF.

Y la mayoría de las mujeres que votan por el Partido Republicano creen que el aborto debería ser legal en casos de violación, incesto o una emergencia durante el embarazo.

Si Harris encabeza la candidatura, se esperaría que enfatice esos temas en los próximos meses.

“Ha sido uno de los temas principales, si no el principal, que ha remarcado en el último año o dos”, dijo Matthew Baum, profesor Marvin Kalb de comunicaciones globales en la Universidad de Harvard. “Claramente, los republicanos están tratando de desactivar el tema. Ha sido un desastre para ellos”.

Es probable, sin embargo, que los republicanos presenten las opiniones de Harris sobre el aborto como extremistas. Durante el debate presidencial contra Biden, Trump afirmó falsamente que los demócratas apoyan los abortos tardíos en el embarazo, “incluso después del nacimiento”.

Poco después que se diera la noticia de que Biden había respaldado a Harris, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America emitió un comunicado criticando el historial de Harris y ofreciendo una muestra de lo que está por venir. “Mientras Joe Biden tiene problemas para decir la palabra aborto, Kamala Harris la grita”, dijo Marjorie Dannenfelser, presidenta del grupo.

Algunos encuestadores han dicho que Harris tendrá que hacer más que simplemente hacer campaña contra los esfuerzos republicanos para revertir el acceso al aborto para realmente motivar a los votantes: temas como la inflación, la economía y la inmigración, están compitiendo por atención.

“Tiene que decir que está luchando por una ley federal que restablezca Roe vs. Wade”, dijo Robert Blendon, profesor emérito de salud pública en la Universidad de Harvard. “Necesita algo muy específico y claro”.

La elevación de Harris a la cima de la candidatura llegaría en un momento crítico en la lucha por los derechos reproductivos.

La Corte Suprema escuchó dos casos de aborto en el término que acaba de finalizar. Pero los jueces no abordaron los méritos de los temas en ninguno de los casos, fallando en su lugar sobre cuestiones técnicas. Se espera que ambos regresen a la Corte Suprema tan pronto como el próximo año.

Harris también tendría una considerable libertad para hablar sobre lo que se considera los principales logros de la política de salud de la administración Biden.

Estos incluyen mejores subsidios en la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo precio (ACA) destinados a ayudar a los consumidores a obtener seguro de salud, que se extendieron, a través de la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación, hasta 2025, el límite mensual de $35 en copagos que algunos pacientes pagan por la insulina, y la negociación de precios de medicamentos en Medicare.

“Creo que está bien posicionada. Harris es parte central de la administración y podrá atribuirse el mérito de esas cosas”, dijo Dan Mendelson, CEO de Morgan Health, una subsidiaria de J.P. Morgan Chase.

Dicho esto, puede ser difícil para cualquier candidato lograr que los votantes se enfoquen en algunos de esos logros, especialmente en los esfuerzos relacionados con los precios de los medicamentos.

Aunque la administración ha tomado algunos pasos importantes, “nuevos medicamentos costosos siguen saliendo al mercado”, dijo Mendelson. “Así que si miras la percepción de los consumidores, no creen que el costo de los medicamentos esté bajando”.

Joseph Antos, del American Enterprise Institute, dijo que es probable que Harris diga que la administración Biden-Harris “ya le está ahorrando dinero a la gente” en insulina. Pero tendrá que ir más allá de estos logros y redoblar sus esfuerzos en los precios de los medicamentos y otros temas de costo, no hablar únicamente sobre derechos reproductivos.

“Tiene que concentrarse, si quiere ganar, en temas que tengan un amplio atractivo”, dijo Antos. “El costo es uno y el acceso a tratamientos es otro gran tema”.

Samantha Young de KFF Health News contribuyó con este informe.

Harris, Once Biden’s Voice on Abortion, Would Take an Outspoken Approach to Health

Throughout Joe Biden’s presidency, he leaned on the outspoken former prosecutor and senator he selected as his vice president, Kamala Harris, to be the White House’s voice of unflinching support for reproductive health rights.

Now, as Democrats rebuild their presidential ticket just a few months before Election Day, Harris would widely be expected to take an aggressive stance in support of abortion access if she became the party’s new presumptive nominee — hitting former President Donald Trump on an issue that could undermine his chances of victory. Biden endorsed Harris on Sunday when he announced his decision to leave the race.

While Biden sought to keep abortion center stage in his reelection bid, abortion advocates had harbored doubts that the president — a practicing Catholic who has said he is not “big on abortion” — could be an effective standard-bearer as Republican efforts erode access to abortion and other women’s health care around the country.

Harris, on the other hand, became the first vice president to visit a clinic run by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She undertook a nationwide tour focused on reproductive rights. And when Sen. JD Vance of Ohio was named Trump’s running mate, Harris used her next campaign appearance to criticize him for blocking protections for in vitro fertilization.

“Most significantly, Harris would be the face of the drive to protect abortion rights,” Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, said in an interview before Biden stepped aside. “Abortion access would likely be front and center in her campaign.”

A strong stance on abortion is not the only major contrast to the GOP that Harris offers: She is well versed in health policy. As a child, Harris often accompanied her mother to work on the weekends, visiting the lab where she was studying breast cancer.

While running for president in 2019, she backed “Medicare for All,” a single-payer insurance proposal that established her bona fides as a more progressive voice on health policy. And as California’s attorney general, she fought against consolidation in the health industry over concerns it would drive up prices. 

She stumped for a Biden administration rule setting minimum staffing levels at federally funded nursing homes in April.

“She deserves credit, she’s talked about them on the campaign trail. I don’t see any change there in the priorities on what Democrats want to do on health care if she becomes the nominee,” said Debbie Curtis, vice president at McDermott + Consulting. 

An intensified focus on women’s health and abortion could help galvanize Democratic voters in the final sprint to the election. Since the three Supreme Court justices named by Trump helped overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, public opinion has turned against Republicans on abortion, even contributing to an unexpectedly poor showing in the 2022 midterm elections.

Thirty-two percent of voters said they would vote only for a candidate for a major office who shares their views on abortion, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in May. That’s a record high since Gallup first asked the question in 1992. Nearly twice as many voters who support abortion, compared with those who oppose abortion, hold that view. 

Sixty-three percent of adults said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, based on a poll conducted in April by Pew Research Center. Thirty-six percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Republicans, in turn, have been eager to distance themselves from their own victory on the issue. Trump angered some members of his base by saying he would leave decisions on abortion to the states.

Regardless, advocates caution that the GOP’s new moderation-by-omission on the issue masks their actual, more extreme stance. Vance has been clear in the past about his support for a national abortion ban. And while the GOP platform adopted during the party’s convention last week may not explicitly call for a nationwide ban on abortion, party leaders’ recognition of “fetal personhood,” the idea that as soon as an egg is fertilized it becomes a person with full legal rights, would create such a ban automatically if the Supreme Court found it constitutional.

Those views stand in contrast to those of many Republicans, especially women. About half of Republican women voters think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a recent national survey by KFF. And majorities of women who vote Republican believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, or a pregnancy emergency.

If Harris heads the ticket, she would be expected to hammer on those issues in the coming months. 

“It’s been one of if not the main issue she’s emphasized in the last year or two,” said Matthew Baum, Marvin Kalb professor of global communications at Harvard University. “Clearly the Republicans are trying to defang the issue. It’s been a disaster for them.”

It is likely, though, that Republicans would paint Harris’ views on abortion as extremist. During the presidential debate against Biden, Trump falsely claimed Democrats support abortions late in pregnancy, “even after birth.”

Shortly after news broke that Biden had endorsed Harris, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America issued a statement calling out Harris’ record and offering evidence of what is to come. “While Joe Biden has trouble saying the word abortion, Kamala Harris shouts it,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president.

Some pollsters have said Harris would have to do more than just campaign against Republican efforts to roll back abortion access to truly motivate voters because so many issues, such as inflation, the economy, and immigration, are competing for attention.

“She has to say she is running for a federal law that will bring back Roe v. Wade,” said Robert Blendon, an emeritus public health professor at Harvard University. “She needs something very specific and clear.”

Harris’ elevation to the top of the ticket would come at a critical juncture in the fight over reproductive rights.

The Supreme Court heard two abortion cases in the term that ended this month. But the justices did not address the merits of the issues in either case, ruling instead on technicalities. Both are expected to return to the high court as soon as next year.

In one case, challenging the FDA’s 2000 approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, the justices ruled that the group of anti-abortion medical professionals who challenged the drug lacked standing to sue because they failed to show they were personally injured by its availability. 

But the Supreme Court returned the case to the district court in Texas where it was filed, and the GOP attorneys general of three states — Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri — have joined the case as plaintiffs. Whether the courts accept the states as viable challengers remains to be seen, but if they do, the justices could soon be asked again to determine the fate of the abortion pill.  

The other abortion-related case pitted a federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care against Idaho’s strict ban, which allows abortions when a pregnant patient’s life is in danger — but not in cases in which it is necessary to protect her health, including future fertility.

In that case, the justices apparently failed to reach any majority agreement, declaring instead that they were premature in accepting the case and sending it back to the lower court for further consideration. That case, too, could return in relatively short order.

Harris would also have substantial leeway to talk about what are considered to be the Biden administration’s core health policy accomplishments. These include enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits aimed at helping consumers get health insurance coverage, which were extended through the Inflation Reduction Act into 2025, the $35 monthly cap on copays some patients pay for insulin, and drug price negotiation in Medicare.

“I think she is well positioned. She is core to the administration and will be able to take credit for those things,” said Dan Mendelson, CEO of Morgan Health, a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Chase.

That said, it may be hard for any candidate to get voters to focus on some of those accomplishments, especially drug price efforts.

While the administration has taken some important steps, “new expensive drugs keep coming out,” Mendelson said. “So if you look at the perception of consumers, they do not believe the cost of drugs is going down.”

Joseph Antos, of the American Enterprise Institute, said Harris would likely say the Biden-Harris administration “is already saving people money” on insulin. But she will have to go beyond these accomplishments and double down on drug pricing and other cost issues — not talk solely about reproductive rights.

“She’s got to concentrate, if she wants to win, on issues that have a broad appeal,” Antos said. “Cost is one and access to treatments is another big issue.”

Samantha Young of KFF Health News contributed to this report.

Trump Is Wrong in Claiming Full Credit for Lowering Insulin Prices

“Low INSULIN PRICING was gotten for millions of Americans by me, and the Trump Administration, not by Crooked Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it.”

Former President Donald Trump in a Truth Social post, June 8

Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he — and not President Joe Biden — deserves credit for lowering older Americans’ prescription drug prices, specifically for insulin.

In a June 8 post on Truth Social, the former president’s social platform, Trump wrote: “Low INSULIN PRICING was gotten for millions of Americans by me, and the Trump Administration, not by Crooked Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it.”

Trump again claimed sole credit for lowering insulin prices during the June 27 presidential debate in Atlanta. After Biden touted the $35 monthly out-of-pocket cap for Medicare patients mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act, Trump responded: “I’m the one that got the insulin down for the seniors. I took care of the seniors.”

It’s not just the former president making such claims. Fox News anchor John Roberts and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, both have said the Biden administration is wrong to take credit for lowering insulin costs.

Because drug prices and Medicare will likely be issues in the presidential campaign, we dug into the facts surrounding those claims.

The Trump Administration’s Program

Trump is correct that his administration enacted a program to lower insulin costs for some patients on Medicare.

In July 2020, Trump signed an executive order establishing the “Part D Senior Savings Model,” a temporary, voluntary program run by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that let some Medicare Part D prescription drug plans cap monthly out-of-pocket insulin copay costs at $35 or less. It covered at least one insulin product of each dosage and type.

The program began Jan. 1, 2021, and ran through Dec. 31, 2023. In 2022, the Trump-era program included a total of 2,159 Medicare drug plans, and CMS estimated that more than 800,000 Medicare beneficiaries who use insulin could have benefited from it that year.

The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that more than 1.5 million Medicare beneficiaries paid more than $35 a month for insulin in 2020, before Trump’s program took effect. An analysis by the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think tank, showed the program reduced participants’ out-of-pocket insulin costs by $198 to $441 per year on average, depending on their Medicare plan.

The Inflation Reduction Act Provisions

The Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress passed and Biden signed into law in August 2022, included an insulin provision that went further than Trump’s voluntary initiative.

The act did cap out-of-pocket costs of insulin for Medicare patients at $35 per month. But whereas the Trump program applied only to certain Medicare Part D plans, the act mandated that all Medicare drug programs cap out-of-pocket insulin costs — including those in what’s known as Medicare Part B, which pays for medical equipment such as insulin pumps. The act’s insulin provisions took effect Jan. 1, 2023, for Part D plans and July 1 of that year for Part B.

The act also mandated that the out-of-pocket price cap apply to all insulin products a given Medicare plan covers, not just a subset.

Taken together, those provisions mean a far greater number of Medicare beneficiaries stand to benefit from the act’s insulin provisions — including people receiving insulin via a pump, who were left out of the Trump-era program.

CMS estimates that more than 3.3 million Medicare beneficiaries use one or more of the common forms of insulin. Although some of those people were likely already paying less than $35 per month for their medications, the Inflation Reduction Act benefited far more than the 800,000 patients affected by Trump’s program.

“It’s likely a larger population than under the Trump administration’s model,” said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“The Trump administration did establish this voluntary model, and one perhaps could view that as some precedent for what we saw in the Inflation Reduction Act,” Cubanski added. “But I think it’s inaccurate to state that President Biden had nothing to do with enabling millions of Americans to benefit from lower insulin copayments.”

Preliminary research shows the Inflation Reduction Act’s insulin provisions had a greater average financial benefit than those in Trump’s program. Insulin-using older Americans were estimated to save an annual average of $501 per person, HHS figures show.

The Inflation Reduction Act has also had an impact beyond Medicare. After the law passed, some pharmaceutical companies — including Eli Lilly and Co., Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Civica Rx — self-imposed price caps for all insured insulin users, not just Medicare patients. During his 2023 State of the Union address, Biden proposed expanding this benefit to all insulin patients, and he’s made that point a staple of his campaign appearances.

“I’m determined to make that apply to every American, not just seniors, in the second term,” he said at a campaign event in May in Philadelphia.

The Stakes for the 2024 Election

Beyond insulin products, the Inflation Reduction Act caps total out-of-pocket prescription costs at $2,000 annually for people with Medicare drug plans starting in 2025, down from $3,300 this year for most Medicare beneficiaries.

But every congressional Republican opposed the Inflation Reduction Act, including its insulin savings provisions, in 2022, and the law is vulnerable to repeal should Trump take the White House. Trump has repeatedly criticized the law and called for overturning some of its provisions. He has not specified how he would address its health measures.

In an email exchange with KFF Health News, Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt highlighted drug savings programs the former president instituted during his term in office, but repeatedly declined to extrapolate on, or defend, Trump’s claim that Biden deserves no credit for lowering insulin costs.

Asked whether Trump intended to maintain the Inflation Reduction Act’s insulin provisions should he win a second term in office, Leavitt wrote, “President Trump will do everything possible to lower drug costs for Americans when he’s back in the White House, just like he accomplished in his first term.”

Our Ruling

Trump can claim some credit for lowering insulin costs for seniors, as his administration advanced a voluntary program to do so.

But his claim that Biden had “NOTHING to do with it” is patently false. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden signed into law, imposed a mandatory Medicare insulin price cap that applied across the program, benefiting a significantly larger number of insulin users — including people not enrolled in Medicare. 

We rate Trump’s claim False.

Sources:

Civica Rx, “Civica to Manufacture and Distribute Affordable Insulin,” March 3, 2022

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Part D Senior Savings Model,” accessed July 2, 2024

CMS, “President Trump Announces Lower Out of Pocket Insulin Costs for Medicare’s Seniors,” May 26, 2020

CNN, “READ: Biden-Trump Debate Transcript,” June 28, 2024

Eli Lilly and Co., “Lilly Cuts Insulin Prices by 70% and Caps Patient Insulin Out-of-Pocket Costs at $35 Per Month,” March 1, 2023

Email exchange with Karoline Leavitt, Donald J. Trump 2024 campaign national press secretary, July 1, 2024

Facebook.com, post by @MikeHuckabee, June 10, 2024

Federal Registrar, “Access to Affordable Life-Saving Medications,” July 24, 2020

Department on Health and Human Services, “Insulin Affordability and the Inflation Reduction Act: Medicare Beneficiary Savings by State and Demographics,” Jan. 24, 2023

KFF, “Changes to Medicare Part D in 2024 and 2025 Under the Inflation Reduction Act and How Enrollees Will Benefit,” April 20, 2023

Novo Nordisk, “Novo Nordisk To Lower U.S. Prices of Several Pre-Filled Insulin Pens and Vials up to 75% for People Living With Diabetes in January 2024,” March 14, 2023

Phone interview with Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicare Policy, June 16, 2024

Rand Corp., “Evaluation of the Part D Senior Savings Model,” May 2023

Republican Study Committee, “Fiscal Sanity to Save America,” March 20, 2024

Sanofi, “Sanofi Capping Its Insulin to a $35 Out-of-Pocket Costs in the U.S.,” June 1, 2023

Stat, “Biden and Trump Are Fighting To Claim Credit for $35 Insulin. It Was Actually a Pharma Giant’s Idea,” June 13, 2024

The White House, “FACT SHEET: President Biden’s Cap on the Cost of Insulin Could Benefit Millions of Americans in All 50 States,” March 2, 2023

The White House, “Remarks by President Biden and Vice President Harris at a Campaign Event | Philadelphia, PA,” May 29, 2024

The White House, “Remarks of President Joe Biden — State of the Union Address as Prepared for Delivery,” Feb. 7, 2023

Truthsocial.com, post by @realDonaldTrump, June 8, 2024

X.com, post by @justinbaragona, June 3, 2024

Despite Past Storms’ Lessons, Long-Term Care Residents Again Left Powerless

HOUSTON — As Tina Kitzmiller sat inside her sweltering apartment, windows and doors open in the hope of catching even the slightest breeze, she was frustrated and worried for her dog and her neighbors.

It had been days since Hurricane Beryl blew ashore from the Gulf of Mexico on July 8, causing widespread destruction and knocking out power to more than 2 million people, including the Houston senior independent living facility where Kitzmiller lives. Outdoor temperatures had reached at least 90 degrees most days, and the heat inside the building was stifling.

Kitzmiller moved there not long ago with Kai, her 12-year-old dog, shortly after riding out 90-plus-mph winds from a May derecho under a comforter on the floor of the 33-foot RV she called home. She didn’t need medical care, as a nursing home would offer, and thought she and Kai could be safer at an independent senior facility than in the RV. She assumed her new home would have an emergency power system in place at least equivalent to that of the post offices she’d worked in for 35 years.

“I checked out the food. I checked out the activities,” said Kitzmiller, 61, now retired. “I didn’t know I needed to inquire about a generator.”

Even after multiple incidents of extreme weather — including a 2021 Texas winter storm that caused widespread blackouts and prompted a U.S. Senate investigation — not much has changed for those living in long-term care facilities when natural disasters strike in Texas or elsewhere.

“There has been some movement, but I think it’s been way too slow,” said David Grabowski, a professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School. “We keep getting tested and we keep failing the test. But I do think we are going to have to face this issue.”

A power outage can be difficult for anyone, but older adults are especially vulnerable to temperature extremes, with medications or medical conditions affecting their bodies’ ability to regulate heat and cold. Additionally, some medications need refrigeration while others cannot get too cold.

Federal guidelines require nursing homes to maintain safe indoor temperatures but do not regulate how. For example, facilities face no requirement that generators or other alternative energy sources support heating and air conditioning systems. States are largely responsible for compliance, Grabowski said, and if states are failing in that regard, change doesn’t happen.

Furthermore, while nursing homes face such federal oversight, lower-care-level facilities that provide some medical care — known as assisted living — are regulated at the state level, so the rules for emergency preparedness vary widely.

Some states have toughened those guidelines. Maryland adopted rules for generators in assisted living facilities following Hurricane Isabel, which left more than 1.2 million residents in the state without power in 2003. Florida did so for nursing homes and assisted living facilities in 2018, after Hurricane Irma led to deaths at one facility.

But Texas has not. And no requirements for generators exist in Texas for the roughly 2,000 assisted living facilities or the even less regulated independent living sites, like Kitzmiller’s.

Generally, apartment complexes marketed to senior citizens, known in the industry as independent living facilities, don’t have any special regulations in Texas and many other states.

A welcome sign and sunflower hang on a hallway wall next to an open apartment door with a rolling cart holding the door open
Amid temperatures hitting the 90s, Tina Kitzmiller left the windows and door open of her home in a Houston senior independent living facility since Hurricane Beryl knocked out power for her and more than 2 million others. She had been especially worried about residents stuck on her building’s second and third floors. Without functioning elevators, many couldn’t get to the first floor, where it was cooler.(Sandy West for KFF Health News)

Nationally, assisted living facilities and independent living facilities have been the fastest-growing sectors in senior living. Residents at such facilities often have medical needs, Grabowski said, but for a variety of reasons have chosen to live in an environment that allows more independence than a nursing home, which would provide medical care. That doesn’t mean the residents in these lower-care-level facilities are any less susceptible to extreme temperatures when the power goes out.

“If you’re overwhelmed by the heat in your apartment, that’s unsafe,” he said.

Republican state Rep. Ed Thompson tried several times since 2020 to pass legislation requiring assisted living facilities in Texas to have backup generators. But the bills failed. He is not seeking reelection this year.

“It’s horrible what the state of Texas is doing,” said Thompson, blaming corporate greed and politicians more interested in stirring up their base and raising their national profile than improving the lives of Texans. “How we treat our elderly says something about us — and they’re not being treated right.”

Nim Kidd, chief of the Texas Division of Emergency Management, said at a July 11 press conference that senior facility operators are accountable if they do not keep residents safe. “That location is responsible for the health, safety, and welfare of the patients and residents that are there,” he told reporters. “It is that facility’s responsibility.”

Under Texas law, power restoration is supposed to be prioritized for nursing, assisted living, and hospice facilities.

The resistance to adding oversight or more governmental protections has not surprised Gregory Shelley, a senior manager at the Harris County Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program at UTHealth Houston’s Cizik School of Nursing. He said that while he believes the safety and health of residents are paramount, he recognizes that installing generators is expensive. He also said some people within the industry continue to believe extreme events are rare.

“But all of us in Houston this year already learned that they’re happening more frequently,” Shelley said. “This is already the third time since May that big portions of Houston have been without power for long periods of time.”

After the 2021 blackouts, Texas’ Health and Human Services Commission conducted a voluntary survey that found 47% of the assisted living and 99% of the nursing care facilities that responded reported having generators.

The U.S. Senate investigation following the 2021 Texas storm recommended a national requirement that assisted living facilities have emergency power supplies to both maintain safe temperatures and keep medical equipment running.

A 2023 annual report from Texas’ long-term care ombudsman, Patty Ducayet, also recommended requiring generators at assisted living centers. The report suggested that all long-term care facilities maintain safe temperatures in a location that can be accessed by every resident. The report recommended requiring assisted living facilities to annually submit emergency response plans to state regulators to be reviewed by state officials. The recommendations have not been adopted.

On July 15 — more than a week after Beryl hit — Kitzmiller said she just wanted the power back on. She praised the staff at her facility but said she worried for residents who were isolated on her building’s second and third floors, which were hotter amid the outage. Some were unable to keep required medicine refrigerated, she said. And without functioning elevators, many couldn’t get to the first floor, where it was cooler.

Mostly, Kitzmiller said, she was frustrated with companies and politicians who hadn’t yet fixed the problem.

“It’s their mothers, their grandmothers, and their family in these homes, these facilities,” she said. “All I can think is ‘Shame on you.’”

Dementia Care Programs Help, If Caregivers Can Find Them

There’s no cure, yet, for Alzheimer’s disease. But dozens of programs developed in the past 20 years can improve the lives of both people living with dementia and their caregivers.

Unlike support groups, these programs teach caregivers concrete skills such as how to cope with stress, make home environments safe, communicate effectively with someone who’s confused, or solve problems that arise as this devastating illness progresses.

Some of these programs, known as “comprehensive dementia care,” also employ coaches or navigators who help assess patients’ and caregivers’ needs, develop individualized care plans, connect families to community resources, coordinate medical and social services, and offer ongoing practical and emotional support.

Unfortunately, despite a significant body of research documenting their effectiveness, these programs aren’t broadly available or widely known. Only a small fraction of families coping with dementia participate, even in the face of pervasive unmet care needs. And funding is scant, compared with the amount of money that has flooded into the decades-long, headline-grabbing quest for pharmaceutical therapies.

“It’s distressing that the public conversation about dementia is dominated by drug development, as if all that’s needed were a magic pill,” said Laura Gitlin, a prominent dementia researcher and dean of the College of Nursing and Health Professions at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

“We need a much more comprehensive approach that recognizes the prolonged, degenerative nature of this illness and the fact that dementia is a family affair,” she said.

In the U.S., more than 11 million unpaid and largely untrained family members and friends provide more than 80% of care to people with dementia, supplying assistance worth $272 billion in 2021, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. (This excludes patients living in nursing homes and other institutions.) Research shows these “informal” caretakers devote longer hours to tending to those with dementia and have a higher burden of psychological and physical distress than other caregivers.

Despite those contributions, Medicare expected to spend $146 billion on people with Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia in 2022, while Medicaid, which pays for nursing home care for people with low incomes or disabilities, expected to spend about $61 billion.

One might think such enormous spending ensures high-quality medical care and adequate support services. But quite the opposite is true. Medical care for people with Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia in the U.S. — an estimated 7.2 million individuals, most of them seniors — is widely acknowledged to be fragmented, incomplete, poorly coordinated, and insensitive to the essential role that family caregivers play. And support services are few and far between.

“What we offer people, for the most part, is entirely inadequate,” said Carolyn Clevenger, associate dean for transformative clinical practice at Emory University’s Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing.

Clevenger helped create the Integrated Memory Care program at Emory, a primary care practice run by nurse practitioners with expertise in dementia. Like other comprehensive care programs, they pay considerable attention to caregivers’ as well as patients’ needs. “We spent a great deal of time answering all kinds of questions and coaching,” she told me. This year, Clevenger said, she hopes three additional sites will open across the country.

Expansion is a goal shared by other comprehensive care programs at UCLA (the Alzheimer’s and Dementia Care Program, now available at 18 sites), Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis, the University of California-San Francisco (Care Ecosystem, 26 sites), Johns Hopkins University (Maximizing Independence at Home), and the Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging in Cleveland (BRI Care Consultation, 35 sites).

Over the past decade, a growing body of research has shown these programs improve the quality of life for people with dementia; alleviate troublesome symptoms; help avoid unnecessary emergency room visits or hospitalizations; and delay nursing home placement, while also reducing depression symptoms, physical and emotional strain, and overall stress for caregivers.

In an important development in 2021, an expert panel organized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine said there was sufficient evidence of benefit to recommend that comprehensive dementia care programs be broadly implemented.

Now, leaders of these programs and dementia advocates are lobbying Medicare to launch a pilot project to test a new model to pay for comprehensive dementia care. They have been meeting with staff at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation and “CMMI has expressed a considerable amount of interest in this,” according to Dr. David Reuben, chief of geriatric medicine at UCLA and a leader of its dementia care program.

“I’m very optimistic that something will happen” later this year, said Dr. Malaz Boustani, a professor at Indiana University who helped develop Eskenazi Health’s Aging Brain Care program and who has been part of the discussions with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The Alzheimer’s Association also advocates for a pilot project of this kind, which could be adopted “Medicare-wide” if it’s shown to beneficial and cost-effective, said Matthew Baumgart, the association’s vice president of health policy. Under a model proposed by the association, comprehensive dementia care programs would receive between $175 and $225 per month for each patient in addition to what Medicare pays for other types of care.

A study commissioned by the association estimates that implementing a comprehensive care dementia model could save Medicare and Medicaid $21 billion over 10 years, largely by reducing patients’ use of intensive health care services.

Several challenges await, even if Medicare experiments with ways to support comprehensive dementia care. There aren’t enough health care professionals trained in dementia care, especially in rural areas and low-income urban areas. Moving programs into clinical settings, including primary care practices and medical clinics, may be challenging given the extent of dementia patients’ needs. And training needs for program staff members are significant.

Even if families receive some assistance, they may not be able to afford necessary help in the home or other services such as adult day care. And many families coping with dementia may remain at a loss to find help.

To address that, the Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging later this year plans to publish an online consumer directory of evidence-based programs for dementia caregivers. For the first time, people will be able to search, by ZIP code, for assistance available near them. “We want to get the word out to caregivers that help is available,” said David Bass, a senior vice president at the Benjamin Rose Institute who’s leading that effort.

Generally, programs for dementia caregivers are financed by grants or government funding and free to families. Often, they’re available through Area Agencies on Aging — organizations that families should consult if they’re looking for help. Some examples:

  • Savvy Caregiver, delivered over six weeks to small groups in person or over Zoom. Each week, a group leader (often a social worker) gives a mini-lecture, discusses useful strategies, and guides group members through exercises designed to help them manage issues associated with dementia. Now offered in 20 states, Savvy Caregiver recently introduced an online, seven-session version of the program that caregivers can follow on their schedule.
  • REACH Community, a streamlined version of a program recommended in the 2021 National Academy of Sciences report. In four hour-long sessions in person or over the phone, a coach teaches caregivers about dementia, problem-solving strategies, and managing symptoms, moods, stress, and safety. A similar program, REACH VA, is available across the country through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  • Tailored Activity Program. In up to eight in-home sessions over four months, an occupational therapist assesses the interests, functional abilities, and home environment of a person living with dementia. Activities that can keep the individual meaningfully engaged are suggested, along with advice on how to carry them out and tips for simplifying the activities as dementia progresses. The program is being rolled out across health care settings in Australia and is being reviewed as a possible component of geriatric home-based care by the VA, Gitlin said.

We’re eager to hear from readers about questions you’d like answered, problems you’ve been having with your care, and advice you need in dealing with the health care system. Visit khn.org/columnists to submit your requests or tips.

Readers and Tweeters Urgently Plea for a Proper ‘Role’ Call in the ER

Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.


How Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners Enhance Health Care

The story of one patient’s ER experience does not at all capture the complexities of an emergency department serving the needs of a stochastic patient population.

Given the reach of KHN, it is disappointing to read stories that inch closer to tabloid-level reporting (“Doctors Are Disappearing From Emergency Rooms as Hospitals Look to Cut Costs,” Feb. 13).

Having spent most of my career working in and operationalizing emergency departments, I can assure you that there are plenty of opportunities to optimize the delivery of care and reduce unnecessary waste and cost while maintaining excellent outcomes. The salient point that you make “it’s all about the money” is too simplistic given the complexities.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) collectively describe nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), and certified nurse midwives (CNMs). The term “midlevel practitioner” is outdated.

The archaic paternalistic approach to health care has long been overdue for change. Post-pandemic, it is critical to pivot from “the way it has always been done,” and that includes embracing new models of care.

Physicians and APPs provide excellent care to their patients and operate with different scopes of practice, training, and licensure. Therefore, most of us find working together in team-based models to be highly effective in ensuring that patients see the right care provider for the right health problem.

I found this reporting to be superficial and even offensive to nurse practitioners, like myself, who provide just as high quality care to patients as our physician colleagues.

I welcome the opportunity for dialogue about the value of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

— Cindi Warburton, Spokane, Washington


— Mark Williams, Sacramento, California


I heard your NPR-partnered story on emergency rooms being managed by private equity and using fewer doctors and more nurse practitioners and physician assistants as midlevel practitioners.

But I prefer midlevel practitioners and medical residents, if their skills are relevant to me. They tend to be more careful in telling me what I should know and in entering records.

The professionally senior doctors (by years of experience and specialty, but I don’t know about board certification) tend to use record-keeping to support higher insurance reimbursement and then they don’t seem to believe what anyone else writes in the records, or don’t bother looking. Furthermore, they’re less likely to tell me what circumstances should prompt me to seek out a doctor or an ER, but if anything goes so wrong or becomes so advanced that I need even more care, they’re happy to provide it.

Doctors often categorically object to nurse practitioners, and state regulations reflect that.

— Nick Levinson, Brooklyn, New York



The recent KHN article “Doctors Are Disappearing From Emergency Rooms as Hospitals Look to Cut Costs” failed to address a critical consideration in the complexities of health care delivery today: the challenge of providing care to patients when they need it at a time when demand for care is on the rise, and the health care workforce is experiencing staggering levels of decline.

Today, 99 million Americans lack adequate access to primary care. By 2026, there will be a shortage of up to 3.2 million health care workers. As a physician associate/physician assistant for more than 20 years, I am kept up at night because of this perfect storm on the horizon — worried for my patients and their ability to access the care they need. Timely access to a trusted and qualified health care provider is never more pressing than during an emergency, when patients are at their most vulnerable, and delay in care can be a matter of life or death.

There is no easy answer to this impending workforce crisis, but one thing is clear: We can meet patient needs only if every member of today’s health care team is respected for the contributions they bring and can practice to the fullest extent of their education and training.

The fact is, without PAs, patients’ access to care would suffer. PAs account for more than 500 million patient visits each year. For many patients, PAs serve as primary care providers. And in some communities, PAs are the only health care providers. Let’s not lose sight of the countless stories we have all read in the media about community hospitals and clinics closing.

This article failed to take into account any research that shows the value and quality of PA-delivered care. For example, a 2021 study published by PLOS ONE looked at 39 studies across North America, Europe, and Africa between 1977 and 2021. In 33 of the 39 studies, researchers found care provided by a PA was comparable or better than care delivered by a physician. In 74% of the studies, resource and labor costs were lower when care was delivered by a PA versus a physician.

The quality of PA-delivered care can also be seen when looking at the ratio of liability claims. The ratio of claims to PAs averaged one claim for every 550 PAs. Compare this to the physician ratio, which averaged 1 claim for every 80 physicians.

Hiring PAs to practice in emergency medicine is not about “replacing” physicians, nor does it diminish the quality of care. Utilizing PAs in emergency medicine is about equipping health care teams with a wide range of highly educated and trained clinicians who can work together to ensure patients get the safe, high-quality care they need.

Let us stay focused on the reason why PAs, nurse practitioners, and physicians went into medicine in the first place: to care for people! Patient-centered, team-based care is about every single one of us contributing our knowledge, experience, and expertise to ensure the best outcomes for patients.

— Jennifer M. Orozco, American Academy of Physician Associates president and board chair, Chicago


— Whitney Schmucker, New York City


KHN should not be using the term “midlevel providers.” It’s a derogatory term used by doctors to belittle advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician associates).

— Danielle Franklin, Minneapolis


— Gregg Gonsalves, New Haven, Connecticut


Nurse practitioners are essential providers in our nation’s current and future health care system. In an effort to highlight concerns related to health facility ownership models, the recent article “Doctors Are Disappearing From Emergency Rooms as Hospitals Look to Cut Costs” incorrectly represents the care provided by NPs in emergency rooms.

In fact, a recent study examining advanced practice providers (APPs), including NPs, in the ER found increasing APP coverage had no impact on flow, safety, or patient experiences in the emergency department. Additional research concluded that after controlling for patient severity and complexity, APPs diagnostic testing and hospitalization rates did not differ from physicians in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest and abdominal pain.

Prepared at the master’s or doctoral level, NPs provide primary, acute, chronic, and specialty care to patients of all ages and backgrounds. NPs practice in nearly every health care setting including hospitals, clinics, Veterans Health Administration and Indian Health Service facilities, emergency rooms, urgent care sites, private physician or NP practices, skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities, schools, colleges and universities, retail clinics, public health departments, nurse-managed clinics, homeless clinics, and home health care settings. Collectively, NPs deliver high-quality care in more than 1 billion patient visits each year.

Grounded in 50 years of research and evidence-based practice, NPs deliver high-quality care, consistent with their physician counterparts. Results from a study of over 800,000 patients at 530 Veterans Affairs facilities found that patients assigned to NP primary care providers were less likely to utilize additional services, had no difference in costs, and experienced similar chronic disease management compared with physician-assigned patients. Furthermore, a comprehensive summary of studies examining NP quality of care from the American Enterprise Institute underscores the benefits of NP-led care.

Today, NPs represent 355,000 solutions to our nation’s health care needs. Patients deserve access to these high-quality health care providers wherever they seek care.

— April N. Kapu, president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, Austin, Texas


— Dr. Sarabeth Broder-Fingert, Boston


Ophthalmologists and Optometrists Aren’t Interchangeable

Increasing Americans’ access to care is critical. However, loosening the scope of practice for certain types of care can be counterproductive and potentially risky for patients (“Montana Considers Allowing Physician Assistants to Practice Independently,” Feb.10).

A small handful of states, for example, have loosened scope-of-practice laws for laser eye surgery, which, if done incorrectly, could lead to serious complications that can damage a person’s vision. Over the course of their medical school education, internships, and residencies, ophthalmologists must complete thousands of hours of training before being allowed to perform laser eye surgeries on their own.

Unfortunately, some states permit optometrists, who are not medical doctors, to perform laser eye surgeries as long as they complete a 16- to 32-hour course. As one might expect, the likelihood of a patient needing additional surgery is significantly higher — more than double — when initial surgeries are performed by an optometrist instead of an ophthalmologist. It is little wonder, then, why states like California have successfully blocked efforts to loosen the scope of practice for laser eye surgery.

Despite the potential risks, and no evidence of documented access issues, the Department of Veterans Affairs updated its community care guidelines last year to allow optometrists in this small number of states to perform laser eye surgery on veterans in community care settings. Worse still, the VA is developing its National Standards of Practice, which many fear would let optometrists in VA facilities nationwide perform laser eye surgery on America’s veterans. To defend our veterans and prevent them from suffering adverse outcomes, it is critical for the VA to maintain patient protections that ensure only medical doctors with the requisite education and training can perform invasive eye surgeries.

Ophthalmologists and optometrists both play important roles in a patient’s collaborative care team, but their duties and skill sets are not interchangeable. Loosening the scope of practice for laser eye surgeries will not serve patients well. Our veterans defended us; now the VA must protect them.

— Dr. Daniel J. Briceland, president of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, Sun City West, Arizona


— David Johnson, Chicago


We were disappointed that the article by Keely Larson about Montana’s consideration of a change in physician assistant regulation failed to note that the vast majority of research on the quality of care provided by physician assistants and nurse practitioners demonstrates that they have similar quality of care to physicians when practicing in their area of expertise. There are numerous literature reviews published in peer-reviewed journals on this topic, which should have been noted in the story. The author selected a single working paper that focuses on quality of care in emergency departments in a single health system (the Department of Veterans Affairs) that is not representative of the settings in which most physician assistants and nurse practitioners work. The individual cited, Dr. Yiqun Chen, extrapolated her working paper to the entire profession of physician assistants (who were not included in her study), which is a significant overreach.

We are accustomed to KHN stories being well researched and balanced. This story missed the mark and does not reflect well on the quality KHN aims to achieve.

— Joanne Spetz, Janet Coffman, and Ulrike Muench, the University of California-San Francisco


— Dr. Mehmet Oz, Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania


At the Crux of Nursing Home Staffing Crunch: Compensation

I doubt it is possible to staff nursing facilities with qualified and caring staff when the compensation is quite poor and the work environment is very challenging (“Wave of Rural Nursing Home Closures Grows Amid Staffing Crunch,” Jan. 25). It is more a system problem than a staffing problem and will not get “fixed” without some serious changes.

— Dr. Jack Page, Durham, North Carolina


— Benjy Renton, Washington, D.C.


Participating in the Mental Illness Stigma

I wonder what is behind the pressure to persuade us to say there is a stigma to mental health issues (“Public Health Agencies Turn to Locals to Extend Reach Into Immigrant Communities,” Feb. 10)? I wonder why we so easily comply?

— Harold A. Maio, retired mental health editor, Fort Myers, Florida


— Andrzej Klimczuk, Bialystok, Poland


Remote Fitness Must Not Replace the Value of Physical Therapy

If we’ve learned anything in recent years, it’s how vital technology is in allowing us to stay connected virtually, especially when it comes to health care. However, the online world cannot safely and adequately replace everything.

The recent article “Rural Seniors Benefit From Pandemic-Driven Remote Fitness Boom” (Jan.17) details how many older Americans living in rural areas rely on virtual fitness classes to remain physically active. While this is an important and effective option for some seniors, remote fitness classes cannot and should not replace clinically directed physical therapy.

Physical therapy helps patients remain strong and independent by managing pain, preventing injury, and improving mobility, flexibility, and balance under the supervision of a professionally trained physical therapist. It’s especially important at a time when senior deaths from falls are on the rise. Evidence shows that when seniors underwent an exercise intervention from a trained health care professional, it lowered their risk of a fall by 31%.

Not only is it effective in rehabilitating patients, but it is also an affordable, lower-cost alternative to invasive surgeries and pharmacological treatments, saving our health care system millions. And now, with the emergence of remote therapeutic monitoring, physical therapists can more easily reach patients in rural communities to ensure they are reaching their clinical goals through safe, at-home therapy exercises.

Physical therapists undergo years of education and training to provide the best, safest care for their patients. And while I applaud seniors for embracing online fitness classes and staying active, I also encourage them to recognize when clinically supervised physical therapy is needed to protect their safety and health.

— Nikesh Patel, executive director of the Alliance for Physical Therapy Quality and Innovation (APTQI), Washington, D.C.


— Eric Weinhandl, Victoria, Minnesota


Tallying Bad Pennies

Did Your Health Plan Rip Off Medicare?” (Jan. 27) was a highly misleading article. On a per-enrollee per-year basis, over- and under-payments amounted to literally pennies. If you must pile on, focus on the few bad apples.

— Jon M. Kingsdale, Boston


— Inger Burnett-Zeigler, Chicago


How Much Did They Know and When Did They Know It?

Great story by Harris Meyer about Prentice and Lurie hospitals (“A Baby Spent 36 Days in an In-Network NICU. Why Did the Hospital Next Door Send a Bill?” Jan. 30). I was practicing as an anesthesiologist in Illinois in 2011 when the bill became law banning out-of-network balance billing for hospital-based docs. Of course we knew about the advent of the law: We had to enter into contracts to be in network, contracts that materially reduced all our doctors’ incomes!

It is impossible for me to believe that a professional operating a billing service in 2020 for Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago didn’t know about this 2011 law. I don’t believe them for a moment.

Thanks for the great article.

— Ron Meyer, Wilmette, Illinois


— Regina Phelps, San Francisco


Leaving a Bad Taste in My Mouth

In every article I’ve read about Paxlovid, including yours (“What Older Americans Need to Know About Taking Paxlovid,” Dec. 18), not one mentions the horrible metallic taste these pills have. I was prescribed Paxlovid after contracting covid-19. I’m 71 years old. It’s beyond my reasoning that in this day and age a pharmaceutical manufacturer can’t put a neutral coating on the pills. This awful taste stays with you day and night for the five days of use. I even had a friend who had to stop taking them as she was losing sleep over the horrible taste. My reference to friends is: “It’s like sucking on a wrench.” I’m sure this issue isn’t confined to us seniors, but it would be nice to read some recognition of a problem with this medication.

By the way, my workaround, which definitely helps but is hardly a solution, is to swallow the pills down with a swig of cranberry juice.

— Don Dugan, Brookfield, Wisconsin


— Olav Mitchell Underdal, Irvine, California


Admiration for Abortion Doulas

I admire and respect individuals willing to provide aid and comfort to others who are going through either the traditional birth process or a hard decision to end a pregnancy (“In North Carolina, More People Are Training to Support Patients Through an Abortion,” Jan. 5). Kudos to news groups for increasing awareness of individuals and organizations providing valuable services for their fellow citizens.

— Michael Walker, Black Mountain, North Carolina


— Dr. Darrell Gray II, Owings Mills, Maryland


Thinking Outside the Traditional Medicine Box

Katheryn Houghton missed out on sharing info on traditional methods, especially acupuncture (“Why People Who Experience Severe Nausea During Pregnancy Often Go Untreated,” Jan. 13). Also ginger, as in ginger tea, and peppermint. Peppermint oil (sniffed) or tea. I am an advocate for people with cancer.

— Ann Fonfa, founder of the Annie Appleseed Project, Delray Beach, Florida


— Catherine Arnst, New York City


A Cartoon Blooper?

The “Gender reveal?” political cartoon (Feb. 14) was confusing, unfunny, and inaccurate. How is this “political”? (It isn’t.) What makes gender reveals funny? (They’re not.) Most importantly, such reveals — an anachronistic cultural tradition that should be done away with anyway — are “sex reveals,” not “gender reveals.” (Biology is based on anatomy at birth, while gender is self-determined later in life and is fluid over time.) Even sex reveals are problematic, as they assume two biological sexes. (Some estimates indicate nearly 2% of individuals are born intersex, with their sexual anatomy not fitting into categories of either female or male.)

With anti-trans and anti-drag queen legislation being proposed and codified seemingly daily, now is not the time to poke fun at, nor inaccurately represent, the construct of gender. (It’s never the time.)

— Steff Du Bois, licensed clinical psychologist, Chicago



Keeping Marijuana Candy Away From Children

As an emergency room doctor, I was disappointed by the recent “KHN Health Minute” story trivializing a growing public health risk by suggesting parents “lock up their marijuana gummies” to avoid poisoning their children (“Listen to the Latest ‘KHN Health Minute,’” Feb. 16).

For background on why I, and other doctors, are concerned, I encourage you to read “Marijuana Candy: Poisoning and Lack of Protection for Children.”

— Dr. Roneet Lev, San Diego


— Halee Fischer-Wright, Denver


A Suggestion for Extra-Credit Reading

In response to the recent “What the Health?” podcast episode “As US Bumps Against Debt Ceiling, Medicare Becomes a Bargaining Chip” (Jan. 19), please have Julie Rovner read Stephanie Kelton’s book “The Deficit Myth.” She needs to understand why taxes pay for nothing. I consider Kelton’s book the most important on economics and how government budgets and financing work in the modern world.

— Mark Schaffer, Las Vegas


— Iqbal Atcha, Hanover Park, Illinois


Investing in ‘Practice-Ready’ Nurses to Bolster Workforce

The Connecticut Center for Nursing Workforce Inc. has created a best-practice plan to address these issues (“Senators Say Health Worker Shortages Ripe for Bipartisan Compromise,” Feb. 17). As nursing is the largest health care workforce role and a critical infrastructure within the state, nurses are a significant contributor to the fiscal, physical, and mental health of Connecticut, and a profession that can provide economic stability to its workers and families. Over 10,000 qualified nursing students were denied admission to registered nursing programs in 2021 due to full-time and part-time faculty shortages, lack of student clinical placements, and capacity of capstone experiences in specialty areas.

To produce “practice-ready” nurses, investment needs to be made in increasing the number of nursing faculty lines, both full-time (classroom) and part-time (clinical) experiences, simulation capacity and expertise, operations staff, and transition to practice resources.

Today, this is more challenging than ever, due to the impact of covid-19 on our nursing workforce, the natural attrition of our older nurses, early departure of new nurses causing a severe nursing shortage in the state, and the cost of “travel” nurses that is crippling the budgets of our health care facilities and not sustainable over the long term.

Nursing schools are competing for the same nursing human capital as our practice settings yet offer 30% less compensation for faculty roles as compared to clinical practice roles.

As a solution, it is critical to:

  1. Engage nursing schools to identify the demand for full-time and part-time faculty lines and staff.
  2. Develop a nurse faculty marketing campaign for associate, baccalaureate, accelerated registered nurse programs, and master’s degree in nursing programs for both full-time and part-time roles.
  3. Capitalize on the expertise of clinical nurses for the role of part-time clinical nurse faculty.
  4. Engage health care facilities to determine current nurse vacancies, future staffing needs, and onboarding/“transition to practice” gaps to best inform educational institutions as to the programs needed to be continued, expanded, or dissolved; thereby, maximizing education capacity, resources, faculty, and staff.

— Marcia Proto, executive director for the Connecticut Center for Nursing Workforce Inc., North Haven, Connecticut


— RJ Connelly III, Pawtucket, Rhode Island


Missing Pieces in the Covid Data Puzzle

It is misinformation to state that covid-19 deaths were counted when the opposite was true, and deaths were underreported due to political reasons, and reasons of expediency (“FDA Experts Are Still Puzzled Over Who Should Get Which Covid Shots and When,”) Jan. 27. For example, my father-in-law tested positive for covid before entering the hospital, and then repeatedly tested positive for covid while in the hospital so that he could not be released, and he died in the hospital, and covid was not listed as a cause of death on his death certificate. I have reason to believe that my own father died of covid in May 2020, during an election year, and covid was not listed as a cause of death on his death certificate. These men were not merely statistics, but left behind families who are still in turmoil and grief.

In public, people should wear masks all the time regardless of vaccination status, but, at the same time, be updated on vaccinations and boosters, and, at the same time, socially distance, and, at the same time, wash hands frequently and thoroughly. While all these measures should be taken simultaneously, everyone wearing masks is the easiest way to monitor compliance, and eliminates problems in determining someone else’s vaccination status, or determining whether the efficacy of their vaccines may have waned, or in determining whether they tested positive for covid, and failed to quarantine.

When, previously, the science was that vaccines and booster efficacy waned after three to six months, it should not be touted now to get the vaccine or booster only once a year.

The goal post should never have been moved to merely keeping people out of the hospital, but the goal should be to prevent people contracting covid, and to eradicate this scourge once and for all.

— Edward H. Bonacci Jr., Apex, North Carolina

A Health-Heavy State of the Union

The Host

Health care was a recurring theme throughout President Joe Biden’s 2023 State of the Union address on Capitol Hill this week. He took a victory lap on recent accomplishments like capping prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare. He urged Congress to do more, including making permanent the boosted insurance premium subsidies added to the Affordable Care Act during the pandemic. And he sparred with Republicans in the audience — who jeered and called him a liar — over GOP proposals that would cut Medicare and Social Security.

Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates and opponents are anxiously awaiting a federal court decision out of Texas that could result in a nationwide ban on mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address emphasized recent victories against high health care costs, like Medicare coverage caps on insulin and out-of-pocket caps on prescription drug spending. Biden’s lively, informal exchange with lawmakers over potential cuts to Medicare and Social Security seemed to steal the show, though the political fight over cutting costs in those entitlement programs is rooted in a key question: What constitutes a “cut”?
  • Biden’s calls for bipartisanship to extend health programs like pandemic-era subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans are expected to clash with conservative demands to slash federal government spending. And last year’s Senate fights demonstrate that sometimes the opposition comes from within the Democratic Party.
  • While some abortion advocates praised Biden for vowing to veto a federal abortion ban, others felt he did not talk enough about the looming challenges to abortion access in the courts. A decision is expected soon in a Texas court case challenging the future use of mifepristone. The Trump-appointed judge’s decision could ban the drug nationwide, meaning it would be barred even in states where abortion continues to be legal.
  • The FDA is at the center of the abortion pill case, which challenges its approval of the drug decades ago and could set a precedent for legal challenges to the approval of other drugs. In other FDA news, the agency recently changed policy to allow gay men to donate blood; announced new food safety leadership in response to the baby formula crisis; and kicked back to Congress a question of how to regulate CBD, or cannabidiol, products.
  • In drug pricing, the top-selling pharmaceutical, Humira, will soon reach the end of its patent, which will offer a telling look at how competition influences the price of biosimilars — and the problems that remain for lawmakers to resolve.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Kate Baicker of the University of Chicago about a new paper providing a possible middle ground in the effort to establish universal health insurance coverage in the U.S.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Don’t Let Republican ‘Judge Shoppers’ Thwart the Will of Voters,” by Stephen I. Vladeck

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Mpox Is Simmering South of the Border, Threatening a Resurgence,” by Carmen Paun

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KHN’s “Decisions by CVS and Optum Panicked Thousands of Their Sickest Patients,” by Arthur Allen

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “UnitedHealthcare Tried to Deny Coverage to a Chronically Ill Patient. He Fought Back, Exposing the Insurer’s Inner Workings,” by David Armstrong, Patrick Rucker, and Maya Miller

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:


To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on SpotifyApple PodcastsStitcherPocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Sick Profit: Investigating Private Equity’s Stealthy Takeover of Health Care Across Cities and Specialties

Two-year-old Zion Gastelum died just days after dentists performed root canals and put crowns on six baby teeth at a clinic affiliated with a private equity firm.

His parents sued the Kool Smiles dental clinic in Yuma, Arizona, and its private equity investor, FFL Partners. They argued the procedures were done needlessly, in keeping with a corporate strategy to maximize profits by overtreating kids from lower-income families enrolled in Medicaid. Zion died after being diagnosed with “brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen,” according to the lawsuit.

Kool Smiles “overtreats, underperforms and overbills,” the family alleged in the suit, which was settled last year under confidential terms. FFL Partners and Kool Smiles had no comment but denied liability in court filings.

Private equity is rapidly moving to reshape health care in America, coming off a banner year in 2021, when the deep-pocketed firms plowed $206 billion into more than 1,400 health care acquisitions, according to industry tracker PitchBook.

Seeking quick returns, these investors are buying into eye care clinics, dental management chains, physician practices, hospices, pet care providers, and thousands of other companies that render medical care nearly from cradle to grave. Private equity-backed groups have even set up special “obstetric emergency departments” at some hospitals, which can charge expectant mothers hundreds of dollars extra for routine perinatal care.

As private equity extends its reach into health care, evidence is mounting that the penetration has led to higher prices and diminished quality of care, a KHN investigation has found. KHN found that companies owned or managed by private equity firms have agreed to pay fines of more than $500 million since 2014 to settle at least 34 lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act, a federal law that punishes false billing submissions to the federal government with fines. Most of the time, the private equity owners have avoided liability.

New research by the University of California-Berkeley has identified “hot spots” where private equity firms have quietly moved from having a small foothold to controlling more than two-thirds of the market for physician services such as anesthesiology and gastroenterology in 2021. And KHN found that in San Antonio, more than two dozen gastroenterology offices are controlled by a private equity-backed group that billed a patient $1,100 for her share of a colonoscopy charge — about three times what she paid in another state.

It’s not just prices that are drawing scrutiny.

Whistleblowers and injured patients are turning to the courts to press allegations of misconduct or other improper business dealings. The lawsuits allege that some private equity firms, or companies they invested in, have boosted the bottom line by violating federal false claims and anti-kickback laws or through other profit-boosting strategies that could harm patients.

“Their model is to deliver short-term financial goals and in order to do that you have to cut corners,” said Mary Inman, an attorney who represents whistleblowers.

Federal regulators, meanwhile, are almost blind to the incursion, since private equity typically acquires practices and hospitals below the regulatory radar. KHN found that more than 90% of private equity takeovers or investments fall below the $101 million threshold that triggers an antitrust review by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Justice Department.

[embedded content]

Spurring Growth

Private equity firms pool money from investors, ranging from wealthy people to college endowments and pension funds. They use that money to buy into businesses they hope to flip at a sizable profit, usually within three to seven years, by making them more efficient and lucrative.

Private equity has poured nearly $1 trillion into nearly 8,000 health care transactions during the past decade, according to PitchBook.

Fund managers who back the deals often say they have the expertise to reduce waste and turn around inefficient, or moribund, businesses, and they tout their role in helping to finance new drugs and technologies expected to benefit patients in years to come.

Critics see a far less rosy picture. They argue that private equity’s playbook, while it may work in some industries, is ill suited for health care, when people’s lives are on the line.

In the health care sphere, private equity has tended to find legal ways to bill more for medical services: trimming services that don’t turn a profit, cutting staff, or employing personnel with less training to perform skilled jobs — actions that may put patients at risk, critics say.

KHN, in a series of articles published this year, has examined a range of private equity forays into health care, from its marketing of America’s top-selling emergency contraception pill to buying up whole chains of ophthalmology and gastroenterology practices and investing in the booming hospice care industry and even funeral homes.

These deals happened on top of well-publicized takeovers of hospital emergency room staffing firms that led to outrageous “surprise” medical bills for some patients, as well as the buying up of entire rural hospital systems.

“Their only goal is to make outsize profits,” said Laura Olson, a political science professor at Lehigh University and a critic of the industry.

Hot Spots

When it comes to acquisitions, private equity firms have similar appetites, according to a KHN analysis of 600 deals by the 25 firms that PitchBook says have most frequently invested in health care.

Eighteen of the firms have dental companies listed in their portfolios, and 16 list centers that offer treatment of cataracts, eye surgery, or other vision care, KHN found.

Fourteen have bought stakes in animal hospitals or pet care clinics, a market in which rapid consolidation led to a recent antitrust action by the FTC. The agency reportedly also is investigating whether U.S. Anesthesia Partners, which operates anesthesia practices in nine states, has grown too dominant in some areas.

Private equity has flocked to companies that treat autism, drug addiction, and other behavioral health conditions. The firms have made inroads into ancillary services such as diagnostic and urine-testing and software for managing billing and other aspects of medical practice.

Private equity has done so much buying that it now dominates several specialized medical services, such as anesthesiology and gastroenterology, in a few metropolitan areas, according to new research made available to KHN by the Nicholas C. Petris Center at UC-Berkeley.

Although private equity plays a role in just 14% of gastroenterology practices nationwide, it controls nearly three-quarters of the market in at least five metropolitan areas across five states, including Texas and North Carolina, according to the Petris Center research.

Similarly, anesthesiology practices tied to private equity hold 12% of the market nationwide but have swallowed up more than two-thirds of it in parts of five states, including the Orlando, Florida, area, according to the data.

These expansions can lead to higher prices for patients, said Yashaswini Singh, a researcher at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.

In a study of 578 physician practices in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology published in JAMA Health Forum in September, Singh and her team tied private equity takeovers to an average increase of $71 per medical claim filed and a 9% increase in lengthy, more costly, patient visits.

Singh said in an interview that private equity may develop protocols that bring patients back to see physicians more often than in the past, which can drive up costs, or order more lucrative medical services, whether needed or not, that boost profits.

“There are more questions than answers,” Singh said. “It really is a black hole.”

Yashaswini Singh, a researcher at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, has found that private equity takeovers of physician practices lead to higher patient bills.(Hannah Norman / KHN)

Jean Hemphill, a Philadelphia health care attorney, said that in some cases private equity has merely taken advantage of the realities of operating a modern medical practice amid growing administrative costs.

Physicians sometimes sell practices to private equity firms because they promise to take over things like billing, regulatory compliance, and scheduling — allowing doctors to focus on practicing medicine. (The physicians also might reap a big payout.)

“You can’t do it on a scale like Marcus Welby used to do it,” Hemphill said, referring to an early 1970s television drama about a kindly family doctor who made house calls. “That’s what leads to larger groups,” she said. “It is a more efficient way to do it.”

But Laura Alexander, a former vice president of policy at the nonprofit American Antitrust Institute, which collaborated on the Petris Center research, said she is concerned about private equity’s growing dominance in some markets.

“We’re still at the stage of understanding the scope of the problem,” Alexander said. “One thing is clear: Much more transparency and scrutiny of these deals is needed.”

‘Revenue Maximization’

Private equity firms often bring a “hands-on” approach to management, taking steps such as placing their representatives on a company’s board of directors and influencing the hiring and firing of key staffers.

“Private equity exercises immense control over the operations of health care companies it buys an interest in,” said Jeanne Markey, a Philadelphia whistleblower attorney.

Markey represented physician assistant Michelle O’Connor in a 2015 whistleblower lawsuit filed against National Spine and Pain Centers and its private equity owner, Sentinel Capital Partners.

In just a year under private equity guidance, National Spine’s patient load quadrupled as it grew into one of the nation’s largest pain management chains, treating more than 160,000 people in about 40 offices across five East Coast states, according to the suit.

O’Connor, who worked at two National Spine clinics in Virginia, said the mega-growth strategy sprang from a “corporate culture in which money trumps the provision of appropriate patient care,” according to the suit.

She cited a “revenue maximization” policy that mandated medical staffers see at least 25 patients a day, up from 16 to 18 before the takeover.

The pain clinics also overcharged Medicare by billing up to $1,100 for “unnecessary and often worthless” back braces and charging up to $1,800 each for urine drug tests that were “medically unnecessary and often worthless,” according to the suit.

In April 2019, National Spine paid the Justice Department $3.3 million to settle the whistleblower’s civil case without admitting wrongdoing.

Sentinel Capital Partners, which by that time had sold the pain management chain to another private equity firm, paid no part of National Spine’s settlement, court records show. Sentinel Capital Partners had no comment.

In another whistleblower case, a South Florida pharmacy owned by RLH Equity Partners raked in what the lawsuit called an “extraordinarily high” profit on more than $68 million in painkilling and scar creams billed to the military health insurance plan Tricare.

The suit alleges that the pharmacy paid illegal kickbacks to telemarketers who drove the business. One doctor admitted prescribing the creams to scores of patients he had never seen, examined, or even spoken to, according to the suit.

RLH, based in Los Angeles, disputed the Justice Department’s claims. In 2019, RLH and the pharmacy paid a total of $21 million to settle the case. Neither admitted liability. RLH managing director Michel Glouchevitch told KHN that his company cooperated with the investigation and that “the individuals responsible for any problems have been terminated.”

In many fraud cases, however, private equity investors walk away scot-free because the companies they own pay the fines. Eileen O’Grady, a researcher at the nonprofit Private Equity Stakeholder Project, said government should require “added scrutiny” of private equity companies whose holdings run afoul of the law.

“Nothing like that exists,” she said.

President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address
President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address in March. On the eve of his speech, the White House released a statement that accused private equity of “buying up struggling nursing homes” and putting “profits before people.”(Saul Loeb/AFP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Questions About Quality

Whether private equity influences the quality of medical care is tough to discern.

Robert Homchick, a Seattle health care regulatory attorney, said private equity firms “vary tremendously” in how conscientiously they manage health care holdings, which makes generalizing about their performance difficult.

“Private equity has some bad actors, but so does the rest of the [health care] industry,” he said. “I think it’s wrong to paint them all with the same brush.”

But incipient research paints a disturbing picture, which took center stage earlier this year.

On the eve of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech in March, the White House released a statement that accused private equity of “buying up struggling nursing homes” and putting “profits before people.”

The covid-19 pandemic had highlighted the “tragic impact” of staffing cuts and other moneysaving tactics in nursing homes, the statement said.

More than 200,000 nursing home residents and staffers had died from covid in the previous two years, according to the White House, and research had linked private equity to inflated nursing costs and elevated patient death rates.

Some injured patients are turning to the courts in hopes of holding the firms accountable for what the patients view as lapses in care or policies that favor profits over patients.

Dozens of lawsuits link patient harm to the sale of Florida medical device maker Exactech to TPG Capital, a Texas private equity firm. TPG acquired the device company in February 2018 for about $737 million.

In August 2021, Exactech recalled its Optetrak knee replacement system, warning that a defect in packaging might cause the implant to loosen or fracture and cause “pain, bone loss or recurrent swelling.” In the lawsuits, more than three dozen patients accuse Exactech of covering up the defects for years, including, some suits say, when “full disclosure of the magnitude of the problem … might have negatively impacted” Exactech’s sale to TPG.

Linda White is suing Exactech and TPG, which she asserts is “directly involved” in the device company’s affairs.

White had Optetrak implants inserted into both her knees at a Galesburg, Illinois, hospital in June 2012. The right one failed and was replaced with a second Optetrak implant in July 2015, according to her lawsuit. That one also failed, and she had it removed and replaced with a different company’s device in January 2019.

The Exactech implant in White’s left knee had to be removed in May 2019, according to the suit, which is pending in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois.

In a statement to KHN, Exactech said it conducted an “extensive investigation” when it received reports of “unexpected wear of our implants.”

Exactech said the problem dated to 2005 but was discovered only in July of last year. “Exactech disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself,” the statement said. TPG declined to comment but has denied the allegations in court filings.

‘Invasive Procedures’

In the past, private equity business tactics have been linked to scandalously bad care at some dental clinics that treated children from low-income families.

In early 2008, a Washington, D.C., television station aired a shocking report about a local branch of the dental chain Small Smiles that included video of screaming children strapped to straightjacket-like “papoose boards” before being anesthetized to undergo needless operations like baby root canals.

Five years later, a U.S. Senate report cited the TV exposé in voicing alarm at the “corporate practice of dentistry in the Medicaid program.” The Senate report stressed that most dentists turned away kids enrolled in Medicaid because of low payments and posed the question: How could private equity make money providing that care when others could not?

“The answer is ‘volume,’” according to the report.

Small Smiles settled several whistleblower cases in 2010 by paying the government $24 million. At the time, it was providing “business management and administrative services” to 69 clinics nationwide, according to the Justice Department. It later declared bankruptcy.

But complaints that volume-driven dentistry mills have harmed disadvantaged children didn’t stop.

According to the 2018 lawsuit filed by his parents, Zion Gastelum was hooked up to an oxygen tank after questionable root canals and crowns “that was empty or not operating properly” and put under the watch of poorly trained staffers who didn’t recognize the blunder until it was too late.

Zion never regained consciousness and died four days later at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, the suit states. The cause of death was “undetermined,” according to the Maricopa County medical examiner’s office. An Arizona state dental board investigation later concluded that the toddler’s care fell below standards, according to the suit.

Less than a month after Zion’s death in December 2017, the dental management company Benevis LLC and its affiliated Kool Smiles clinics agreed to pay the Justice Department $24 million to settle False Claims Act lawsuits. The government alleged that the chain performed “medically unnecessary” dental services, including baby root canals, from January 2009 through December 2011.

In their lawsuit, Zion’s parents blamed his death on corporate billing policies that enforced “production quotas for invasive procedures such as root canals and crowns” and threatened to fire or discipline dental staff “for generating less than a set dollar amount per patient.”

Kool Smiles billed Medicaid $2,604 for Zion’s care, according to the suit. FFL Partners did not respond to requests for comment. In court filings, it denied liability, arguing it did not provide “any medical services that harmed the patient.”

Covering Tracks

Under a 1976 federal law called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, deal-makers must report proposed mergers to the FTC and the Justice Department antitrust division for review. The intent is to block deals that stifle competition, which can lead to higher prices and lower-quality services.

But there’s a huge blind spot, which stymies government oversight of more than 90% of private equity investments in health care companies: The current threshold for reporting deals is $101 million.

KHN’s analysis of PitchBook data found that just 423 out of 7,839 private equity health care deals from 2012 through 2021 were known to have exceeded the current threshold.

In some deals, private equity takes a controlling interest in medical practices, and doctors work for the company. In other cases, notably in states whose laws prohibit corporate ownership of physician practices, the private equity firm handles a range of management duties.

Thomas Wollmann, a University of Chicago researcher, said antitrust authorities may not learn of consequential transactions “until long after they have been completed” and “it’s very hard to break them up after the fact.”

In August, the FTC took aim at what it called “a growing trend toward consolidation” by veterinary medicine chains.

The FTC ordered JAB Consumer Partners, a private equity firm based in Luxembourg, to divest from some clinics in the San Francisco Bay and Austin, Texas, areas as part of a proposed $1.1 billion takeover of a rival.

The FTC said the deal would eliminate “head-to-head” competition, “increasing the likelihood that customers are forced to pay higher prices or experience a degradation in quality of the relevant services.”

Under the order, JAB must obtain FTC approval before buying veterinary clinics within 25 miles of the sites it owns in Texas and California.

The FTC would not say how much market consolidation is too much or whether it plans to step up scrutiny of health care mergers and acquisitions.

“Every case is fact-specific,” Betsy Lordan, an FTC spokesperson, told KHN.

Lordan, who has since left the agency, said regulators are considering updates to regulations governing mergers and are reviewing about 1,900 responses to the January 2022 request for public comment. At least 300 of the comments were from doctors or other health care workers.

Few industry observers expect the concerns to abate; they might even increase.

Investors are flush with “dry powder,” industry parlance for money waiting to stoke a deal.

The Healthcare Private Equity Association, which boasts about 100 investment companies as members, says the firms have $3 trillion in assets and are pursuing a vision for “building the future of healthcare.”

That kind of talk alarms Cornell University professor Rosemary Batt, a longtime critic of private equity. She predicts that investors chasing outsize profits will achieve their goals by “sucking the wealth” out of more and more health care providers.

“They are constantly looking for new financial tricks and strategies,” Batt said.

KHN’s Megan Kalata contributed to this article.

Pese al consejo de Katie Couric, médicos dicen que las ecografías de seno pueden no ser necesarias

Cuando Katie Couric compartió la noticia de su diagnóstico de cáncer de mama, la ex presentadora del programa Today de NBC dijo que veía este nuevo reto de salud como un momento para animar a la gente a hacerse pruebas de detección de cáncer. 

“Por favor, háganse su mamografía anual”, escribió en su página web el mes pasado. “Pero igual de importante, averigüen si necesitan pruebas adicionales”.

En el ensayo, Couric, de 65 años, explicaba que, como tiene senos densos, se hace una prueba de ultrasonido además de la mamografía todos los años para detectar el cáncer de seno. La ecografía mamaria, también llamada sonograma, utiliza ondas sonoras para tomar imágenes del tejido mamario.

A veces puede identificar tumores malignos que son difíciles de detectar en una mamografía en mujeres con pechos densos, que significa tener una alta proporción de tejido fibroso y glándulas, y menos tejido graso.

Couric, que se sometió a una colonoscopía en vivo en televisión después de que su primer esposo muriera de cáncer de colon, y que perdió a una hermana por cáncer de páncreas, lleva mucho tiempo abogando por mejores opciones de detección.

Expertos en cáncer de seno aplaudieron a Couric por llamar la atención sobre la densidad mamaria como factor de riesgo de cáncer. Pero no coinciden con su defensa de las pruebas complementarias.

“No tenemos pruebas de que la revisión auxiliar reduzca la mortalidad por cáncer de mama o mejore la calidad de vida”, dijo la doctora Carol Mangione, profesora de medicina y salud pública de UCLA que preside el Grupo de Trabajo de Servicios Preventivos de Estados Unidos, un grupo de expertos médicos que hace recomendaciones sobre servicios preventivos tras sopesar beneficios y daños.

Couric no respondió al pedido de comentarios.

Además de la mamografía anual, algunas mujeres con mamas densas se hacen una ecografía o una resonancia magnética para tratar de identificar las células cancerosas que no se detectan en la mamografía. En la mamografía, el tejido fibroso denso aparece de color blanco y hace más difícil ver un cáncer, que también se ve blanco. El tejido mamario graso, que aparece oscuro en la mamografía, no oculta los cánceres de mama.

Dado que la tomosíntesis digital de las mamas, o mamografía en 3D, está cada vez más extendida, un número creciente de mujeres se hace esta prueba de chequeo en lugar de la mamografía estándar en 2D.

La mamografía 3D reduce el número de falsos positivos y parece identificar más cánceres en algunas mujeres con mamas densas, aunque se desconoce el impacto en la mortalidad. 

El grupo de trabajo da una calificación de “I” a la ecografía para las mujeres con mamas densas cuyos resultados de la mamografía no indican ningún problema. Esto significa que la evidencia actual es insuficiente para evaluar si los beneficios superan los daños del examen adicional.

Uno de los principales efectos nocivos que preocupa a los investigadores son los falsos positivos.

Las imágenes complementarias en mujeres que no tienen un riesgo elevado de padecer cáncer de mama pueden identificar posibles puntos problemáticos, lo que puede dar lugar a pruebas de seguimiento, como biopsias, que son invasivas y suelen aumentar el temor de las pacientes al cáncer. Pero la investigación ha descubierto que muy a menudo estos resultados resultan ser falsas alarmas.

Si 1,000 mujeres con senos densos se someten a una ecografía tras una mamografía negativa, la ecografía identificará entre dos y tres cánceres, según los estudios. Pero las imágenes adicionales también identificarán hasta 117 problemas potenciales que llevan a visitas y pruebas de seguimiento, pero que finalmente se determinan como falsos positivos.

“Por un lado, queremos hacer todo lo posible para mejorar la detección”, dijo la doctora Sharon Mass, ginecóloga y obstetra en Morristown, New Jersey, y ex presidenta de la sección de New Jersey del Colegio Americano de Obstetras y Ginecólogos. “Pero, por otro lado, hay muchos costos y angustia emocional” asociados a los resultados falsos positivos.

El grupo profesional no recomienda la revisión suplementaria para las mujeres con senos densos que no tienen ningún factor de riesgo adicional de cáncer.

Muchos otros grupos profesionales tienen una posición similar.

“Recomendamos tener una conversación con un proveedor de atención médica, y que las pacientes entiendan si sus senos son densos”, dijo Mass. “Pero no recomendamos que todo el mundo se haga la prueba”.

En particular, para aproximadamente el 8% de las mujeres que tienen senos extremadamente densos, vale la pena tener una conversación con un médico sobre la detección adicional, dijo Mass.

Del mismo modo, para las mujeres con senos densos que tienen factores de riesgo adicionales para el cáncer de mama, como antecedentes familiares de la enfermedad o un historial personal de biopsias de mama para comprobar los cánceres sospechosos, la ecografía puede tener sentido, dijo.

Las mamas densas son relativamente comunes. En Estados Unidos, se calcula que el 43% de las mujeres mayores de 40 años tiene mamas consideradas densas o extremadamente densas. Además de dificultar la interpretación de las mamografías, las mujeres con mamas densas tienen hasta el doble de probabilidades de desarrollar cáncer de mama que las mujeres con senos de densidad media, según las investigaciones.

Estudios han demostrado que las mamografías reducen la mortalidad por cáncer de seno. Sin embargo, aunque parece intuitivo que un mayor número de pruebas mejore las probabilidades de vencer al cáncer, las investigaciones no han demostrado que las mujeres tengan menos probabilidades de morir de cáncer de mama si se hacen una ecografía o una resonancia magnética suplementaria tras un resultado negativo de la mamografía.

Treinta y ocho estados y el Distrito de Columbia tienen leyes que exigen que se notifique a las pacientes sobre la densidad mamaria después de una mamografía, aunque no todas ordenan que se informe a las mujeres sobre su propia situación. Algunos estados exigen que las aseguradoras cubran las pruebas complementarias.

En 2019, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA) propuso que la información sobre la densidad mamaria se incorporara a las cartas que reciben las pacientes después de una mamografía. Esa regla aún no se ha concretado, pero la agencia indicó a los legisladores que espera emitirla a más tardar a principios de 2023.

Las pruebas de imagen complementarias pueden ser caras si el plan de salud no las cubre. Una ecografía puede costar $250, mientras que un MRI puede salir $1,084 si se paga del propio bolsillo, según la Brem Foundation to Defeat Breast Cancer.

La diputada Rosa DeLauro (demócrata de Connecticut) tuiteó que está trabajando en un proyecto de ley con Couric que cubriría los MRI  y las ecografías para las mujeres con mamas densas.

Algunos médicos recomiendan otras medidas que pueden ser más eficaces que las pruebas adicionales para las mujeres con senos densos que quieren reducir su riesgo de cáncer de mama.

“Si realmente quieres ayudarte a tí misma, pierde peso”, dijo la doctora Karla Kerlikowske, profesora de medicina y epidemiología/bioestadística de la Universidad de California-San Francisco, que ha desarrollado calculadoras para ayudar a las personas a evaluar su riesgo de cáncer de mama. “Modera su consumo de alcohol y evita la sustitución hormonal a largo plazo. Son cosas que puedes controlar”.

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’: Biden Hits the Road to Sell Democrats’ Record


Can’t see the audio player? Click here to listen on Acast. You can also listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.


What do pandemic preparedness, mental health care services, and over-the-counter hearing aids have in common? They are all things President Joe Biden touted on the campaign trail this week as he tries to maintain Democrats’ majorities in Congress in the midterm elections Nov. 8.

Biden is also campaigning on his support for abortion, promising to sign a bill codifying abortion rights if Democrats retain control of the House and Senate. Recent polls, however, have shown abortion slipping as a top voting issue.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Mary Agnes Carey of KHN.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Among initiatives recently highlighted by the White House is a plan to prepare for future pandemics and thwart any bioterror attacks. But the question is where that money would come from. Republicans in Congress already have balked at providing more money for public health funding for some covid-19 and monkeypox programs.
  • Powerful advocates in the Senate — Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) — have supported legislation to advance the national public health strategy, but there is very little time in this session to push such a package through. And Burr is retiring at the end of the year, so it’s not clear who on the Republican side of the aisle might be willing to take up the baton.
  • Although the abortion issue appeared to be helping Democrats’ midterm prospects after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, some of that excitement may be receding as the economy and other issues move to the forefront of voters’ concerns. But there are few precedents in recent U.S. history to guide voters in evaluating the issue of abortion today or reacting to such a major, sudden change.
  • Even if the Democrats were to keep hold of the levers of power on Capitol Hill, they would have a tough time pushing through an abortion bill. No one expects the party to take control of 60 seats in the Senate — needed to overcome a filibuster – and Democrats might not have the votes to get rid of the filibuster, either. Nearly all Republicans are expected to oppose any such effort.
  • One obstacle to passing national legislation securing abortion rights is that over the half-century since deciding Roe, the Supreme Court has approved a variety of state laws that limit access, such as allowing parents to be notified if a teen were to seek an abortion. Many Democrats object to those restrictions and would want to exclude them from any new law, while other members of Congress would demand them.
  • Biden’s promise was designed to remind voters who care about this issue to come out to the polls in three weeks, but it was also a reminder to many progressives of the failure of the administration to prepare and have a strategy to protect abortion rights ready when the Supreme Court ruling came down.
  • Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is not backing down from his criticism of an Indianapolis doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old Ohio girl who could not get the procedure there because of a strict new state law. The doctor has shown that she followed all Indiana procedures, but Rokita’s criticism continues to concern others who support abortion access. That chilling effect may well be part of Rokita’s strategy.
  • Pharmacists are also worried about their liability in states with strict abortion limits. Federal officials have announced a probe of CVS and Walgreens after complaints that they are not readily filling prescriptions for drugs that can be used for many medical indications but also could terminate an early pregnancy.
  • An advisory committee for the FDA this week recommended removing from the market a drug used to prevent preterm births. The drug, Makena, was first approved in 2011 through an accelerated pathway that requires the company to conduct follow-up studies assessing the drug’s efficacy. Those trials found that Makena didn’t help pregnancies progress to later gestational age or improve the health of the premature babies.
  • If the FDA accepts the committee’s recommendation, it would be a rare step. It would be only the second time that a drug approved on the accelerated pathway has been withdrawn over a sponsor’s objections.
  • This week also marked a milestone for people with mild to moderate hearing loss. Starting last Monday, the government approved over-the-counter sales of hearing aids. The move is expected to dramatically reduce the prices of the devices and open a potentially giant market of consumers now able to afford them.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: KHN and NPR’s “Kids’ Mental Health Care Leaves Parents in Debt and in the Shadows,” by Yuki Noguchi

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Scientific American’s “Some People Really Are Mosquito Magnets, and They’re Stuck That Way,” By Daniel Leonard

Sandhya Raman: Journal of the National Cancer Institute’s “Use of Straighteners and Other Hair Products and Incident Uterine Cancer,” by Che-Jung Chang, et al.

Mary Agnes Carey: KHN’s “Blind to Problems: How VA’s Electronic Record System Shuts Out Visually Impaired Patients,” by Darius Tahir

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

KHN’s “Say What? Hearing Aids Available Over-the-Counter for as Low as $199, and Without a Prescription,” by Phil Galewitz

Politico’s “‘Michigan Could Become Texas’ — Voters See Stark Choice on Abortion Referendum” by Alice Miranda Ollstein


To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.