Tag: Texas

Pequeñas comunidades rurales se han convertido en campos de batalla por el acceso al aborto

West Wendover, Nevada — En abril, Mark Lee Dickson llegó a esta ciudad de 4,500 habitantes que bordea la frontera con Utah para promover una ordenanza que prohíba el aborto.

Dickson es el director del grupo antiaborto Right to Life of East Texas, y fundador de otra organización que ha pasado los últimos años viajando por los Estados Unidos tratando de persuadir a los gobiernos locales de promulgar leyes en contra del procedimiento.

“Sesenta y cinco ciudades y dos condados en los Estados Unidos” han aprobado restricciones similares, dijo a los miembros del Concejo Municipal de West Wendover durante una reunión a mediados de abril. La mayoría están en Texas, pero éxitos recientes en otros estados han animado a Dickson y a su grupo.

“Estamos haciendo esto en Virginia, Illinois, Montana y también en otros lugares”, dijo.

La búsqueda por promulgar prohibiciones locales se ha vuelto particularmente crítica en pueblos pequeños, como West Wendover y Hobbs, en Nuevo México, que están situados en las fronteras entre estados que han restringido el aborto y estados donde las leyes preservan el acceso.

Son cruces de caminos en los que los defensores del aborto y los proveedores han buscado establecer clínicas para atender a las personas que viajan desde las grandes zonas del país donde los estados han prohibido o restringido severamente los abortos después de que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos revirtiera 50 años de protecciones establecidas luego de la decisión del tribunal en Roe vs Wade.

Los residentes y líderes en West Wendover y muchos otros pueblos y ciudades están lidiando con la llegada de voces externas, incluida la de Dickson, que ahora reclaman una participación en el gobierno de sus pequeñas y tranquilas comunidades.

La propuesta de Dickson al Concejo Municipal de West Wendover se produjo después de que los miembros del Concejo votaran en contra de otorgar un permiso de construcción a Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, con sede en California, en marzo.

Los funcionarios de la filial de Planned Parenthood le dijeron a la junta local que la instalación ofrecería servicios de atención primaria además del aborto y otros cuidados reproductivos. La votación siguió a horas de acalorado debate durante los comentarios públicos. Luego, la alcaldesa Jasie Holm vetó la decisión del Concejo, dejando en el limbo la solicitud del permiso.

Ubicado en el noreste de Nevada, West Wendover está a más de 100 millas de Elko, la sede del condado, a 120 millas al oeste de Salt Lake City y a 170 millas al sur de Twin Falls, Idaho.

La ciudad ha sido un lugar estratégico para los casinos y un dispensario de marihuana, que son legales en Nevada pero están restringidos en Idaho y Utah. Del mismo modo, su proximidad a los estados que restringieron el acceso al aborto luego de la decisión de Dobbs que anuló a Roe ha puesto el foco de atención en la ciudad.

“Wendover Will” saluda a los visitantes de West Wendover, Nevada, una comunidad en el extremo este del estado, a lo largo de la frontera con Utah.(Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez / KFF Health News)

La propuesta contra el aborto de Dickson ha obtenido el apoyo de los residentes más conservadores de la ciudad. Pero los hermanos Fernando y Marcos Cerros han desafiado los esfuerzos contra el aborto. Además de querer proteger y expandir el acceso al aborto, ambos vieron la clínica de atención primaria que Planned Parenthood Mar Monte estaba tratando de establecer como una victoria potencial en su comunidad rural, que está designada como un área médicamente desatendida por la federal Health Resources and Services Administration.  

Fernando Cerros, de 22 años, dijo que Planned Parenthood ofrecía “en bandeja de plata” una solución a la escasez de atención médica en el área.

“Y se lo negaron. Necesito hacer lo que pueda para traerlo aquí”, dijo.

Los hermanos Cerros han tratado de organizar un grupo para apoyar el acceso al aborto y establecer la clínica Planned Parenthood en West Wendover, pero les ha resultado difícil sostener el esfuerzo. Dijeron que se sienten superados en número por los residentes que apoyan a Dickson.

Marcos Cerros, de 18 años, dijo que asiste a misa católica todos los domingos en West Wendover y que los feligreses están expuestos regularmente a un lenguaje incendiario contra el aborto.

El aborto hasta las 24 semanas está protegido por la ley de Nevada, y la legislatura estatal aprobó recientemente un proyecto de ley para consolidar la ley en la constitución del estado. Para convertirse en ley, la medida deberá aprobarse una vez más durante la próxima sesión legislativa de Nevada, en 2025, y ser aprobada por los votantes en 2026.

El año pasado, luego de la decisión de Dobbs, el entonces gobernador demócrata Steve Sisolak emitió una orden ejecutiva similar a las de otros estados que protegen a las pacientes que buscan servicios de aborto para que no sean procesadas por estados donde no es legal.

Al otro lado de la frontera este de Nevada, en Utah, el aborto es legal hasta las 18 semanas, mientras los desafíos para impugnar la ley y las licencias de clínicas de aborto continúan sus batallas en las cortes.

Las leyes de Idaho contra el aborto se encuentran entre las más restrictivas del país. Actualmente, el estado permite el aborto solo en ciertos casos de violación e incesto, o para salvar la vida de la madre.

A photo of a man standing for a photo indoors by the Nevada flag and the American flag.
 En abril, Mark Lee Dickson, director de Right to Life of East Texas y fundador de Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn, presentó una ordenanza contra el aborto a los miembros del Concejo municipal de West Wendover, Nevada. Dickson ha estado proponiendo ordenanzas similares en otros estados.(Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez / KFF Health News)

En abril, el estado apareció en los titulares después de que los legisladores aprobaran una ley de “tráfico de abortos” que criminaliza ayudar a menores a cruzar las fronteras estatales para abortar u obtener píldoras abortivas sin el consentimiento de los padres.

Las variantes extremas en la política de aborto de un estado a otro son la nueva normalidad, y los desafíos locales son “lo que nos espera”, dijo Rachel Rebouché, decana de la Facultad de Derecho Beasley de la Universidad Temple y coautora de un artículo de investigación reciente que examina la realidad jurídica post-Dobbs. “Los escenarios de conflicto se están multiplicando, y éste es el complejo panorama legal en el que vivimos”.

La estrategia de Dickson para crear lo que él llama “ciudades santuario para los no nacidos” implica invocar una ley federal de 150 años que restringe el envío de píldoras abortivas. Pero argumenta que la ley va más allá y prohíbe cualquier “parafernalia”, incluida cualquier cosa que pueda usarse para realizar un aborto, como ciertos dispositivos e instrumental médico.

Funcionarios federales sostienen que aunque la disposición sobre el aborto en la ley no ha sido enmendada, las decisiones judiciales anteriores han limitado el alcance de la Ley Comstock. La Oficina de Asesoría Legal del Departamento de Justicia emitió una opinión en diciembre en la que concluyó que la ley no prohíbe el envío por correo de medicamentos para el aborto.

Dickson argumenta que la Ley Comstock debería reemplazar cualquier ley estatal o protección constitucional estatal. Rebouché dijo que no está segura de cómo se desarrollará en los tribunales.

“Hay una serie de pasos que tendría que dar un tribunal, el más importante de los cuales sería que Comstock sigue siendo una buena ley y se adelanta a la ley del aborto”, dijo. “Esa es una decisión controversial porque Comstock no se ha reforzado ni se ha aplicado en décadas”.

Un vocero de Planned Parenthood Mar Monte se negó a comentar si la organización continuaría con la clínica en West Wendover, citando problemas legales.

La propuesta de Dickson ahora está en manos del Ayuntamiento de West Wendover. Aseguró a los líderes locales que, de proceder con la implementación de la ordenanza, su abogado los representará sin costo alguno. Ese abogado, Jonathan Mitchell, es un ex procurador general de Texas al que se le atribuye haber ayudado a dar forma a la ley que permite demandas civiles contra personas y proveedores que “ayuden e inciten” a mujeres embarazadas a interrumpir un embarazo.

Una ordenanza contra el aborto fue rechazada en al menos una ciudad de Ohio, y otros organismos locales votaron en contra de tales ordenanzas u optaron por no someterlas a votación, según el sitio web de Dickson.

Andrea Miller, presidenta del National Institute for Reproductive Health, dijo que hay cierta ironía en el esfuerzo multiestatal de Dickson para evitar que las personas crucen las fronteras estatales para recibir atención de salud reproductiva, incluido el aborto.

“Sería ridículo si no fuera tan trágico”, dijo Miller. “Es un esfuerzo increíblemente cínico, con motivaciones políticas, cuyo objetivo principal es sembrar confusión y estigmatizar la atención del aborto”.

Miller también señaló otros municipios, centros urbanos como Nueva York, Seattle, Philadelphia y otros, que han aprobado ordenanzas locales que protegen y amplían el acceso a la atención del aborto.

El administrador de la ciudad de West Wendover, el alcalde o los miembros del Concejo tendrían que solicitar que la consideración de la propuesta se agregue a la agenda de una reunión para que avance.

A photo of two brothers posing for a photo together outside at night.
Los hermanos Marcos y Fernando Cerros han estado tratando de organizar a los miembros de la comunidad para apoyar el acceso al aborto y establecer una clínica de Planned Parenthood en su ciudad. Les ha resultado difícil, dijeron.(Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez / KFF Health News)

Holm, la alcaldesa, dijo que no incluiría la ordenanza para su consideración “en ningún momento”. La concejal Gabriela Soriano, la única mujer en el Concejo, dijo a fines de abril que no estaba segura de si otros miembros seguirían con la ordenanza.

Holm agregó que no estaba al tanto de ningún contacto con la Ciudad por parte de Planned Parenthood Mar Monte para seguir adelante con la clínica.

Si se instituyera la ordenanza contra el aborto en West Wendover y se impidiera la apertura de una clínica en la ciudad, tendría implicaciones de gran alcance para los residentes. Actualmente, se enfrentan a más de una hora de viaje en cualquier dirección hasta el hospital más cercano.

Para algunos miembros de la comunidad, la decisión no es tan clara.

Los hermanos Cerros dijeron que su madre, que es hispana y católica, está en contra del aborto pero apoya la apertura de la clínica Planned Parenthood en West Wendover. Hace años, tuvo un aborto espontáneo después de conducir una hora y media hasta Salt Lake City para recibir atención de emergencia.

“Existe una gran división entre las personas que piensan que estás matando bebés y las personas que piensan que el embarazo no es blanco o negro. Surgen cosas”, dijo Fernando Cerros. “A veces necesitas atención de emergencia. Y una clínica como esta ayudaría”.

Biden Budget Touches All the Bases

The Host

President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2024 budget proposal includes new policies and funding boosts for many of the Democratic Party’s important constituencies, including advocates for people with disabilities and reproductive rights. It also proposes ways to shore up Medicare’s dwindling Hospital Insurance Trust Fund without cutting benefits, basically daring Republicans to match him on the politically potent issue.

Meanwhile, five women in Texas who were denied abortions when their pregnancies threatened their lives or the viability of the fetuses they were carrying are suing the state. They charge that the language of Texas’ abortion ban makes it impossible for doctors to provide needed care without fear of enormous fines or prison sentences.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Biden’s budget manages to toe the line between preserving Medicare and keeping the Medicare trust fund solvent while advancing progressive policies. Republicans have yet to propose a budget, but it seems likely any GOP plan would lean heavily on cuts to Medicaid and subsidies provided under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats will fight both of those.
  • Even though the president’s budget includes something of a Democratic “wish list” of social policy priorities, the proposals are less sweeping than those made last year. Rather, many — such as extending to private insurance the $35 monthly Medicare cost cap for insulin — build on achievements already realized. That puts new focus on things the president has accomplished.
  • Walgreens, the nation’s second-largest pharmacy chain, is caught up in the abortion wars. In January, the chain said it would apply for certification from the FDA to sell the abortion pill mifepristone in states where abortion is legal. However, last week, under threats from Republican attorneys general in states where abortion is still legal, the chain wavered on whether it would seek to sell the pill there or not, which caused a backlash from both abortion rights proponents and opponents.
  • The five women suing Texas after being denied abortions amid dangerous pregnancy complications are not asking for the state’s ban to be lifted. Rather, they’re seeking clarification about who qualifies for exceptions to the ban, so doctors and hospitals can provide needed care without fear of prosecution.
  • Although anti-abortion groups have for decades insisted that those who have abortions should not be prosecuted, bills introduced in several state legislatures would do exactly that. In South Carolina, those who have abortions could even be subject to the death penalty. So far none of these bills have passed, but the wave of measures could herald a major policy change.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Harris Meyer, who reported and wrote the two latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” features. Both were about families facing unexpected bills after childbirth. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KHN’s “Girls in Texas Could Get Birth Control at Federal Clinics, Until a Christian Father Objected,” by Sarah Varney

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “Language for Treating Childhood Obesity Carries Its Own Health Risks to Kids, Experts Say,” by Jennifer Gerson

Victoria Knight: KHN’s “After People on Medicaid Die, Some States Aggressively Seek Repayment From Their Estates,” by Tony Leys

Margot Sanger-Katz: ProPublica’s “How Obamacare Enabled a Multibillion-Dollar Christian Health Care Grab,” by J. David McSwane and Ryan Gabrielson

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.

Adolescentes en Texas podían obtener control de la natalidad en clínicas federales, hasta que un padre cristiano lo objetó

AMARILLO, Texas – En el vasto Panhandle de Texas, azotado por un viento y sol implacables, las mujeres deben conducir durante horas para llegar a Haven Health, una clínica en Amarillo.

Haven es una de las más de 3,200 clínicas federales de planificación familiar en todo el país, que atiende a los hablantes de inglés y español, proporcionando anticoncepción, pruebas de embarazo e infecciones de transmisión sexual, y detección de cáncer de cuello uterino. Todo a bajo costo o sin cargo para pacientes que están ansiosos, son pobres, o ambas cosas.

Esos pacientes incluyen adolescentes menores de 18 años, que buscan píldoras anticonceptivas o anticoncepción de acción prolongada.

Pero bajo una sorprendente decisión judicial emitida en diciembre, un juez federal dictaminó que estas clínicas violan la ley estatal de Texas y los derechos constitucionales federales, cortando de raíz una fuente vital de atención médica para mujeres jóvenes en el estado.

Defensores de la salud de las mujeres y proveedores de atención médica han denunciado la decisión del juez conservador designado por el presidente Donald Trump, que está en el centro de otros casos de derechos reproductivos. Dicen que es demasiado amplia y sin precedentes. (El fallo se aplica a las regulaciones nacionales, pero por ahora se sigue solo en Texas).

“Ni siquiera podemos proporcionar anticonceptivos para un problema ginecológico”, dijo Carolena Cogdill, directora ejecutiva de Haven Health, quien dijo que el fallo del juez federal de distrito Matthew Kacsmaryk ha tenido un efecto escalofriante en la atención.

“Recibimos a una joven que tenía un sangrado anormal y queríamos recetarle anticonceptivos para ayudar a controlar ese sangrado. Y no pudimos hacerlo porque tenía 16 años”. La paciente había dicho que su madre no entendería, creyendo que su hija “iba a salir y tener relaciones sexuales”, dijo Cogdill.

La ley de Texas ha exigido durante mucho tiempo que las adolescentes tengan el permiso de los padres para obtener anticonceptivos recetados. Pero bajo el programa federal Título X, ciertas clínicas podrían proporcionar anticonceptivos sin el consentimiento de los padres. Establecido en 1970, Título X evolucionó a partir de la era de la “Guerra contra la Pobreza” y fue aprobado con un amplio apoyo bipartidista.

La legislación fue firmada por el entonces presidente republicano Richard Nixon, para brindar servicios de planificación familiar a personas de bajos ingresos, incluidos menores, con el objetivo de reducir el embarazo adolescente.

Pero en julio de 2022, semanas después de que la Corte Suprema revocara la protección constitucional para el aborto en Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Alexander R. Deanda, padre de tres hijas adolescentes que vive en Amarillo, demandó al Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos. Argumentó que el gobierno había violado su derecho constitucional a liderar la crianza de sus hijas.

En su demanda, Deanda, quien es cristiano, dijo que estaba “criando a cada una de sus hijas de acuerdo con la enseñanza cristiana sobre cuestiones de sexualidad” y que no podía tener “la seguridad de que sus hijas no podrán acceder a anticonceptivos recetados” que “facilitan la promiscuidad sexual y el sexo pre-matrimonial”.

En su opinión, Kacsmaryk estuvo de acuerdo y escribió que “el uso de anticonceptivos (al igual que el aborto) viola los principios tradicionales de muchas religiones, incluidas las prácticas de los demandantes de fe cristiana”.

Además, Kacsmaryk, quien también es cristiano, dijo que la existencia de clínicas federales que operan en Texas, donde la ley estatal requiere el permiso de los padres para que las adolescentes reciban anticonceptivos, representaba un “daño inmediato”.

“Las clínicas del Título X están abiertas la mayoría de los días y, por lo tanto, presentan un riesgo continuo, continuo e inminente”, escribió el juez.

La decisión, que hace referencia al catecismo católico y a textos religiosos del siglo IV, sorprendió a expertos legales como Elizabeth Sepper, profesora de derecho en la Universidad de Texas en Austin, quien dijo que esta narrativa era parte de la creciente influencia de la teología cristiana conservadora en los tribunales.

“Estamos viendo cada vez más argumentos religiosos que llegan a los tribunales disfrazados de argumentos legales”, dijo Sepper. “Creo que estamos viendo un movimiento que comenzó con una exención religiosa, diciendo ‘Permítanme estructurar mi atención médica para que se adapte a mi moral’, y ahora se está avanzando hacia una agenda que dice, ‘Permítanme estructurar toda la atención médica de acuerdo con mi moral’”.

Ni Deanda ni su abogado, Jonathan Mitchell, el artífice de la prohibición del aborto en Texas antes de Dobbs, respondieron a las solicitudes de comentarios.

Los efectos del embarazo adolescente en la vida de una mujer pueden ser profundos. La mitad de las madres adolescentes reciben un diploma de escuela secundaria a los 22 años, en comparación con el 90% de las mujeres jóvenes que no dan a luz en la adolescencia. Los nacimientos de adolescentes pueden conducir a malos resultados para la próxima generación: los hijos de madres adolescentes tienen más probabilidades de abandonar la escuela secundaria y terminar en la cárcel o prisión durante la adolescencia.

El doctor Stephen Griffin, profesor asistente en la Universidad Tecnológica de Texas en Lubbock, y obstetra y ginecólogo, describió el acceso a los métodos anticonceptivos para las mujeres jóvenes como un “problema de seguridad”, y agregó que muchos padres subestiman la actividad sexual de sus adolescentes.

“Sabemos que las personas que se identifican como asistentes regulares a la iglesia tienen más probabilidades de subestimar el comportamiento arriesgado de sus hijos en términos de sexo”, dijo Griffin. “Y que los padres que sienten que tienen líneas abiertas de comunicación con sus hijos” también subestiman el riesgo.

Texas tiene una de las tasas más altas de embarazo adolescente en la nación y la tasa más alta de embarazo adolescente recurrente: más de 1 de cada 6 adolescentes que dieron a luz en Texas en 2020 ya tenían un hijo.

Expertos en salud dicen que es probable que la decisión judicial que prohíbe el acceso a la anticoncepción aumente esos números, siguiendo los pasos de otras restricciones a la atención de la salud reproductiva en el estado.

“El aborto es ilegal en Texas. Los niños no reciben educación sexual integral en las escuelas. Un gran [número] de personas en Texas viven sin seguro médico”, dijo Stephanie LeBleu, directora interina de Every Body Texas, que administra las más de 150 clínicas del Título X del estado. “Así que hace que sea muy difícil obtener servicios de salud sexual”.

La administración Biden apeló la decisión de Texas en febrero. Mientras tanto, LeBleu dijo que aquí no queda ninguna red de seguridad para los adolescentes.

“Les roba su humanidad”, dijo. “Les roba potencialmente su futuro. Y les roba su autonomía corporal, y creo que los jóvenes son más que capaces de tomar decisiones sobre su propia atención médica”.

Décadas de investigación muestran que es más probable que los adolescentes busquen atención de salud sexual si pueden hacerlo de manera confidencial. Pero para los tejanos como Christi Covington, la creencia es que la ley no debería hacer excepciones, ni siquiera en los casos más difíciles.

Covington vive en Round Rock, un suburbio de Austin. Se crió en una gran familia evangélica y está transmitiendo esas enseñanzas a sus tres hijos. Dejando de lado las objeciones religiosas al control de la natalidad, dijo que se debe respetar la unidad familiar.

“Dios diseñó el mundo para que haya padres y luego tenemos nuestra descendencia y que los padres cuiden a esos niños, y eso está diseñado”, dijo. “Y lo vemos reflejado en la naturaleza”.

En cuanto al control de la natalidad, dijo, “se siente como una curita”.

“Démosles control de la natalidad, y entonces no tendremos que lidiar con lo que está sucediendo en nuestra sociedad, donde estas adolescentes quedan embarazadas tan rápido y tan fácilmente”, dijo Covington.

Agregó que ya está obligada a dar permiso para el cuidado de la salud de sus hijos, incluidas las vacunas. “Honestamente, tengo que dar mi consentimiento en todas partes para la otra atención médica de mis hijos”, dijo. “¿Por qué decidiríamos que esta área está exenta?”.

Pero Rebecca Gudeman, directora sénior de salud del National Center for Youth Law, dijo que el 60% de los adolescentes involucran a sus padres en estas decisiones.

“Lo hacen no porque la ley les exija hacerlo, sino porque es lo que quieren hacer”, dijo Gudeman.

Algunos jóvenes, dijo, simplemente no pueden involucrar a sus padres o tutores, incluidas parejas como Victoria y Richard Robledo, quienes comenzaron a salir y tener relaciones sexuales cuando ambos eran menores de edad. Victoria dijo que en esos primeros días decidió obtener un control de la natalidad, pero no podía acudir a su madre, una católica devota, en busca de consejo.

“Éramos un hogar hispano típico”, recordó Victoria. “Y, por lo general, en hogares como el mío, no quieren hablar de novios, sexo ni nada de eso”.

Pero Victoria encontró una clínica a menos de una milla de su escuela secundaria y pudo obtener anticonceptivos sin costo. La pareja ahora está casada, vive en Clovis, Nuevo México, al otro lado de la frontera estatal, y tiene dos hijos.

Victoria dijo que poder protegerse del embarazo cuando era adolescente cambió el curso de su vida, permitiéndole ir a la universidad y a su esposo unirse al ejército.

“No nos preocupaba el hecho de que pudiéramos tener un hijo”, dijo. “Ambos pudimos salir y vivir nuestras propias vidas”.

Kidnapping in Mexico Draws Attention to Medical Tourism

Here’s what experts say about the risks and promises of traveling abroad for cost-efficient care.

March Medicaid Madness

The Host

With Medicare and Social Security apparently off the table for federal budget cuts, the focus has turned to Medicaid, the federal-state health program for those with low incomes. President Joe Biden has made it clear he wants to protect the program, along with the Affordable Care Act, but Republicans will likely propose cuts to both when they present a proposed budget in the next several weeks.

Meanwhile, confusion over abortion restrictions continues, particularly at the FDA. One lawsuit in Texas calls for a federal judge to temporarily halt distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. A separate suit, though, asks a different federal judge to temporarily make the drug easier to get, by removing some of the FDA’s safety restrictions.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Cohrs of STAT News, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • States are working to review Medicaid eligibility for millions of people as pandemic-era coverage rules lapse at the end of March, amid fears that many Americans kicked off Medicaid who are eligible for free or near-free coverage under the ACA won’t know their options and will go uninsured.
  • Biden promised this week to stop Republicans from “gutting” Medicaid and the ACA. But not all Republicans are on board with cuts to Medicaid. Between the party’s narrow majority in the House and the fact that Medicaid pays for nursing homes for many seniors, cutting the program is a politically dicey move.
  • A national group that pushed the use of ivermectin to treat covid-19 is now hyping the drug as a treatment for flu and RSV — despite a lack of clinical evidence to support their claims that it is effective against any of those illnesses. Nonetheless, there is a movement of people, many of them doctors, who believe ivermectin works.
  • In reproductive health news, a federal judge recently ruled that a Texas law cannot be used to prosecute groups that help women travel out of state to obtain abortions. And the abortion issue has highlighted the role of attorneys general around the country — politicizing a formerly nonpartisan state post. –And Eli Lilly announced plans to cut the price of some insulin products and cap out-of-pocket costs, though their reasons may not be completely altruistic: An expert pointed out that a change to Medicaid rebates next year means drugmakers soon will have to pay the government every time a patient fills a prescription for insulin, meaning Eli Lilly’s plan could save the company money.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “A Drug Company Exploited a Safety Requirement to Make Money,” by Rebecca Robbins.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “Alone and Exploited, Migrant Children Work Brutal Jobs Across the U.S.,” by Hannah Dreier.

Rachel Cohrs: STAT News’ “Nonprofit Hospitals Are Failing Americans. Their Boards May Be a Reason Why,” by Sanjay Kishore and Suhas Gondi.

Lauren Weber: KHN and CBS News’ “This Dental Device Was Sold to Fix Patients’ Jaws. Lawsuits Claim It Wrecked Their Teeth,” by Brett Kelman and Anna Werner.

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.

One Texas Judge Will Decide Fate of Abortion Pill Used by Millions of American Women

[embedded content]

AMARILLO, Texas — Federal judges in Texas have delivered time and again for abortion opponents.

They upheld a state law that allows for $10,000 bounties to be placed on anyone who helps a woman get an abortion; ruled that someone opposed to abortion based on religious beliefs can block a federal program from providing birth control to teens; and determined that emergency room doctors must equally weigh the life of a pregnant woman and her embryo or fetus.

Now abortion rights advocates — galvanized by the reversal of Roe v. Wade — are girding for another decision from a Texas courtroom that could force the FDA to remove a widely used abortion pill from pharmacies and physicians’ offices nationwide.

The wide-ranging lawsuit, brought by a conservative Christian legal group, argues that the FDA’s approval process more than two decades ago was flawed when it authorized the use of mifepristone, which stops the development of a pregnancy and is part of a two-drug regimen used in medication abortions.

“The FDA has one job, which is just to protect Americans from dangerous drugs,” said Denise Harle, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, part of a conservative coalition that brought the suit in federal district court in Amarillo, Texas. “And we’re asking the court to remove that chemical drug regimen until and unless the FDA actually goes through the proper testing that it’s required to do.”

A decision in the case was expected as soon as Friday. If successful, the lawsuit would force federal officials to rescind mifepristone’s approval, and manufacturers would be unable to ship the drug anywhere in the United States, including to states like California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York where abortion remains legal.

Abortion rights supporters and medical groups have pushed back on the lawsuit’s claims. Twelve leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say medication abortion is effective and safe.

Indeed, decades of research show the risk of major complications from taking abortion pills is less than 0.4% — safer than such commonly used drugs as Tylenol or Viagra.

“We’ve got 23 years of data domestically that shows how safe medication abortion is, and it’s been used internationally for decades,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, chief executive of Whole Woman’s Health, a medical organization with clinics in several states. “It’s much safer than somebody being forced to carry a pregnancy against their will.”

About 5 million women in the United States, federal data shows — and millions more across the world — have safely used abortion pills. They can be taken up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy and are also used by OB-GYNs to manage early miscarriages. All told, more than half of all abortions in the U.S. are a result of medication rather than a medical procedure, according Guttmacher Institute research.

Medication abortion involves taking two pills: mifepristone, which blocks the pregnancy hormone, progesterone; and misoprostol, which induces a miscarriage. Both drugs have long and safe track records: Misoprostol was approved in 1988 to treat gastric ulcers, with mifepristone earning approval in 2000 to end early pregnancy.

By filing its lawsuit in Amarillo, the Alliance Defending Freedom was almost guaranteed to draw U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a President Donald Trump appointee who worked as deputy general counsel at First Liberty Institute, a conservative nonprofit advocating for religious liberty, before being confirmed to the federal judiciary in 2019.

Civil rights groups universally opposed Kacsmaryk’s nomination to the Northern District of Texas. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, said during the confirmation process that Kacsmaryk showed “alarming bias against LGBTQ Americans and disregard for Supreme Court precedents.”

“He’s made statements in opposition to reproductive rights, linking up reproduction to the feminist movement and making anti-feminist statements,” said Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe, allowed the suit against the FDA to proceed. “Prior to Dobbs, the right to abortion would have stood in the way of this lawsuit. But now the conservative legal movement feels empowered.”

The lawsuit is the latest effort by opponents of abortion rights to stymie the use of abortion pills, which many people seeking abortion prefer because it allows them to control their own health care and affords privacy for a process that involves cramping and bleeding, similar to a miscarriage.

“When you have medication abortion, part of the process happens at home. And a lot of people like that,” said Hagstrom Miller, of Whole Woman’s Health. “People can be at home with their loved ones and can sort of schedule the passing of the pregnancy around their work schedule or their child care schedule.”

Harle, however, said that the FDA used a provision to approve the drug that should be used only for medications that treat illness, and that pregnancy is not an illness, but a condition.

“They didn’t meet the standards of federal law,” she said.

Mifepristone’s approval was investigated in 2008 — during the Republican administration of George W. Bush — by the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, which found that the process was consistent with FDA regulations.

“It’s hard to think of a drug that’s been under more scrutiny than mifepristone,” said I. Glenn Cohen, a Harvard Law School professor and one of 19 FDA scholars who filed an amicus brief opposing the lawsuit. “We don’t think there’s a problem here statutorily or medically. It’d be very dangerous to allow a single judge sitting in Amarillo to essentially order a drug that’s used by many women in America off the market.”

But Harle said that no amount of scientific data would be enough to convince her that mifepristone should be on the market.

“I think chemical abortion does great harms to women and their unborn children,” she said. “And that’s what this lawsuit is really about.”

Abortion care providers like Hagstrom Miller are bracing for the ruling. “I think people know that what happens in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas,” she said. “Some of the most progressive states in the country will face restrictions if this lawsuit is successful.”

If that’s the case, her clinics and OB-GYNs across the country will be forced to use only misoprostol for miscarriage and early abortion care, something that will reduce the efficacy of the method: While taking the two pills together is 99.6% effective in terminating early pregnancy, misoprostol alone — although still extremely safe — is about 80% effective.

Hagstrom Miller also notes that side effects from misoprostol can be more intense, including nausea, diarrhea, and severe cramping and bleeding.

“And that matters, right?” she said. “People should have access to the highest level of medical care.”

Abortion Debate Ramps Up in States as Congress Deadlocks

Anti-abortion advocates are pressing for expanded abortion bans and tighter restrictions since the Supreme Court overturned the national right to abortion. But with the debate mostly deadlocked in Washington, the focus is shifting to states convening their first full legislative sessions since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Although some state GOP lawmakers have filed bills to ban abortion pills or make it more difficult for women to travel out of state for an abortion, others seem split about what their next steps should be. Some are even considering measures to ease their states’ existing bans somewhat, particularly after Republicans’ less-than-stellar showing in the 2022 midterm elections and voters’ widespread support for abortion on state ballot measures.

Meanwhile, Democratic-led states are looking to shore up abortion protections, including Minnesota and Michigan, where Democrats sewed up legislative majorities in the November elections.

Anti-abortion groups said their goal in overturning Roe v. Wade was to turn the decision back to the states, but now they are making clear that what they want is an encompassing national abortion ban.

“Legislation at the state and federal levels should provide the most generous protections possible to life in the womb,” says the “Post-Roe Blueprint” of the anti-abortion group Students for Life.

The new Republican-led House showed its anti-abortion bona fides on its first day of formal legislating, Jan. 11, passing two pieces of anti-abortion legislation that are unlikely to become law with a Senate still controlled by Democrats and President Joe Biden in the White House.

So at the federal level, the fight is taking shape in the courts over the abortion pill mifepristone, which has been used as part of a two-drug regimen for more than two decades, and recently became the way a majority of abortions in the U.S. are conducted.

The Biden administration has moved to make mifepristone more widely available by allowing it to be distributed by pharmacies, as well as clarifying that it is legal to distribute the pills via the U.S. mail. But the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, on behalf of several anti-abortion groups, filed a federal lawsuit in Texas in November, charging that the FDA never had the authority to approve the drug in the first place.

In Texas, some lawmakers are exploring new ways to chip away at Texans’ remaining sliver of access to abortions. For example, one proposal would prevent local governments from using tax dollars to help people access abortion services out of state, while another would prohibit tax subsidies for businesses that help their local employees obtain abortions out of state.

Those measures could get lost in the shuffle of the state’s frantic 140-day, every-other-year session, if legislative leaders don’t consider them a priority. The state’s trigger law banning almost all abortions that went into effect last year “appears to be working very well,” said Joe Pojman, founder and executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, an anti-abortion group. In August 2022, three abortions were documented in the state, down from more 5,700 reported during the same month a year earlier, according to the most recent state data.

The top state House Republican said his priority is boosting support for new moms, for example, by extending postpartum Medicaid coverage to 12 months.

It’s “an opportunity for the Texas House to focus more than ever on supporting mothers and children,” said Republican House Speaker Dade Phelan.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, struck a similar theme in a Jan. 10 speech, saying she will introduce bills to expand a program for nurses to visit new mothers at home and help state employees pay for adoptions. Previously, Noem said South Dakota needs to focus “on taking care of mothers in crisis and getting them the resources that they need for both them and their child to be successful.”

Some Texas GOP lawmakers indicated they may be open to carving out exceptions to the abortion ban in cases of rape and incest. And a Republican lawmaker plans to attempt to modify South Dakota’s ban, which allows abortions only for life-threatening pregnancies, to clarify when abortions are medically necessary.

“Part of the issue right now is that doctors and providers just don’t know what that line is,” said state Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, a nurse who has experienced miscarriages and high-risk pregnancies herself.

Rehfeldt wants to reinstate a former law that allows abortions for pregnancies that could cause serious, irreversible physical harm to a “major bodily function.” Rehfeldt said she is also working on bills to allow abortions for people carrying non-viable fetuses, or who became pregnant after rape or incest.

Some anti-abortion activists in Georgia are pushing lawmakers to go further than the state’s ban on most abortions at about six weeks of pregnancy. They want a law to ban telehealth prescriptions of abortion pills and a state constitutional amendment declaring that an embryo or a fetus has all the legal rights of a person at any stage of development.

Roe is out of the way,” said Zemmie Fleck, executive director of Georgia Right to Life. “There’s no more roadblock to what we can do in our state.”

Republican leaders, however, are biding their time while Georgia’s high court weighs a legal challenge of the six-week ban. “Our focus remains on the case before the Georgia Supreme Court and seeing it across the finish line,” said Andrew Isenhour, spokesperson for Republican Gov. Brian Kemp.

Abortion rights lawmakers and advocates have few options to advance their initiatives in these Republican-controlled statehouses.

A Georgia Democrat filed a bill that would make the state compensate women who are unable to terminate pregnancies because of the state’s abortion ban. State Rep. Dar’shun Kendrick acknowledged her bill likely won’t go far, but she said she hopes it keeps attention on the issue and forces GOP lawmakers to “put their money where their mouth is” in supporting families.

In Missouri, where nearly all abortions are now banned, abortion rights advocates are mulling the idea of circumventing the state’s Republican-dominated legislature by asking voters in 2024 to enshrine the right to an abortion in the state’s constitution.

But those efforts could be upended by a slew of bills filed by Republican lawmakers seeking to make it more difficult to place constitutional initiatives on the ballot, and for those measures that do make it on the ballot, by requiring the approval of at least 60% of voters for passage.

Democrats in Michigan and Minnesota are likely to use their newfound control of both legislative chambers and the governors’ office to protect abortion access. While Michigan voters already passed a ballot measure in November that enshrines the right to abortions in the state constitution, Democrats are trying to repeal a 1931 abortion law from the books.

In Illinois, Democrats in control of the legislature recently bolstered abortion protections amid increased demand from out-of-state residents. New York lawmakers this year may send voters a proposed state constitutional amendment to protect abortion, while New Jersey lawmakers decided against a similar proposal.

The November elections brought divided government to Arizona and Nevada, with Arizona now having a Democratic governor and Nevada having a Republican one. Any abortion-related bills that pass the legislatures in those states could be vetoed.

Some Republican-controlled legislatures, including those in Montana, Florida, and Alaska, also are limited in passing sweeping abortion bans because of court rulings that tie abortion access to right-to-privacy provisions in those states’ constitutions.

In Montana, a state judge blocked three anti-abortion laws passed in 2021 on that basis. State government attorneys have asked the Montana Supreme Court to reverse the precedent, and a decision is pending.

In the meantime, Republican state Sen. Keith Regier has filed a bill there seeking to exclude abortion from the state’s definition of a right to privacy. Regier said he believes an individual’s right to privacy should not apply to abortion because an unborn child also is involved.

Democratic leaders said Republicans are out of sync with the people they represent on this issue. In November, Montana voters rejected a “born alive” ballot initiative that would have required doctors to apply medical care to newborns who draw breath or have a heartbeat after a failed abortion or any other birth.

“Montanans said so clearly that they do not want government overreach in their health care decisions,” said Democratic state Rep. Alice Buckley.

KHN correspondents Renuka Rayasam and Sam Whitehead in Atlanta; Arielle Zionts in Rapid City, South Dakota; Bram Sable-Smith in St. Louis; and Katheryn Houghton in Missoula, Montana, contributed to this report.

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’: Health Spending? Only Congress Knows


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.


Congress has a tentative framework for government spending through this fiscal year. Now, lawmakers must fill in the blanks, including on key health care provisions, and get it passed. The Biden administration will send more free covid-19 home tests to Americans after initial fears the program was running out of money.

And there’s plenty of news coming in from the states, where this week a Texas judge tossed out a lawsuit based on the state’s so-called vigilante abortion law, and the governor of Florida is asking for a grand jury investigation into harm caused by covid vaccines.

This week’s panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of KHN, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Rebecca Adams of KHN.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Congressional appropriators have settled on an omnibus framework that would set government spending through next fall and hope to pass it by the end of next week. But lawmakers still have details to iron out. While health measures like extended flexibilities for telehealth are likely to get approved — and others, like more money for pandemic response, are not — the outcome is less clear for some key provisions. Will lawmakers relax or even nix Medicare pay cuts for doctors scheduled for next year?
  • Pharmacy chains CVS and Walgreens announced a major settlement this week in lawsuits alleging they mishandled opioid prescriptions. Most of the settlement money awarded in ongoing opioid epidemic litigation is earmarked to pay for opioid-related treatment, and families of victims are also asking for compensation for the harm opioids have caused. Meanwhile, federal lawmakers have shown little urgency to respond to the country’s epidemic of opioid-related overdoses.
  • Abortion fights continued to play out in the states this week, including in Iowa, where a judge blocked an effort to ban most abortions in the state. In Texas, a judge dealt a blow to the state’s so-called vigilante law, ruling that an individual who is not directly affected by an abortion may not sue for violations of the state’s ban. Watch for the legal challenges to continue, especially as some state legislatures return to session in January for the first time since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
  • In pandemic news, the Biden administration plans to reopen its program allowing Americans to request free covid home tests through the U.S. Postal Service. And the House of Representatives select committee investigating the pandemic wrapped up its work this week, with Democrats and Republicans coming to different conclusions and issuing recommendations unlikely to come to pass — a reflection of partisan tensions and a loss of public interest in the pandemic.
  • And Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a Republican who is considered a possible 2024 presidential candidate, has called for a grand jury to examine alleged “crimes and wrongdoing” related to the covid vaccines.

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

Mary Agnes Carey: Scientific American’s “Kindness Can Have Unexpectedly Positive Consequences,” by Amit Kumar

Rachel Cohrs: The Washington Post’s “From Heart Disease to IUDs: How Doctors Dismiss Women’s Pain,” by Lindsey Bever

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “Watch: With Little More Than a Typewriter, an Idaho Man Overturns the Entire State’s Policy on Hepatitis C Treatment in Prison,” by Nicholas Florko

Rebecca Adams: KHN’s “Mass Shootings Reopen the Debate Over Whether Crime Scene Photos Prompt Change or Trauma,” by Lauren Sausser

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:


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.

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.

Texas Revamps ‘Active-Shooter’ Drills at K-12 Schools to Minimize Trauma

AUSTIN, Texas — After Britt Kelly’s son participated in a lockdown drill two years ago in his Lamar, Texas, kindergarten class, he had nightmares and wet his bed. Now 8, he can sleep only with a light on.

In August, Mary Jackson’s daughter, a kindergartner in Leander, asked her mom to put a “special lock” on her bedroom door to “keep bad adults out” in the wake of a separate lockdown drill.

Clay Giampaolo, a high school senior with special needs, said that after drills at his school in Plano, he goes to the special education room to “calm down.”

As the nation reevaluates its gun laws, training for violent threats has become a grisly yet commonplace reality in K-12 schools. More than 40 states require schools to prepare students to react when a campus comes under attack. Nearly every student in America experiences at least one or more of these drills a year, even though their effectiveness has been hotly debated by state legislators, school staffers, safety experts, and parents.

About 98% of public schools taught students lockdown procedures before the pandemic, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The reasons for them are clear: The 2020-21 school year saw 93 school shootings with casualties, the highest number in two decades, according to the NCES. While school shootings are rare, they have devastating consequences.

But the preparations for these events also can come with a price. “The literal trauma caused just by them is horrifying,” Giampaolo said.

Anxiety, stress, and depression increased 39%-42% in K-12 students following lockdown drills, according to a study published in December in the journal Nature that examined social media posts. The drills, especially those that involve simulations, heightened students’ fear around the possibility of a shooting and made them feel unsafe in school. The more realistic the drill, the more fear they provoked. Students like Giampaolo who have special needs, and those who have experienced previous trauma, are among the most affected, according to safety experts.

At least one state is taking a step toward balancing school safety and student health. To minimize trauma to participants, new Texas regulations require schools to ensure that drills don’t simulate shootings — a change that comes just one semester after a gunman killed 19 students and two teachers in Uvalde.

“If some kids are coming away traumatized or we’re magnifying existing trauma, we’re not moving in the right direction,” said Nicole Golden, executive director of Texas Gun Sense, an advocacy group that supported the bill.

Texas mandates that schools complete two lockdown drills a year. But there was confusion and wide-ranging interpretations about how they should be conducted, said state Rep. Claudia Ordaz Perez, a Democrat who sponsored the bill that passed during the 2021 legislative session.

Despite a growing body of research about how to prepare for worst-case scenarios, not all schools are following best practices and there’s no way to tell which ones are, said Jaclyn Schildkraut, an associate professor of criminal justice at the State University of New York-Oswego, who has argued in favor of drills.

“We have no national standard, no national guidance, and no tracking system,” Schildkraut said.

In extreme cases, schools simulate shootings, with officers brandishing weapons or mimicking gunshot sounds, which she said is unnecessarily traumatizing for both students and staff members. “We don’t set schools on fire to practice a fire drill,” said Schildkraut.

The Texas rules now more clearly distinguish between lockdown drills, which are required, and active-threat exercises, which are voluntary and can involve re-creating aspects of a shooting.

A drill doesn’t involve fake injuries or gunshot sounds. Instead, students either talk through what to do, or practice activities like turning off the lights, locking doors, and staying quiet and away from windows.

Active-threat exercises, which are intended to train first responders, might involve realistic depictions of injured students or loud sounds. They give officials in different jurisdictions a chance to plan a coordinated response, said Kathy Martinez-Prather, director of the Texas School Safety Center. But schools need to plan those simulations carefully without requiring student participation, she said.

The new regulations require schools to tailor drills and exercises to students’ ages and development, but they focus on creating guardrails for active threat exercises. Students aren’t banned from participating in exercises, a move some gun safety and parents’ groups wanted. But the rules advise schools to carry them out during a time when students are not on campus. They also require that everyone involved be given adequate notice before an exercise and a public announcement be made immediately before, so that no participants confuse a simulation with an actual shooter.

The measure, which also orders school districts to find ways to minimize potential trauma to students and staffers, such as consulting mental health professionals while planning the drills, was in effect during the previous school year. But the Texas Education Agency didn’t finalize rules until this year.

The clarifications come as schools renew their focus on safety. “Especially everything that came out of Uvalde, this legislation is more important than ever,” Ordaz Perez said.

The measure is a sign of incremental progress, but it is not comprehensive, said Blair Taylor, an advocate at Moms Demand Action in Texas, a nonprofit that focuses on ending gun violence. She wants the Texas legislature to do more to prevent school shootings from taking place at all.

These are “band-aids for bullet holes,” Taylor said. “We are not addressing the actual problem of easy access to guns and toxic gun culture.”

The Texas American Federation of Teachers is creating posters to make sure teachers know about the new rules, so they can file any complaints to school districts. But the Texas regulations don’t specify punitive measures if districts fail to comply.

The San Marcos Consolidated Independent School District has no plans to change how it conducts drills this year, said Doug Wozniak, the district’s director of safety and health services.

Once a semester, students are instructed to hide in a corner silently while first responders go through the hallways and “lightly jiggle” classroom doorknobs, he said. Officers then yell, “Police, open up.” Students with special needs aren’t exempt from these lockdown drills, he said, but officers try to check on classrooms with those students first so that they can quickly resume class.

After the drill, students, teachers, and first responders gather in the cafeteria to debrief.

But even jiggling doorknobs might be too much like a simulation for many students, particularly those who are younger or have experienced a previous shooting, some experts say.

When schools simulate any aspect of a shooting, they can potentially make students feel unsafe on school grounds, said M. Aurora Vasquez, vice president of state policy and engagement for Sandy Hook Promise.

“The anxiety starts to sit with them on a regular basis when they go to school,” she said.

Texas limits the number of all types of drills that school districts should perform to 16 per school year, but many argue that lockdown drills don’t need to be conducted frequently.

“When you start doing these drills every month, which some school districts require, then it starts to suggest they are relatively likely,” said David Schonfeld, director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “That is a bad perception for kids.”

Many students say that the way Texas schools are currently conducting drills has a lasting impact. Jackson’s daughter is on the autism spectrum. Before August, she was never worried about a bedroom intruder. “She’s never been afraid of monsters; she’s never been afraid of the dark,” said Jackson. Afterward, that changed.

Between the Uvalde shooting and the regularity of drills, Giampaolo said, he and many of his peers feel uneasy in school this year. “We literally just want to go to school and not worry about being shot,” he said.

Kelly said she understands the necessity of school shooter preparedness, but it’s been difficult for her son.

“I don’t even know what the answer is, and I think that’s where I feel so powerless in this fight,” she said. “The kids are taking the brunt of bad decisions.”