Short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI) plans are exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) essential benefit coverage requirements and from prohibitions on medical underwriting.
This means that consumers with preexisting conditions can be denied coverage and anyone who purchases such a plan may lack coverage for key services.
In August 2018, under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revised the definition of short-term plans to include coverage with an initial term of less than 12 months that could be renewed for up to 36 months. While the purported goal of this change was to increase coverage and reduce uninsured rates, our analysis indicates that it did not accomplish this: coverage did not increase and the uninsured rate did not drop.
In July 2023, the Biden administration issued a notice to limit the initial duration of short-term plans to three months, with an option to renew for one additional month. This change was intended to ensure that people purchasing insurance coverage have meaningful protection and to preserve the preexisting condition protections in the ACA.
In 2019, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), using its forecast model (data were not yet available), estimated that 1.5 million people would purchase short-term plans and that 500,000 would gain coverage (relative to being uninsured). Our analysis suggests that these forecasts substantially overstated the effects of the rule change; far fewer people enrolled in STLDI plans and the enrollment that did occur was from people moving off marketplace coverage.
There is no evidence that the number of uninsured people declined because these plans became available.
Using data from the American Community Survey and marketplace enrollment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), we assessed whether the loosening of STLDI regulations (under the Trump administration) led to increased enrollment in off-marketplace nongroup coverage in states that permitted sales compared to those that did not. Plans sold off the marketplace include STLDI as well as ACA-compliant plans, grandfathered coverage, health care sharing ministries, and fixed indemnity plans. Next, we looked to see whether the Trump-era regulations increased nongroup insurance coverage altogether (including marketplace coverage) in these states. Finally, we looked to see whether the broader availability of STLDI was associated with lower uninsured rates. We examined coverage patterns for adults ages 26 to 64 and then focused on young men ages 26 to 35, who may be most sensitive to the presence of regulations similar to those in the ACA because they are less likely to have preexisting conditions or to seek comprehensive coverage.
In 2017, 2.6 million adults ages 26 to 64, about 1.6 percent of that population, purchased private nongroup insurance outside the marketplace. By 2020, about 270,000 more people were enrolled in off-marketplace nongroup plans, across all states, than had been in 2017. There was a larger increase in off-marketplace nongroup enrollment among all adults and among young adults (we cannot separate young men in the CMS data) in states that permitted the sale of STLDI coverage, compared to those that prohibited it. This is consistent with the evidence of growth in sales of these plans. Across all states, about 160,000 more young adults, ages 26 to 34, held off-marketplace nongroup coverage in 2020 than in 2017.
The ACS data show that off-marketplace plans largely substituted for marketplace plans in states that permitted the sale of STLDI. Patterns of enrollment in nongroup plans overall were very similar in states with and without STLDI plans available for purchase over this period. While nongroup coverage was consistently more popular in states with no restrictions, between 2017 and 2020 enrollment in nongroup plans declined slightly more in states where STLDI plans were available for purchase than in those where they were not. The same pattern of marginally greater declines held for young men (and young adults) in states where STLDI plans were available.
Nongroup coverage was slightly higher in states where STLDI plans were available for sale, but the overall uninsured rate is much higher in these states, primarily because many did not expand Medicaid eligibility.
The gap in uninsured rates between states with STLDI plans available and those in which they were not available widened through 2018, narrowed slightly in 2019, and rose again in 2020. Patterns among young men were similar.
The lack of reliable information on STLDI plans and the small size of the market make it difficult to draw strong inferences about how changes in regulations affected participation. Nonetheless, by comparing states where the 2018 regulatory changes took effect and those where they did not, we are able to rule out any notable effects. A modest number of people — no more than one-fifth of the 1.5 million the CBO projected — are likely to have enrolled in STLDI plans that became available after the Trump administration’s regulatory change. This enrollment mainly appears to have displaced marketplace coverage.
There is no evidence that the broader availability of STLDI plans had any meaningful effect on nongroup coverage in general or on uninsurance, either in the full population or among young men.
This suggests that the Biden administration’s proposed tightening of STLDI is unlikely to have substantial negative effects on nongroup coverage or uninsurance. Instead, limiting STLDI will likely strengthen the health insurance marketplaces that offer reliable, comprehensive nongroup coverage.
Saturday, Congress voted overwhelming (House 335-91, Senate 88-9) to keep the government funded until Nov. 17 at 2023 levels. No surprise. Congress is supposed to pass all 12 appropriations bills before the start of each fiscal year but has done that 4 times since 1970—the last in 1997. So, while this chess game plays out, the health system will soldier on against growing recognition it needs fixing.
In Wednesday night’s debate, GOP Presidential aspirant Nicki Haley was asked what she would do to address the spike in personal bankruptcies due to medical debt. Her reply:
“We will break all of it [down], from the insurance company, to the hospitals, to the doctors’ offices, to the PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers], to the pharmaceutical companies. We will make it all transparent because when you do that, you will realize that’s what the problem is…we need to bring competition back into the healthcare space by eliminating certificate of need systems… Once we give the patient the ability to decide their healthcare, deciding which plan they want, that is when we will see magic happen, but we’re going to have to make every part of the industry open up and show us where their warts are because they all have them”
It’s a sentiment widely held across partisan aisles and in varied degrees among taxpayers, employers and beyond. It’s a system flaw and each sector is complicit.
What seems improbable is a solution that rises above the politics of healthcare where who wins and loses is more important than the solutions themselves.
Perhaps as improbable as the European team’s dominating performance in the 44th Ryder Cup Championship played in Rome last week especially given pre-tournament hype about the US team.
While in Rome last week, I queried hotel employees, restaurant and coffee shop owners, taxi drivers and locals at the tournament about the Italian health system. I saw no outdoor signage for hospitals and clinics nor TV ads for prescriptions and OTC remedies. Its pharmacies, clinics and hospitals are non-descript, modest and understated. Yet groups like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) rank Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN), the national system authorized in December 1978, in the top 10 in the world (The WHO ranks it second overall behind France).
“It covers all Italian citizens and legal foreign residents providing a full range of healthcare services with a free choice of providers. The service is free of charge at the point of service and is guided by the principles of universal coverage, solidarity, human dignity, and health. In principle, it serves as Italy’s public healthcare system.” Like U.S. ratings for hospitals, rankings for the Italian system vary but consistently place it in the top 15 based on methodologies comparing access, quality, and affordability.
The U.S., by contrast, ranks only first in certain high-end specialties and last among developed systems in access and affordability.
Like many systems of the world, SSN is governed by a national authority that sets operating principles and objectives administered thru 19 regions and two provinces that deliver health services under an appointed general manager. Each has significant independence and the flexibility to determine its own priorities and goals, and each is capitated based on a federal formula reflecting the unique needs and expected costs for that population’s health.
It is funded throughnational and regional taxes, supplemented by private expenditure and insurance plans and regions are allowed to generate their own additional revenue to meet their needs. 74% of funding is public; 26% is private composed primarily of consumer out-of-pocket costs. By contrast, the U.S. system’s funding is 49% public (Medicare, Medicaid et al), 24% private (employer-based, misc.) and 27% OOP by consumers.
Italians enjoy the 6th highest life expectancy in the world, as well as very low levels of infant mortality. It’s not a perfect system: 10% of the population choose private insurance coverage to get access to care quicker along with dental care and other benefits. Its facilities are older, pharmacies small with limited hours and hospitals non-descript.
But Italians seem satisfied with their system reasoning it a right, not a privilege, and its absence from daily news critiques a non-concern.
Issues confronting its system—like caring for its elderly population in tandem with declining population growth, modernizing its emergency services and improving its preventive health programs are understood but not debilitating in a country one-fifth the size of the U.S. population.
My take:
Italy spends 9% of its overall GDP on its health system; the $4.6 trillion U.S spends 18% in its GDP on healthcare, and outcomes are comparable. Our’s is better known but their’s appears functional and in many ways better.
Should the U.S.copy and paste the Italian system as its own? No. Our societies, social determinants and expectations vary widely. Might the U.S. health system learn from countries like Italy? Yes.
Questions like these merit consideration:
Might the U.S. system perform better if states had more authority and accountability for Medicare, CMS, Veterans’ health et al?
Might global budgets for states be an answer?
Might more spending on public health and social services be the answer to reduced costs and demand?
Might strict primary care gatekeeping be an answer to specialty and hospital care?
Might private insurance be unnecessary to a majority satisfied with a public system?
Might prices for prescription drugs, hospital services and insurance premiums be regulated or advertising limited?
Might employers play an expanded role in the system’s accountability?
Can we afford the system long-term, given other social needs in a changing global market?
Comparisons are constructive for insights to be learned. It’s true in healthcare and professional golf. The European team was better prepared for the Ryder Cup competition. From changes to the format of the matches, to pin placements and second shot distances requiring precision from 180-200 yards out on approach shots: advantage Europe. Still, it was execution as a team that made the difference in its dominating 16 1/2- 11 1/2 win —not the celebrity of any member.
The time to ask and answer tough questions about the sustainability of the U.S. system and chart a path forward. A prepared, selfless effort by a cross-sector Team Healthcare USA is our system’s most urgent need. No single sector has all the answers, and all are at risk of losing.
Team USA lost the Ryder Cup because it was out-performed by Team Europe: its data, preparation and teamwork made the difference.
Today, there is no Team Healthcare USA: each sector has its stars but winning the competition for the health and wellbeing of the U.S. populations requires more.
Were you better off in 2022 than you were in 2017? I was for a lot of reasons. One thing that didn’t change over those five years, though, was my health insurance status. I had health insurance in 2017, and I had health insurance in 2022. And I still have health insurance today.
So do most Americans. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest report on health insurance coverage in the U.S., 92.1% of us had some form of health insurance in 2022. That’s about 304 million people, per the report.
Conversely, 7.9% of us were uninsured last year. That’s a little more than 25.9 million people. That’s down from 8.3% and about 27.2 million people in 2021.
Some may see the decrease in both the percentage and number of uninsured as good news. And it is. Any time the uninsured figures go down, that’s good.
The bad news is, we’re back where we were in 2017. That’s also when 7.9% of us, or about 25.6 million people, were uninsured. Five years of trying to get more people insured and nothing to show for it.
The number of people with any type of private health insurance (employer-based or direct-purchase) crept up to 216.5 million last year from 216.4 million in 2021. The number of people with any type of public health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) rose to 119.1 million last year from 117.1 million in 2021. Both headed in the right direction but too slow to push the uninsured rate significantly down.
If we want to get serious about achieving universal coverage, let’s get serious about it. If we don’t want to get serious about it because most of us already have health insurance, the only useful purpose of the Census Bureau’s annual reports on health insurance is to show us how little we really care.
It feels as though November 5, 2024 is far away, but for both Democrats and Republicans, the election is now. On the issue of healthcare, the two parties’ approaches differ sharply.
Think back to the behemoth effort by Republicans to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act six years ago, an effort that left them floundering for a replacement, basically empty-handed. Recall the 2022 midterms, when their candidates in 10 of the tightest House and Senate races uttered hardly a peep about healthcare.
That reticence stood in sharp contrast to Democrats who weren’t shy about reiterating their support for abortion rights, simultaneously trying hard to ensure that Americans understood and applauded healthcare tenets in the Inflation Reduction Act.
As The Hill noted in early August, sounds like the same thing is happening this time around as America barrels toward November 2024. The publication said it reached to 10 of the leading Republican candidates about their plans to reduce healthcare costs and make healthcare more affordable, and only one responded: Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas).
Healthcare ‘A Very Big Problem’
Maybe the party thinks its supporters don’t care. But, a Pew Research poll from June showed 64% of us think healthcare affordability is a “very big problem,” superseded only by inflation. In that research, 73% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans thought so.
Chuck Coughlin, president and CEO of HighGround, an Arizona-based public affairs firm, told The Hill that the results aren’t surprising.
“If you’re a Republican, what are you going to talk about on healthcare?” he said.
Observers note that the party has homed in on COVID-lockdowns, transgender medical rights, and yes, abortion.
Plans won’t offer coverage for preexisting conditions, maternity care, or prescription drugs, and they can set limits on coverage. The plans will make it easier for small employers to self-insure, so they don’t have to adhere to ACA or state insurance rules.
CHOICE would let large groups come together to buy Association Health Plans, said NPR, which noted that in the past, there have been “issues” with these types of plans.
Insurance experts say that the act takes a swing at the very foundation of the ACA. As one analyst described it, the act intends to improve America’s healthcare “through increased reliance on the free market and decreased reliance on the federal government.”
Democrats Tout Reduce-Price Prescriptions
Meanwhile, on Aug. 29, President Joe Biden spoke proudly in The White House: “Folks, there’s a lot of really great Republicans out there. And I mean that sincerely…But we’ll stand up to the MAGA Republicans who have been trying for years to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and deny tens of millions of Americans access to quality, affordable healthcare.” Current ACA enrollment is higher than 16 million.
He said that Big Pharma charges Americans more than three times what other countries charge for medications. And on that date, he announced that “the (Inflation Reduction Act) law finally gave Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.” He wasn’t shy about saying that this happened without help from “the other team.”
The New York Times said it feels this push for lower healthcare costs will be the centerpiece of his re-election campaign. The announcement confirmed that his administration will negotiate to lower prices on 10 popular—and expensive drugs—that treat common chronic illnesses.
It said previous research shows that as many as 80% of Americans want the government to have the power to negotiate.
The president also said that “Next year, Medicare will select more drugs for negotiation.” He added that his administration “is cracking down on junk health insurance plans that look like they’re inexpensive but too often stick consumers with big hidden fees.” And it’s tackling the extensive problem of surprise medical bills.
Earlier, on August 11, Biden and fellow Democrats celebrated the first anniversary of the PACT Act, legislation that provides healthcare to veterans exposed to toxic burn pits while serving. He said more than 300,000 veterans and families have received these services, with more than 4 million screened for toxic exposure conditions.
Push for High-Deductible Plans
Republicans want to reduce risk of high-deductible plans and make them more desirable—that responsibility is on insurers. According to Politico, these plans count more than 60 million people as members, and feature low premiums and tax advantages. The party said plans will also help lower inflation when people think twice about seeking unneeded care.
The plans’ low monthly premiums offer comprehensive preventive care coverage: physicals, vaccinations, mammograms, and colonoscopies, and have no co-payments, Politico said. The “but” in all this is that members will pay their insurers’ negotiated rate when they’re sick, and for medicines and surgeries. Minimum deductible is $1,500 or $3,000 for families—and can be even higher.
Members can fund health savings accounts but can’t fund flexible spending accounts. Proponents cite more access to care, and reduced costs due to promotion of preventive care. Nay-sayers worry about lower-income members facing costly bills due to insufficient coverage.
Republican Candidates Diverge on Medicaid
The American Hospital Association (AHA) doesn’t love these high deductible plans. It explained that members “find they can’t manage the gap between what their insurance pays and what they themselves owe as a result,” and that, AHA said, contributes to medical debt—something the association wants to change.
An Aug. 3 Opinion in JAMA Health Forum pointed out other ways the two parties diverge on healthcare. For example, the piece cited Biden’s incentives for Medicaid expansion. In contrast, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican presidential candidate, has not worked to offer Medicaid to all lower-income residents under the ACA. Former Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina feels the same, doing nothing. However, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has expanded it, as did former Vice President Mike Pence, when he governed Indiana.
Undoubtedly, as in presidential elections past, healthcare will be at least a talking point, with Democrats likely continuing to make it a central focus, as before.
Five years ago, I started the Fixing Healthcare podcast with the aim of spotlighting the boldest possible solutions—ones that could completely transform our nation’s broken medical system.
But since then, rather than improving, U.S. healthcare has fallen further behind its global peers, notching far more failures than wins.
In that time, the rate of chronic disease has climbed while life expectancy has fallen, dramatically. Nearly half of American adults now struggle to afford healthcare. In addition, a growing mental-health crisis grips our country. Maternal mortality is on the rise. And healthcare disparities are expanding along racial and socioeconomic lines.
Reflecting on why few if any of these recommendations have been implemented, I don’t believe the problem has been a lack of desire to change or the quality of ideas. Rather, the biggest obstacle has been the immense size and scope of the changes proposed.
To overcome the inertia, our nation will need to narrow its ambitions and begin with a few incremental steps that address key failures. Here are three actionable and inexpensive steps that elected officials and healthcare leaders can quickly take to improve our nation’s health:
1. Shore Up Primary Care
Compared to the United States, the world’s most-effective and highest-performing healthcare systems deliver better quality of care at significantly lower costs.
One important difference between us and them: primary care.
In most high-income nations, primary care makes up roughly half of the physician workforce. In the United States, it accounts for less than 30% (with a projected shortage of 48,000 primary care physicians over the next decade).
Primary care—better than any other specialty—simultaneously increases life expectancy while lowering overall medical expenses by (a) screening for and preventing diseases and (b) helping patients with chronic illness avoid the deadliest and most-expensive complications (heart attack, stroke, cancer).
But considering that it takes at least three years after medical school to train a primary care physician, to make a dent in the shortage over the next five years the U.S. government must act immediately:
The first action is to expand resident education for primary care. Congress, which authorizes the funding, would allocate $200 million annually to create 1,000 additional primary-care residency positions each year. The cost would be less than 0.2% of federal spending on healthcare.
The second action requires no additional spending. Instead, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which covers the cost of care for roughly half of all American adults, would shift dollars to narrow the $108,000 pay gap between primary care doctors and specialists. This will help attract the best medical students to the specialty.
Together, these actions will bolster primary care and improve the health of millions.
2. Use Technology To Expand Access, Lower Costs
A decade after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 30 million Americans are without health insurance while tens of millions more are underinsured, limiting access to necessary medical care.
Furthermore, healthcare is expected to become even less affordable for most Americans. Without urgent action, national medical expenditures are projected to rise from $4.3 trillion to $7.2 trillion over the next eight years, and the Medicare trust fund will become insolvent.
With costs soaring, payers (businesses and government) will resist any proposal that expands coverage and, most likely, will look to restrict health benefits as premiums rise.
Almost every industry that has had to overcome similar financial headwinds did so with technology. Healthcare can take a page from this playbook by expanding the use of telemedicine and generative AI.
At the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, telehealth visits accounted for 69% of all physician appointments as the government waived restrictions on usage. And, contrary to widespread fears at the time, patients and doctors rated the quality, convenience and safety of these virtual visits as excellent. However, with the end of Covid-19, many states are now restricting telemedicine, particularly when clinicians practice in a different state than the patient.
To expand telemedicine use—both for physical and mental health issues—state legislators and regulators will need to loosen restrictions on virtual care. This will increase access for patients and diminish the cost of medical care.
It doesn’t make sense that doctors can provide treatment to people who drive across state lines, but they can’t offer the same care virtually when the individual is at home.
Similarly, physicians who faced a shortage of hospital beds during the pandemic began to treat patients in their homes. As with telemedicine, the excellent quality and convenience of care drew praise from clinicians and patients alike.
Building on that success, doctors could combine wearable devices and generative AI tools like ChatGPT to monitor patients 24/7. Doing so would allow physicians to relocate care—safely and more affordably—from hospitals to people’s homes.
Translating this technology-driven opportunity into standard medical practice will require federal agencies like the FDA, NIH and CDC to encourage pilot projects and facilitate innovative, inexpensive applications of generative AI, rather than restricting their use.
3. Reduce Disparities In Medical Care
American healthcare is a system of haves and have-nots, where your income and race heavily determine the quality of care you receive.
Black patients, in particular, experience poorer outcomes from chronic disease and greater difficulty accessing state-of-the-art treatments. In childbirth, black mothers in the U.S. die at twice the rate of white women, even when data are corrected for insurance and financial status.
Generative AI applications like ChatGPT can help, provided that hospitals and clinicians embrace it for the purpose of providing more inclusive, equitable care.
Previous AI tools were narrow and designed by researchers to mirror how doctors practiced. As a result, when clinicians provided inferior care to Black patients, AI outputs proved equally biased. Now that we understand the problem of implicit human bias, future generations of ChatGPT can help overcome it.
The first step will be for hospitals leaders to connect electronic health record systems to generative AI apps. Then, they will need to prompt the technology to notify clinicians when they provide insufficient care to patients from different racial or socioeconomic backgrounds. Bringing implicit bias to consciousness would save the lives of more Black women and children during delivery and could go a long way toward reversing our nation’s embarrassing maternal mortality rate (along with improving the country’s health overall).
The Next Five Years
Two things are inevitable over the next five years. Both will challenge the practice of medicine like never before and each has the potential to transform American healthcare.
First, generative AI will provide patients with more options and greater control. Faced with the difficulty of finding an available doctor, patients will turn to chatbots for their physical and psychological problems.
Already, AI has been shown to be more accurate in diagnosing medical problems and even more empathetic than clinicians in responding to patient messages. The latest versions of generative AI are not ready to fulfill the most complex clinical roles, but they will be in five years when they are 30-times more powerful and capable.
Second, the retail giants (Amazon, CVS, Walmart) will play an ever-bigger role in care delivery. Each of these retailers has acquired primary care, pharmacy, IT and insurance capability and all appear focused on Medicare Advantage, the capitated option for people over the age of 65. Five years from now, they will be ready to provide the businesses that pay for the medical coverage of over 150 million Americans the same type of prepaid, value-based healthcare that currently isn’t available in nearly all parts of the country.
American healthcare can stop the current slide over the next five years if change begins now. I urge medical leaders and elected officials to lead the process by joining forces and implementing these highly effective, inexpensive approaches to rebuilding primary care, lowering medical costs, improving access and making healthcare more equitable.
Issue: Medical debt negatively affects many Americans, especially people of color, women, and low-income families. Federal and state governments have set some standards to protect patients from medical debt.
Goal: To evaluate the current landscape of medical debt protections at the federal and state levels and identify where they fall short.
Methods: Analysis of federal and state laws, as well as discussions with state experts in medical debt law and policy. We focus on laws and regulations governing hospitals and debt collectors.
Key Findings and Conclusion: Federal medical debt protection standards are vague and rarely enforced. Patient protections at the state level help address key gaps in federal protections. Twenty states have their own financial assistance standards, and 27 have community benefit standards. However, the strength of these standards varies widely. Relatively few states regulate billing and collections practices or limit the legal remedies available to creditors. Only five states have reporting requirements that are robust enough to identify noncompliance with state law and trends of discriminatory practices. Future patient protections could improve access to financial assistance, ensure that nonprofit hospitals are earning their tax exemption, and limit aggressive billing and collections practices.
Introduction
Medical debt, or personal debt incurred from unpaid medical bills, is a leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. As many as 40 percent of U.S. adults, or about 100 million people, are currently in debt because of medical or dental bills. This debt can take many forms, including:
past-due payments directly owed to a health care provider
ongoing payment plans
money owed to a bank or collections agency that has been assigned or sold the medical debt
credit card debt from medical bills
money borrowed from family or friends to pay for medical bills.
This report discusses findings from our review of federal and state laws that regulate hospitals and debt collectors to protect patients from medical debt and its negative consequences. First, we briefly discuss the impact and causes of medical debt. Then, we present federal medical debt protections and discuss gaps in standards as well as enforcement. Then, we provide an overview of what states are doing to:
strengthen requirements for financial assistance and community benefits
regulate hospitals’ and debt collectors’ billing and collections activities
limit home liens, foreclosures, and wage garnishment
develop reporting systems to ensure all hospitals are adhering to standards and not disproportionately targeting people of color and low-income communities.
(See the appendix for an overview of medical debt protections in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.)
Impact of Medical Debt
More than half of people in medical and dental debt owe less than $2,500, but because most Americans cannot cover even minor emergency expenses, this debt disrupts their lives in serious ways. Fear of incurring medical debt also deters many Americans from seeking medical care. About 60 percent of adults who have incurred medical debt say they have had to cut back on basic necessities like food or clothing, and more than half the adults from low-income households (less than $40,000) report that they have used up their savings to pay for their medical debt.
A significant amount of medical debt is either sold or assigned to third-party debt-collecting agencies, who often engage in aggressive efforts to collect on the debt, creating stress for patients. Both hospitals and debt collectors have won judgments against patients, allowing them to take money directly from a patient’s paycheck or place liens on a patient’s home. In some cases, patients have also lost their homes. Medical debt can also have a negative impact on a patient’s credit score.
Key Terms Related to Medical Debt
Financial assistance policy: A hospital’s policy to provide free or discounted care to certain eligible patients. Eligibility for financial assistance can depend on income, insurance status, and/or residency status. A hospital may be required by law to have a financial assistance policy, or it may choose to implement one voluntarily. Financial assistance is frequently referred to as “charity care.”
Bad debt: Patient bills that a hospital has tried to collect on and failed. Typically, hospitals are not supposed to pursue collections for bills that qualify for financial assistance or charity care, so bad debt refers to debt owed by patients ineligible for financial assistance.
Community benefit requirements: Nonprofit hospitals are required by federal law and some state laws to provide community benefits, such as financial assistance and other investments targeting community need, in exchange for a tax exemption.
Debt collectors or collections agencies: Entities whose business model primarily relies on collecting unpaid debt. They can either collect on behalf of a hospital (while the hospital still technically holds the debt) or buy the debt from a hospital.
Sale of medical debt: Hospitals sometimes sell the debt patients owe them to third-party debt buyers, who can be aggressive in seeking repayment of the debt.
Creditor: A party that is owed the medical debt and often wants to collect on the medical debt. This can be a hospital, a debt collector acting on behalf of a hospital, or a third-party debt buyer.
Debtor: A patient who owes medical debt over unpaid medical bills.
Wage garnishment: The ability of a creditor to get a court order that would allow them to deduct a portion of a debtor-patient’s paycheck before it reaches the patient. Federal law limits how much can be withheld from a debtor’s paycheck, and some states exceed this federal protection.
Placing a lien: A legal claim that a creditor can place on a patient’s home, prohibiting the patient from selling, transferring, or refinancing their home without first paying off the creditor. Most states require creditors to get a court order before placing a lien on a home.
Foreclosure or forced sale: A creditor can repossess and sell a patient’s home to pay off their medical debt. Often, creditors are required to obtain a court order to do so.
Perhaps what is most troubling is that the burden of medical debt is not borne equally: Black and Hispanic/Latino adults and women are much more likely to incur medical debt. Black adults also tend to be sued more often as a result. Uninsured patients, those from low-income households, adults with disabilities, and young families with children are all at a heightened risk of being saddled with medical debt.
Causes of Medical Debt
Most people — 72 percent, according to one estimate — attribute their medical debt to bills from acute care, such as a single hospital stay or treatment for an accident. Nearly 30 percent of adults who owe medical debt owe it entirely for hospital bills.
Although uninsured patients are more likely to owe medical debt than insured patients, having insurance does not fully shield patients from medical debt and all its consequences. More than 40 percent of insured adults report incurring medical debt, likely because they either had a gap in their coverage or were enrolled in insurance with inadequate coverage. High deductibles and cost sharing can leave many exposed to unexpected medical expenses.
The problem of medical debt is further exacerbated by hospitals charging increasingly high prices for medical care and failing to provide adequate financial assistance to uninsured and underinsured patients with low income.
Key Findings
Federal Medical Debt Protections Have Many Gaps
At the federal level, the tax code, enforced by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), requires nonprofit hospitals to broadly address medical debt. However, these requirements do not extend to for-profit hospitals (which make up about a quarter of U.S. hospitals) and have other limitations.
Further, the IRS does not have a strong track record of enforcing these requirements. In the past 10 years, the IRS has not revoked any hospital’s nonprofit status for noncompliance with these standards.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission have additional oversight authority over credit reporting and debt collectors. The Fair Credit Reporting Act regulates credit reporting agencies and those that provide information to them (debt collectors and hospitals). Consumers have the right to dispute any incomplete or inaccurate information and remove any outdated, negative information. In some cases, patients can directly sue hospitals or debt collectors for inaccurately reporting medical debt to credit reporting agencies. In addition, the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act limits how aggressive debt collectors can be by restricting the ways and times in which they can contact debtors, requiring certain disclosures and notifications, and prohibiting unfair or deceptive practices. Patients can directly sue debt collectors in violation of the law. This law, however, does not limit or prohibit the use of certain legal remedies, like wage garnishment or foreclosure, to collect on a debt.
Many states have taken steps to fill the gaps in federal standards. Within a state, several agencies may play a role in enforcing medical debt protections. Generally speaking:
state departments of health are the primary regulators of hospitals and set standards for them
state departments of taxation are responsible for ensuring nonprofit hospitals are earning their exemption from state taxes
state attorneys general protect consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices by hospitals and debt collectors.
Fewer Than Half of States Exceed Federal Requirements for Financial Assistance, Protections Vary Widely
Federal law requires nonprofit hospitals to establish and publicize a written financial assistance policy, but these standards leave out for-profit hospitals and lack any minimum eligibility requirements. As the primary regulators of hospitals, states have the ability to fill these gaps and require hospitals to provide financial assistance to low-income residents. Twenty states require hospitals to provide financial assistance and set certain minimum standards that exceed the federal standard.
All but three of these 20 states extend their financial assistance requirements to for-profit hospitals. Of these 20 states, four states — Connecticut, Georgia, Nevada, and New York — apply their financial assistance requirements only to certain types of hospitals.
Policies also vary among the 31 states that do not have statutory or regulatory financial assistance requirements for hospitals. For example, the Minnesota attorney general has an agreement in place with nearly every hospital in the state to adhere to certain patient protections, though it falls short of requiring hospitals to provide financial assistance. Massachusetts operates a state-run financial assistance program partly funded through hospital assessments. Other states use far less prescriptive mechanisms to try to ensure that patients have access to financial assistance, such as placing the onus of treating low-income patients on individual counties or requiring hospitals to have a plan for treating low-income and/or uninsured patients without setting any specific requirements.
Enforcement of state financial assistance standards.
The only way to enforce the federal financial assistance requirement is to threaten a hospital’s nonprofit status, and the IRS has been reluctant to use this authority. Among the 20 states that have their own state financial assistance standards, 10 require compliance as a condition of licensure or as a legal mandate. These mandates are often coupled with administrative penalties, but some states have established additional consequences. For example, Maine allows patients to sue noncompliant hospitals.
Six states make compliance with their financial assistance standards a condition of receiving funding from the state. Two other states use their certificate-of-need process (which requires hospitals to seek the state’s approval before establishing new facilities or expanding an existing facility’s services) to impose their financial assistance mandates.
Setting eligibility requirements for financial assistance.
The federal financial assistance standard sets no minimum eligibility requirements for hospitals to follow. However, the 20 states with financial assistance standards define which residents are eligible for aid.
One way for states to ensure that financial assistance is available to those most in need is to prevent hospitals from discriminating against undocumented immigrants. Four states explicitly prohibit such discrimination in statute and regulation. Most states, however, are less explicit. Thirteen states define eligibility broadly, basing it most frequently on income, insurance status, and state residency. However, it is unclear how hospitals are interpreting this requirement when it comes to patients’ immigration status. In contrast, three states explicitly exclude undocumented immigrants from eligibility.
States also vary widely in terms of which income brackets are eligible for financial assistance and how much financial assistance they may receive.
At least three of the 20 states with financial assistance standards allow certain patients with heavy out-of-pocket medical expenses from catastrophic illness or prior medical debt to access financial assistance. Many states also require hospitals to consider a patient’s insurance status when making financial assistance determinations. At least six states make financial assistance available for uninsured patients only, while at least eight others also make financial assistance available to underinsured patients.
Standardizing the application process.
Cumbersome applications can discourage many patients from applying for financial assistance. Five states have developed a uniform application form, while three others have set minimum standards for financial assistance applications. Eleven states require hospitals to give patients the right to appeal a denial of financial assistance.
States Split in Requiring Nonprofit Hospitals to Invest in Community Benefits
Federal and state policymakers also can require nonprofit hospitals to invest in community benefits in return for tax exemptions. Federal law requires nonprofit hospitals to produce a community health needs assessment every three years and have an implementation strategy. Almost all states exempt nonprofit hospitals from a host of state taxes, including income, property, and/or sales taxes. However, only 27 impose community benefit requirements on nonprofit hospitals.
Community benefits frequently include financial assistance but also investments that address issues like lack of access to food and housing. In the long run, these investments can reduce medical debt burden by improving population health and the financial stability of a community. Most states that require nonprofit hospitals to provide community benefits allow nonprofit hospitals to choose how they invest their community benefit dollars. This hands-off approach has given rise to concerns about the lack of transparency in community benefit spending as well as questions about whether hospitals are investing this money in ways that are most helpful to the community, such as in providing financial assistance.
Applicability of community benefit standards.
Nineteen states impose community benefit requirements on all nonprofit hospitals in the state, but three states further limit these requirements to hospitals of a certain size. At least six states have extended these requirements to for-profit hospitals as well. Of these six, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, and Virginia have incorporated community benefit requirements into their certificate-of-need laws instead of their tax laws. As a result, any hospital seeking to expand in these states becomes subject to their community benefit requirement.
Interaction between financial assistance and community benefits.
The federal standard allows nonprofit hospitals to report financial assistance as part of their community benefit spending. Most states with community benefit requirements also allow hospitals to do this. However, only seven states require hospitals to provide financial assistance to satisfy their community benefit obligations.
Setting quantitative standards for community benefit spending.
Only seven states set minimum spending thresholds that hospitals must meet or exceed to satisfy state community benefit standards. For example, Illinois and Utah require nonprofit hospitals’ community benefit contributions to equal what their property tax liability would have been. Unique among states, Pennsylvania gives taxing districts the right to sue nonprofit hospitals for not holding up their end of the bargain, which has proven to be a strong enforcement mechanism.
Fewer Than Half the States Exceed Federal Standards for Billing and Collections
Hospital billing and collections practices can significantly increase the burden of medical debt on patients. However, the current federal standard does not regulate these practices beyond imposing waiting periods and prior notification requirements for certain extraordinary collections actions (ECAs), such as garnishing wages or selling the debt to a third party.
Requiring hospitals to provide payment plans.
Federal standards do not require hospitals to make payment plans available. However, a few states do require hospitals to offer payment plans, particularly for low-income and/or uninsured patients. For example, Colorado requires hospitals to provide a payment plan and limit monthly payments to 4 percent of a patient’s monthly gross income and to discharge the debt once the patient has made 36 payments.
Limiting interest on medical debt.
Federal law does not limit the amount of interest that can be charged on medical debt. However, eight states have laws prohibiting or limiting interest for medical debt. Some states like Arizona have set a ceiling for interest on all medical debt. Others like Connecticut further prohibit charging interest to patients who are at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level and are ineligible for public insurance programs.
Though many states do not have specific laws prohibiting or limiting interest that hospitals or debt collectors can charge on medical debt, all states do have usury laws, which limit the amount of interest than can be charged on any oral or written agreement. Usury limits are set state-by-state and can range anywhere from 5 percent to more than 20 percent, but most limits fall well below the average interest rate for a credit card (around 24%). At least one state, Minnesota, has sued a health system for charging interest rates on medical debt that exceeded the allowed limit in the state’s usury laws.
Interactions between hospitals, third-party debt collectors, and patients.
Unlike hospitals, debt collectors do not have a relationship with patients and can be more aggressive when collecting on the debt. Federal law neither limits when a hospital can send a bill to collections, nor does it require hospitals to oversee the debt collectors it uses. Most states (37) also do not regulate when a hospital can send a bill to collections, although some states have developed more protective approaches.
For example, Connecticut prohibits hospitals from sending the bills of certain low-income patients to collections, and Illinois requires hospitals to offer a reasonable payment plan first. Additionally, five states require hospitals to oversee their debt collectors.
Sale of medical debt to third-party debt buyers.
Hospitals sometimes sell old unpaid debt to third-party debt buyers for pennies on the dollar. Debt buyers can be aggressive in their efforts to collect, and sometimes even try to collect on debt that was never owed. Federal law considers the sale of medical debt an ECA and requires nonprofit hospitals to follow certain notice and waiting requirements before initiating the sale. Most states (44) do not exceed this federal standard.
Only three states prohibit the sale of medical debt. Two other states — California and Colorado — regulate debt buyers instead. For example, California prohibits debt buyers from charging interest or fees, and Colorado prohibits them from foreclosing on a patient’s home.
Reporting medical debt to credit reporting agencies.
Federal law considers reporting medical debt to a credit reporting agency to be an ECA and requires nonprofit hospitals to follow certain notice and waiting requirements beforehand. Most states (41) do not exceed this federal standard.
Of the 10 states that do go beyond the federal standard, a few like Minnesota fully prohibit hospitals from reporting medical debt. Most others require hospitals, debt collectors, and/or debt buyers to wait a certain amount of time before reporting the debt to credit agencies (Exhibit 8). Two states directly regulate credit agencies: Colorado prohibits them from reporting on any medical debt under $726,200, while Maine requires them to wait at least 180 days from the date of first delinquency before reporting that debt.
States Vary Widely on Patient Protections from Medical Debt Lawsuits
Federal law considers initiating legal action to collect on unpaid medical bills to be an extraordinary collections action and also limits how much of a debtor’s paycheck can be garnished to pay a debt.
In most states, hospitals and debt buyers can sue patients to collect on unpaid medical bills. Three states limit when hospitals and/or collections agencies can initiate legal action. Illinois prohibits lawsuits against uninsured patients who demonstrate an inability to pay. Minnesota prohibits hospitals from giving “blanket approval” to collections agencies to pursue legal action, and Idaho prohibits the initiation of lawsuits until 90 days after the insurer adjudicates the claim, all appeals are exhausted, and the patient receives notice of the outstanding balance.
Liens and foreclosures.
Most states (32) do not limit hospitals, collections agencies, or debt buyers from placing a lien or foreclosing on a patient’s home to recover on unpaid medical bills. However, almost all states provide a homestead exemption, which protects some equity in a debtor’s home from being seized by creditors during bankruptcy. The amount of homestead exemption available to debtors varies from state to state, ranging from just $5,000 to the entire value of the home. Seven states have unlimited homestead exemptions, allowing debtors to fully shield their primary homes from creditors during bankruptcy. Additionally, Louisiana offers an unlimited homestead exemption for certain uninsured, low-income patients with at least $10,000 in medical bills.
Ten states prohibit or set limits on liens or foreclosures for medical debt. For example, New York and Maryland fully prohibit both liens and foreclosures because of medical debt, while California and New Mexico only prohibit them for certain low-income populations.
Wage garnishment.
Under federal law, the amount of wages garnished weekly may not exceed the lesser of: 25 percent of the employee’s disposable earnings, or the amount by which an employee’s disposable earnings are greater than 30 times the federal minimum wage. Twenty-one states exceed the federal ceiling for wage garnishment. Only a few states go further to prohibit wage garnishment for all or some patients. For example, New York fully prohibits wage garnishment to recover on medical debt for all patients, yet California only extends this protection for certain low-income populations. While New Hampshire does not prohibit wage garnishment, it requires the creditor to keep going back to court every pay period to garnish wages, which significantly limits creditors’ ability to garnish wages in practice.
Many States Have Hospital Reporting Requirements, But Few Are Robust
Federal law requires all nonprofit hospitals to submit an annual tax form including total dollar amounts spent on financial assistance and written off as bad debt. However, these reporting requirements do not extend to for-profit hospitals and lack granularity. States, as the primary regulators of hospitals, would likely benefit from more robust data collection processes to better understand the impact of medical debt and guide their oversight and enforcement efforts.
Currently, 32 states collect some of the following:
financial data, including the total dollar amounts spent on financial assistance and/or bad debt
financial assistance program data, including the numbers of applications received, approved, denied, and appealed
demographic data on the populations most affected by medical debt
information on the number of lawsuits and types of judgments sought by hospitals against patients.
Fifteen states explicitly require hospitals to report total dollar amounts spent on financial assistance and/or bad debt, while 11 states also require hospitals to report certain data related to their financial assistance programs. Most of these 11 states limit the data they collect to the numbers of applications received, approved, denied, and appealed. However, a handful of them go further and ask hospitals to report on the amount of financial assistance provided per patient, number of financial assistance applicants approved and denied by zip code, number of payment plans created and completed, and number of accounts sent to collections.
Five states require hospitals to further break down their financial assistance data by race, ethnicity, gender, and/or preferred or primary language. For example, Maryland requires hospitals to break down the following data by race, ethnicity, and gender: the bills hospitals write off as bad debt and the number of patients against whom the hospital or the debt collector has filed a lawsuit.
Only Oregon asks hospitals to report on the number of patient accounts they refer for collections and extraordinary collections actions.
Discussion and Policy Implications
In 2022, the federal government announced administrative measures targeting the medical debt problem, which included launching a study of hospital billing practices and prohibiting federal government lenders from considering medical debt when making decisions on loan and mortgage applications. Although these measures will help some, only federal legislation and enhanced oversight will likely address current gaps in federal standards.
States can also fill the gaps in federal patient protections by improving access to financial assistance, ensuring that nonprofit hospitals are earning their tax exemption, and protecting patients against aggressive billing and collections practices. States also can leverage underutilized usury laws to protect their residents from medical debt.
Finding the most effective ways to enforce these standards at the state level could also protect patients. Absent oversight and enforcement, patients from underserved communities continue to face harm from medical debt, even when states require hospitals to provide financial assistance and prohibit them from engaging in aggressive collections practices. Bolstering reporting requirements alone would not likely ensure compliance, but states could protect patients by strengthening their penalties, providing patients with the right to sue noncompliant hospitals, and devoting funding to increase oversight by state agency officials.
To develop a comprehensive medical debt protection framework, states could also bring together state agencies like their departments of health, insurance, and taxation, as well as their state attorney general’s office. Creating an interagency office dedicated to medical debt protection would allow for greater efficiency and help the state build expertise to take on the well-resourced debt collection and hospital industries.
Still, these measures only address the symptoms of the bigger problem: the unaffordability of health care in the United States. Federal and state policymakers who want to have a meaningful impact on the medical debt problem could consider the protections discussed in this report as part of a broader plan to reduce health care costs and improve coverage.
Albert Einstein determined that time is relative. And when it comes to healthcare, five years can be both a long and a short amount of time.
In August 2018, I launched the Fixing Healthcare podcast. At the time, the medium felt like the perfect auditory companion to the books and articles I’d been writing. By bringing on world-renowned guests and engaging in difficult but meaningful discussions, I hoped the show would have a positive impact on American medicine. After five years and 100 episodes, now is an opportune time to look back and examine how healthcare has improved and in what ways American medicine has become more problematic.
Here’s a look at the good, the bad and the ugly since episode one of Fixing Healthcare:
The Good
Drug breakthroughs and government actions headline medicine’s biggest wins over the past five years.
At first, health experts expressed doubts that Pfizer, Moderna and others could create a safe and effective Covid-19 vaccine with messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. After all, no one had succeeded in more than two decades of trying.
Thanks in part to Operation Warp Speed, the government-funded springboard for research, our nation produced multiple vaccines within less than a year. Previously, the quickest vaccine took four years to develop (mumps). All others required a minimum of five years.
The vaccines were pivotal in ending the coronavirus pandemic, and their success has opened the door to other life-saving drugs, including those that might prevent or fight cancer. And, of course, our world is now better prepared for when the next viral pandemic strikes.
Weight-Loss Drugs
Originally designed to help patients manage Type 2 diabetes, drugs like Ozempic have been helping people reverse obesity—a condition closely correlated with diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
For decades, America’s $150 billion a year diet industry has failed to curb the nation’s continued weight gain. So too have calls for increased exercise and proper nutrition, including restrictions on sugary sodas and fast foods.
In contrast, these GLP-1 medications are highly effective. They help overweight and obese people lose 15 to 25 pounds on average with side effects that are manageable for nearly all users.
The biggest stumbling block to their widespread use is the drug’s exorbitant price (upwards of $16,000 for a year’s supply).
Drug-Pricing Laws
With the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Congress took meaningful action to lower drug prices, a move the CBO estimates would reduce the federal deficit by $237 billion over 10 years.
It’s a good start. Americans today pay twice as much for the same medications as people in Europe largely because of Congressional legislation passed in 2003.
That law, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, made it illegal for Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers—even for the individuals publicly insured through Medicare and Medicaid.
Now, under provisions of the new Inflation Reduction Act, the government will be able to negotiate the prices of 10 widely prescribed medications based on how much Medicare’s Part D program spends. The lineup is expected to include prescription treatments for arthritis, cancer, asthma and cardiovascular disease. Unfortunately, the program won’t take effect until 2026. And as of now, several legal challenges from both drug manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are pending.
The Bad
Spiking costs, ongoing racial inequalities and millions of Americans without health insurance make up three disappointing healthcare failures of the past five years.
Cost And Quality
The U.S. spends nearly twice as much on healthcare per citizen as other countries, yet our nation lags 10 of the wealthiest countries in medical performance and clinical outcomes. As a result, Americans die younger and experience more complications from chronic diseases than people in peer nations.
As prices climb ever-higher, at least half of Americans can’t afford to pay their out-of-pocket medical bills, which remain the leading cause of U.S. bankruptcy. And with rising insurance premiums alongside growing out-of-pocket expenses, more people are delaying their medical care and rationing their medications, including life-essential drugs like insulin. This creates a vicious cycle that will likely prolong today’s healthcare problems well into the future.
Health Disparities
Inequalities in American medicine persist along racial lines—despite action-oriented words from health officials that date back decades.
Today, patients in minority populations receive unequal and inequitable medical treatment when compared to white patients. That’s true even when adjusting for differences in geography, insurance status and socioeconomics.
Racism in medical care has been well-documented throughout history. But the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic provided several recent and deadly examples. From testing to treatment, Black and Latino patients received both poorer quality and less medical care, doubling and even tripling their chances of dying from the disease.
The problems can be observed across the medical spectrum. Studies show Black women are still less likely to be offered breast reconstruction after mastectomy than white women. Research also finds that Black patients are 40% less likely to receive pain medication after surgery. Although technology could have helped to mitigate health disparities, our nation’s unwillingness to acknowledge the severity of the problem has made the problem worse.
Uninsurance
Although there are now more than 90 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid, there are still 30 million people without any health insurance. This disturbing reality comes a full decade after the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
On Capitol Hill, there is no plan in place to reduce the number of uninsured.
Moreover, many states are looking to significantly rollback their Medicaid enrollment in the post-Covid era. Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that between 8 million and 24 million people will lose Medicaid coverage during the unwinding of the continuous enrollment provisions implemented during the pandemic. Without coverage, people have a harder time obtaining the preventive services they need and, as a result, they suffer more chronic diseases and die younger.
The Ugly
An overall decrease in longevity, along with higher maternal mortality and a worsening mental-health crisis, comprise the greatest failures of U.S. healthcare over the past five years.
Life Expectancy
Despite radical advances in medical science over the past five years, American life expectancy is back to where it was at the turn of the 20th century, according to CDC data.
Alongside environmental and social factors are a number of medical causes for the nation’s dip in longevity. Research demonstrated that many of the 1 million-plus Covid-19 deaths were preventable. So, too, was the nation’s rise in opioid deaths and teen suicides.
Regardless of exact causation, Americans are living two years less on average than when we started the Fixing Healthcare podcast five years ago.
Maternal Mortality
Compared to peer nations, the United States is the only country with a growing rate of mothers dying from childbirth. The U.S. experiences 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. In contrast, Norway is at 1.8 and the Netherlands at 3.0.
The risk of dying during delivery or in the post-partum period is dramatically higher for Black women in the United States. Even when controlling for economic factors, Black mothers still suffer twice as many deaths from childbirth as white women.
And with growing restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, the maternal mortality rate will likely continue to rise in the United States going forward.
Mental Health
Finally, the mental health of our country is in decline with rates of anxiety, depression and suicide on the rise.
These problems were bad prior to Covid-19, but years of isolation and social distancing only aggravated the problem. Suicide is now a leading cause of death for teenagers. Now, more than 1 in every 1,000 youths take their own lives each year. The newest data show that suicides across the U.S. have reached an all-time high and now exceed homicides.
Even with the expanded use of telemedicine, mental health in our nation is likely to become worse as Americans struggle to access and afford the services they require.
The Future
In looking at the three lists, I’m reminded of a baseball slugger who can occasionally hit awe-inspiring home runs but strikes out most of the time. The crowd may love the big hitter and celebrate the long ball, but in both baseball and healthcare, failing at the basics consistently results in more losses than wins.
Over the past five years, American medicine has produced a losing record. New drugs and surgical breakthroughs have made headlines, but the deeper, more systemic failures of American healthcare have rarely penetrated the news cycle.
If our nation wants to make the next five years better and healthier than the last five, elected officials and healthcare leaders will need to make major improvements. The steps required to do so will be the focus of my next article.
Last Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Labor jointly issued several proposed rules to shore up consumer healthcare protections, including reversal of a Trump administration policy that allowed consumers to enroll in short-term health plans, which were intended to serve as limited coverage options during transitional periods, for up to three years. Approximately 3M people were enrolled in these plans in 2019.
A new rule would limit consumer access to these plans to just three months, with an optional one-month extension, while also requiring payers to disclose clearly how their plans fall short of comprehensive health insurance.
The Gist: In an expected move, theBiden administration continues its unwinding of the Trump-era policies it sees as undermining the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) mission of guaranteeing robust, accessible insurance for all.
Short-term plans, which were granted an exemption from the ACA requirement that health plans cover ten essential health benefits, have been found to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, revoke coverage for enrollees retroactively, and generate excess surprise bills due to their limited networks.
HENRY KOTULA 