Aimee Carlock needed surgery in August 2025 to treat severe pain and bleeding from her uterus. But first, she needed to come up with $5,500.

Texas Health Resources, one of the state’s largest nonprofit hospital systems, told her it wouldn’t schedule the procedure unless she paid up front, Carlock said. The self-employed house cleaner didn’t have the money.

“I panicked because I live paycheck to paycheck,” she said. “I have no extra money whatsoever.”

Carlock borrowed cash from her best friend and parents. Her father offered money he inherited when Carlock’s grandfather died a few years ago.

Only after the surgery did Carlock, 35, learn she qualified for hospital financial aid. Her care should have been free, but the system doesn’t give full refunds. The $5,500 was gone.

Carlock’s poor health has kept her out of work most of this year. She took out loans for groceries and utilities and applied for food stamps. It will take years, she said, to chip away at what she owes.

“I’m just trying to pick myself back up,” Carlock said. “But it’s really hard.”

Hospitals have a tool to automatically screen people like Carlock for financial aid and grant them relief — a process known as . But if, when, and how hospitals deploy this tool is largely up to them; there are few state or federal requirements.

A found that in Texas nearly half of nonprofit hospitals say they will bill patients before screening them for financial aid. And most hospitals will not offer refunds to patients who pay and are eventually found to qualify for free care.

Many patients are unaware that hospitals offer financial help, often known as charity care. Others are stymied by onerous applications that require people to turn over financial information, such as bank statements, car notes, pay stubs, retirement accounts, and even divorce records.

“It’s like going through a tax audit,” said Stanford University health economist Neale Mahoney, who studies medical debt. “The current system is broken.”

An estimated 100 million adults in the U.S. have healthcare debt, according to a 吃瓜不打烊 analysis. That includes amounts people owe to hospitals and doctors, as well as loved ones, credit card companies, and banks. This debt can be life-altering, forcing people to take on additional jobs, push off retirement, or cut back on essentials like groceries and medical care.

Tradeoffs analyzed the financial assistance policies of all 166 nonprofit general hospitals and children’s hospitals in Texas, which has than .

The analysis is believed to be the first detailed look at presumptive eligibility policies of nonprofit hospitals, which . They get these tax breaks in exchange for , such as financial assistance. and in have questioned whether nonprofits do enough to earn those tax breaks.

Since 2020, a , including Texas, have debated or adopted requirements for hospitals to use presumptive eligibility in financial assistance to protect patients from avoidable debt.

“This is clearly an industry that is not policing itself very well,” said Tom Oliverson, a physician and Texas lawmaker who has proposed legislation to require hospitals to screen patients before sending a bill.

Automatic screening is a good option to help some patients, said Anna Stelter, vice president of policy at the Texas Hospital Association. But often, she said, there are other payment options, such as insurance, which hospitals need to pursue first. “Charity care is the relief of last resort,” she said.

Most Texas Hospitals Can Automatically Give Help

To identify nonprofit hospitals in Texas, Tradeoffs consulted state and federal records and a list of hospital policies maintained by , a group that helps patients apply for financial assistance. To verify policies were up to date, Tradeoffs scoured websites, often clicking through multiple links to find policies. When policies were missing, Tradeoffs reached out directly to hospitals and filed public records requests with the state, which requires hospitals to submit policies annually.

Tradeoffs’ analysis found that nearly every Texas nonprofit hospital can screen and proactively reduce bills when patients are found eligible for help.

Nationally, around 90% of nonprofit hospitals reported the same in 2022, according to an analysis of federal data for Tradeoffs by the independent research institute RTI International. That’s up from 72% six years earlier.

Hospitals’ use of automatic financial aid , in part, to the Affordable Care Act, which added protections for patients. The law created for hospitals that aggressively go after payment without trying to identify whether patients need help. Presumptive eligibility is .

Covenant Health, a five-hospital system based in Lubbock, was the only system in Texas to say it does not automatically grant financial aid, though its policy allows it.

Covenant doesn’t use the option “due to the regulatory requirements and administrative complexities,” said Ainsley Nelson, the system’s spokesperson. “Our focus continues to be ensuring compassionate access to care and helping patients navigate the financial assistance options available to them.”

Bill First or Screen First?

About 8% of hospitals in Tradeoffs’ analysis have policies that require screening patients for charity care before sending a bill.

Far more, 41%, say they screen patients before turning unpaid bills over to debt collectors or taking , such as garnishing wages, placing a lien on property, or denying further care without payment.

Southeastern Texas hospitals owned by , for example, will automatically wipe out bills only “after all other eligibility and payment sources have been exhausted,” according to its Texas financial assistance policy.

CommonSpirit declined an interview request.

Research shows the sooner patients get financial aid, the better it is for their health.

found that people were more likely to be diagnosed and treated for conditions like depression and diabetes and make follow-up appointments when they received financial aid within weeks of receiving care. of people who had medical debts wiped out after months or years found no health benefit from the relief.

The signal is clear, said Ray Kluender, an associate professor at Harvard University, who worked on both studies. “The timing of when financial assistance is provided by a hospital is just extraordinarily important.”

Some hospitals told Tradeoffs that what they do isn’t always written in policy. For example, spokespeople for and say their systems screen some patients before sending bills — though their policies include no requirement to do so.

When hospitals do wipe out patient costs after sending bills, about 40% say they will not inform patients their balance has been cleared. Just 8% require notification, and the rest say nothing about it in their policies.

“Patients will not be notified to inform them of this decision,” reads CommonSpirit’s policy.

Stelter, with the Texas Hospital Association, said many hospitals have limited staff in their billing departments and would likely prioritize helping patients apply over notifying those who already got help.

“It’s cruel to not notify someone,” said Erin Fuse Brown, a Brown University professor who studies medical debt. “Not to give them the closure to say you can spend that money elsewhere. You can buy your groceries this month. You can fill your prescription because you don’t have to budget for this.”

People with medical debt are three to four times as likely to delay future physical and mental healthcare as people without medical debt, a .

Hospitals Want To Help Patients — And Get Paid

Texas has for decades required nonprofit hospitals to meet one of a few they give patients — one of which is spending at least 4% of their annual patient revenue on charity care.

Research has found such spending targets have had mixed results. Some hospitals helped more patients, and others spending or , including training doctors and subsidizing money-losing but essential services.

The Texas Hospital Association in the state offers presumptive eligibility, but Stelter said screening tools can be unreliable.

Before they grant aid, hospitals want to know if a patient might be among the narrow population of adults who or if a grant might cover their bills — a determination that can require additional time and information.

Stelter also said that providing aid before sending bills could let insurers off the hook. Patients with insurance typically must spend some money before insurers pitch in, known as a deductible. Insurers can hold down consumers’ monthly premiums by raising deductibles, which have climbed to an average of for job-based coverage and for people on marketplace plans.

If they know hospitals will pick up the tab, “what incentive does an insurer have to lower a deductible?” Stelter said.

Hospitals nationwide are expected to come under since Congress reduced subsidies for many people buying health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, and are expected to push millions of low-income Americans .

That policy shift leaves hospitals to pick up more of the safety net, which they can’t afford, said Jill Horwitz, a Northwestern University health policy professor.

“It would be wonderful if nonprofit hospitals could solve the problem of Americans being uninsured or underinsured by paying for the free care,” Horwitz said. “But nonprofit hospitals do not have the money to solve what is ultimately a major federal problem.”

‘You Had To Pay It’

Becca Wahl said she knew nothing about financial assistance when she landed in Memorial Hermann Katy Hospital last October with a concussion after fainting in a Walmart.

“I just thought you had a bill and you had to pay it,” said the 33-year-old uninsured yoga instructor.

So when Wahl saw the $38,000 tab for her emergency room visit, she panicked. The bill was more than she makes in a year.

“I thought, ‘I’m doomed,’” Wahl said. “I just went out to get a birthday card and fell over. And now I have $38,000 of debt.”

Shortly afterward, the hospital called and revised her bill, offering its price for patients who pay cash, she said. That left Wahl with $11,000 in debt and a $1,000-a-month payment plan — better than $38,000, but still out of reach.

Desperate, Wahl went online and found Dollar For, which helps patients apply for financial aid. One week after Dollar For submitted Wahl’s application, Memorial Hermann wiped out her bill.

Memorial Hermann’s policy says its hospitals should screen patients for financial assistance before sending a bill.

Wahl agreed to waive her patient privacy rights so Memorial Hermann could talk about her case. But the hospital declined an interview request. A spokesperson told Tradeoffs that Memorial Hermann is “dedicated to ensuring that every patient has access to clear information about the expected costs of services, and available coverage options and our financial assistance program.”

Wahl is just glad that she doesn’t have to put her life on hold while she pays off that debt.

“The amount of stress that was lifted off of my shoulders by finding out that this medical debt was forgiven was huge,” she said.

Few Hospitals Give Refunds

Some patients who pay down their bills before hospitals wipe them out never get their money back, Tradeoffs found.

Roughly 2 in 3 nonprofit hospitals in Texas have policies that say patients won’t receive full refunds.

CommonSpirit’s policy has no requirement to refund patients who get automatic financial aid. Felicity Simmons, a system spokesperson, said in an email clarifying its policy that “refunds are case specific.”

A few hospitals say they will return amounts that exceed what the — a federal requirement for all facilities. That is the case at Texas Health, where Carlock paid $5,500 up front for her uterine surgery, before the hospital wrote off the rest of her bill.

Carlock’s $5,500 stayed with the hospital.

Carlock agreed to give Texas Health permission to speak with Tradeoffs about her bill. Texas Health didn’t respond.

Stelter with the Texas Hospital Association said hospitals follow for refunding patients. Those regulations require hospitals to fully refund some patients who submit an application. The rules don’t apply to those who got help through presumptive eligibility, experts on the regulation told Tradeoffs.

States Seek Standards

By July 2027, six states will require hospitals to use presumptive eligibility for certain patients: , , , , , and

Oregon has arguably one of the most aggressive approaches. Starting in July 2024, hospitals had to screen anyone who owes more than $500 and every patient who is on Medicaid or uninsured — . Lawmakers in 2026 amid and the law’s impact on hospital finances.

Hospitals in Oregon more than doubled the amount of charity care they provided, on average, during their first full year under the law, Tradeoffs found. That’s based on an analysis of available Medicare data from roughly two-thirds of hospitals. At OHSU Hospital in Portland, one of the state’s largest, the percentage of patients receiving financial aid jumped from 12% before the law .

In Texas, state representative Oliverson, a Republican, hopes his state will go even further than Oregon. He proposed legislation in 2025 that would require nonprofit hospitals to screen patients and provide aid before sending bills. Those that don’t would face penalties.

The legislation failed, but Oliverson said he plans to reintroduce it in 2027. The lawmaker said nonprofits are falling short of their obligations.

“If you’re sending bills to people that you know when you finally get around to screening them for charity they’re not going to be obligated to pay,” he said, “that should be grounds for losing your tax-exempt status.”

Oliverson said hospitals that already care for a higher share of low-income patients would be exempt from his proposed requirements. But he’s adamant that most nonprofit hospitals should be doing more to protect patients from unnecessary debt.

“If you’re advertising that you’re willing to accept uninsured patients and that you have a charity program,” Oliverson said, “you got to deliver on that.”

This story is part of , an investigative series from and 吃瓜不打烊 about how hospitals can protect their patients from the life-altering harms of medical debt. Read our full .

Melanie Evans is a reporter for Tradeoffs, a nonprofit newsroom reporting on healthcare’s toughest choices. to get the latest stories every Thursday morning.

Tradeoffs’ reporting for this series was supported, in part, by the California Health Care Foundation, the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and the Solutions Journalism Network.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

But in recent months, ’s proposed plans for a natural gas pipeline have exposed how population growth, here and across the nation, is driving a divide between wealthy newcomers and longtime residents.

Chatham has grown into one of North Carolina’s , fueled by an influx of new residents in its northeastern corner. Yet the pipeline would run from to , two communities where the per capita income is roughly $25,000 a year, or about half the income typical for the region.

And it’s raising familiar concerns. A from the Chatham County Public Health Department stated that “unjust, unfair, and uneven distribution of social and economic resources” in the county, including exposure to environmental hazards, limited people’s “ability to achieve optimal health.”

In September, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners , saying that “protecting public health, safety, environmental resources, and private property rights remains a priority.” states that the proposed pipeline could affect areas occupied by vulnerable, low-income residents. Under state law, Enbridge could still attempt to take land through eminent domain, and low-income communities affected would have fewer resources available to fight back.

The state Department of Environmental Quality typically would review applications for permits to build a natural gas pipeline. That department has not yet received a permit application for the pipeline, said Onotse Omoyeni, senior press secretary for the office of Gov. Josh Stein. The North Carolina Utilities Commission declined to comment.

Enbridge says the is needed to meet growing energy demands in the area, including Chatham, where the population has soared 21% since 2016, as well as neighboring Lee County.

Yet the proposed pipeline has set off protests at and attracted hundreds of people to a to express their opposition, many of them , retirees, or their relatives. They argue the pipeline would pose an environmental threat to wells used for drinking water and expose people in less affluent areas to that could increase the risks of cancer, preterm births, and asthma 鈥� all for the benefit of people who live nowhere near the proposed route.

“Nobody wants to be next to a pipeline,” Dorasue Burns Christian, a retired dental hygienist, told 吃瓜不打烊. She said the proposed route cuts across the roughly 22-acre farm where she has lived for more than 50 years. “I’m stressed and I can’t sleep at night. I have been pushed as far as I can be pushed.”

Enbridge Gas North Carolina is a subsidiary of the Canadian energy company Enbridge. Residents point to other communities in which Enbridge has operated 鈥� such as ; and 鈥� where oil spills and a natural gas pipeline rupture led to evacuations, injuries, and at least one death.

Enbridge declined an interview request to answer questions about the location of the North Carolina pipeline and the company’s safety record. In a statement, spokesperson Persida Montanez said the pipeline is needed to accommodate population and business growth in Chatham and neighboring Lee County.

A says safety will be prioritized during construction and operation, including monitoring, maintenance, and compliance with regulatory rules.

Many residents believe the company is attempting to profit from a , which many . The company website says that Enbridge does not intend to use the pipeline for that purpose and that serving a data center would require a pipeline at least twice the size of the one planned for Chatham.

The pipeline would connect to existing natural gas infrastructure in Siler City and near Moncure, the company said.

Still, pipeline opponents say they are fed up.

“They chose this route because they probably thought people would not fight back,” said Amanda Clark, a protest organizer who grew up in Chatham. Her family roots in the county date to the 1700s. “In rural communities, we are seen as disposable.”

鈥楥ollateral Damage’

Chatham County’s fight comes amid a in the natural gas pipeline industry and the of “American energy dominance.”

The U.S. produces more natural gas than any other country, about as much as .

Research shows natural gas pipeline leaks are concentrated in where people experience higher rates of poverty and physical disabilities and have fewer means to respond to crises.

Nationwide, there were nearly from 2010 to 2021 that were serious enough that they were required to be reported to the federal government, including fires and explosions that killed 122 people and injured more than 600.

In 2019, and six were injured in Kentucky when an Enbridge natural gas pipeline ruptured, according to a federal government report.

Enbridge reached a with the federal government after the 2010 oil spills in Michigan and Illinois. In the Michigan spill, a pipeline discharged 1 million gallons of oil into Talmadge Creek, in one of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history.

“No Pipeline. No Compromise,” read the red T-shirts worn by some of the more than 300 people who attended a Chatham County Board of Commissioners meeting in Pittsboro, North Carolina, in early August. Outside the building, they displayed signs that said “People NOT Pipelines” and “Save Our Farms.”

Under , private utilities and pipeline companies can , which give them the right of way to construct, operate, and maintain pipelines without outright taking ownership.

Enbridge will propose the final route for the pipeline based on field surveys, environmental studies, and engineering analysis, Montanez said. “The utility is also focused on delivering safe, reliable natural gas service that supports long-term economic vitality,” Montanez said.

Some residents, like Clark, argue that while the pipeline would power more housing and business development in wealthier parts of Chatham, it would create a public health risk in rural, poorer areas.

Clark, who works as the drug and injury prevention manager for the public health office in nearby Guilford County, said her great-grandparents were full-time farmers and passed down land near Siler City where her grandparents, dad, aunt, and cousin live.

Her grandfather retired from a hosiery mill and farmed part-time. He gave land to his children when they married, Clark said, because it was the only major asset he owned.

Clark said she is now in line to inherit land from her family and wants to protect the legacy of people who worked as farmers, mechanics, and schoolteachers from profit-taking by a company.

“We’re the collateral damage,” Clark said. “It makes people feel like they don’t have value.”

A Class Divide

Northern Chatham 鈥� which is an easy drive from major universities and , home to more than 250 companies 鈥� has seen a rush of newcomers.

Many have settled into places like , a community with boutique shops, gardens, and homes that can cost nearly $1 million. Another master-planned community nearby, , is expected to bring up to tens of thousands of new residents over the next 20 years.

Not far outside the county’s borders are Chapel Hill, home to the University of North Carolina; the state capital of Raleigh, home to North Carolina State University; and Durham, home to Duke University.

As those places have , Chatham has become a cheaper alternative.

But prosperity is fleeting in many parts of the county. A quarter of residents are considered low-income, and on average there are 24 candidates for every job opening, according to a by the NC Budget and Tax Center.

Christian, an 85-year-old widow who lives a few miles south of Pittsboro, spends her days on her farm, raising hay and caring for chickens, birds, dogs, and cats. She has received letters from Enbridge saying the company wants to survey her property, where she lives with her 66-year-old son, who has a disability.

Christian said she needs money to care for her son and worries that she may one day need to move to a nursing home because of declining health. She said she has been diagnosed with macular degeneration, an eye disease that blurs straight-ahead vision, making it difficult to recognize faces or read.

She had planned to make ends meet by selling multiple parcels of land, but she said potential buyers backed out once they heard about the pipeline. At the in August, she pleaded for local officials to try to stop Enbridge.

“They should be ashamed of themselves,” she told 吃瓜不打烊. “It’s disheartening. They are stealing from poor people.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

One way patients can avoid medical debt is through hospital financial assistance, also known as charity care. Most of the nation’s hospitals offer free or discounted medical care to patients with very high medical debt or low incomes.

Getting financial assistance, however, can be challenging. Many that hospitals offer financial help, surveys show, and leave others stymied.

Hospitals often demand that applicants turn over bank statements, pay stubs, tax returns, divorce filings, or other materials, and submit their applications in person, by mail, or by fax.

“They don’t make it easy,” said Neale Mahoney, a Stanford University economist who studies medical debt.

Such hurdles leave many patients with unpaid bills they should never have had to pay in the first place. In a single year, hospitals and health systems billed patients for at least , one analysis found.

As healthcare costs climb and more people lose their coverage, states and hospitals are testing an emerging approach to fix this problem: automatically screening patients to see if they qualify for assistance and proactively wiping out debt when they do. This is known as “presumptive eligibility.”

Under this approach, patients may have the cost of their care wiped out before they see any bills 鈥� but not always. Hospitals differ on when, how, and for whom they use auto-enrollment, potentially impinging on patients’ finances.

Here’s what you need to know about how auto-enrollment works.

What is hospital financial assistance?

In many states, hospitals for whom they provide financial aid. Eligibility is typically based on income for the patient’s entire household. The closer patients are to poverty, the less they have to pay. Patients with middle incomes and insurance are sometimes eligible for discounts, especially if their bills would gobble up a big chunk of what they earn.

require hospitals to wipe out bills for low-income patients, though income cutoffs vary. Georgia, for example, mandates free care for anyone with income slightly above the federal threshold for poverty. In several states 鈥� including Oregon, North Carolina, and Maryland 鈥� patients can earn double that amount and still get free care.

But in most states, many patients must complete applications to receive assistance.

Several states in recent years have and designed to make it easier for people to get help. , however, suggests gaps persist.

How many hospitals use auto-enrollment?

Nearly all nonprofit hospitals say they screen and automatically reduce bills for certain patients.

Under the Affordable Care Act, nonprofit hospitals must make reasonable efforts to find people who are eligible for help before they take patients to court, sell their debt to collection agencies, or ding their credit over bills. Presumptive eligibility is one way hospitals can comply with the regulation, which took effect in 2016.

In the first year under the new rules, about 70% of tax-exempt hospitals nationwide said they screened patients and proactively reduced bills, according to an analysis of federal data for Tradeoffs by the independent research institute RTI International. As of 2022, that figure was nearly 90%.

The federal law doesn’t apply to for-profit and public hospitals, which don’t have to report the actions they take before going after patients for unpaid bills.

In six states, policymakers require hospitals to use presumptive eligibility and skip applications for certain patients. Those states are California, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, and Oregon.

Who is eligible to be automatically enrolled in financial assistance?

In most states, hospitals decide which patients can skip the application.

Common groups automatically screened include people who are homeless, deceased, or already enrolled in state or federal programs to help low-income households with housing, food, or prescriptions. Other hospitals have more unique criteria, like , which will write off bills for anyone in a religious order who took a vow of poverty.

Eligibility criteria are often buried in official policies and hard to find or decipher. Some hospitals share little to no public information about whom they will proactively screen. Thirteen hospitals owned by Ascension, one of the nation’s largest Catholic health systems, state only that they may screen patients “with a sufficient unpaid balance.”

Across the half-dozen states with presumptive eligibility mandates, eligibility rules vary. Maryland, for example, requires hospitals to proactively wipe out bills only for patients who already get government help for food or utilities but are ineligible for Medicaid. In Illinois, lawmakers created less-stringent requirements for rural hospitals compared with urban facilities.

In Oregon, starting in 2024, hospitals had to screen anyone who owed more than $500 and every patient on Medicaid or who is uninsured. In 2025, roughly 80% of Oregon patients who got financial help with bills never filled out an application, based on data shared publicly by the first 26 hospitals to do so. The state’s legislature this year raised the screening threshold to include patients who owe at least $1,500 for a single visit.

Without an application, how do hospitals figure out who gets help?

Hospitals have several ways to find patients eligible for financial assistance.

Typically, hospitals turn to public records, any information patients have previously volunteered, or tools from consumer credit companies to estimate whether patients qualify to have bills reduced.

For example, if a hospital sees that a patient lives in a high-poverty ZIP code or has no address listed, that could be enough to deem them eligible. Many pay companies to run employment and credit checks on patients to determine whether they qualify for free care.

Hospitals may also consider how likely patients are to pay bills, regardless of how much they earn. This is called “propensity to pay.” California and Oregon prohibit its use, concerned that hospitals may try to collect more often from people who dutifully pay their bills even though their incomes qualify them for financial assistance.

When do hospitals screen patients for financial aid?

It depends.

Illinois, North Carolina, and Oregon require hospitals to screen certain patients before they send any bills. California hospitals will have to do the same starting in 2027.

Some hospitals voluntarily screen patients before sending bills; others try to collect money from patients first. As long as they screen patients before suing them for very overdue bills, hospitals can stay within the letter of the federal law that pushed many of them to embrace presumptive eligibility.

For example, the is to screen patients only “after all other eligibility and payment sources have been exhausted.”

Anna Stelter, vice president of policy for the Texas Hospital Association, said hospitals want to investigate other options for payment 鈥� like Medicaid or county safety net programs 鈥� before they give out financial assistance.

“We do want to make sure that whoever is financially responsible for that care is identified and pays,” Stelter said. “Charity care is the relief of last resort.”

Hospitals’ publicly posted policies may also be fuzzy about when they will screen for patients likely eligible for help. For example, in Fort Worth, Texas, says its goal is to determine a patient’s eligibility “as soon as sufficient information is available.”

Who pays the bills when patients get free care?

In one sense, we all do. Taxpayers cover some or all of the cost of financial assistance, though the amount varies by hospital.

About half the nation’s hospitals are nonprofit and legally get a pass on paying most taxes. KFF estimates that nonprofit hospitals in 2020 that they would otherwise have paid as income, sales, or property taxes.

Government-owned and for-profit hospitals have their own sets of tax benefits to help offset costs for low-income patients. Government hospitals often , and for-profit hospitals generally receive smaller government subsidies, like for caring for high numbers of uninsured and Medicaid patients.

Whether taxpayer dollars fully cover hospitals’ costs for financial assistance depends on the amount of government support they receive 鈥� information often not publicly available. It also hinges on how many patients need help, how many meet hospitals’ criteria for assistance, and how many get through an application. Research shows hospitals spend on financial assistance, from less than 1% of yearly expenses to more than 7%.

Philanthropy and hospitals’ income cover costs not absorbed by tax dollars.

This article is part of “,” an investigative series from and 吃瓜不打烊 about how hospitals can protect their patients from the life-altering harms of medical debt.

Melanie Evans is a reporter for Tradeoffs, a nonprofit newsroom reporting on healthcare’s toughest choices. to get the latest stories every Thursday morning.

Tradeoffs’ reporting for this series was supported, in part, by the California Health Care Foundation, the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and the Solutions Journalism Network.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

The migraine tormenting the 32-year-old in April was even worse than usual. After a week of piercing head pain, she went to an urgent care center near her home in Champaign, Illinois, and received an , a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug that usually helps with her symptoms. The doctor at the clinic told her that if the pain didn’t improve, she should go to an emergency room the next day.

It didn’t improve. So the next morning, Daniels’ sister took her to a nearby ER, at Carle Foundation Hospital in Urbana. She said the ER didn’t seem very busy when she registered at the front desk and was taken briefly to an exam room, where a staffer checked her vital signs and asked whether she had migraines frequently. Then they told her to sit in the waiting room until she was called.

She and her sister waited. And waited. By then, Daniels said, she was vomiting every 10 minutes, a during one of her serious migraine attacks.

After four hours, with no indication that Daniels would be seen anytime soon, her sister took her to another hospital. There, after a wait of about an hour and a half, Daniels was seen and received treatment, including more Toradol and anti-nausea medication.

Having left Carle without getting treatment, Daniels didn’t expect to be charged.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Service

Daniels said a staffer checked her pulse, temperature, and blood pressure when she arrived at Carle. She said she received no other services, nor was she seen by a doctor.

At one point while they sat in the waiting room, Daniels said, her sister asked for an ice pack for her head, but the staff wouldn’t provide one.

“ER triage is driven by risk of death or serious harm, not by level of suffering,” said Jennifer Robblee, a neurologist at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix and a board member at the Association of Migraine Disorders. “Migraine patients without red flags are unlikely to be prioritized, as they are not at immediate risk of dying.”

The Bill

$410 for an “Emergency Room Level 1” visit. Daniels said she requested an itemized bill showing how the hospital arrived at that figure but never received one.

This is not the first time that a patient has complained to 吃瓜不打烊’ “Bill of the Month” about receiving a bill after leaving a Carle Health emergency room without being treated. In 2023, Maggi Wettstein took her toddler to a different Carle Health hospital and was billed $445 for a nasal swab test for covid and influenza. They, too, left before getting treatment.

The Billing Problem: What Counts as Care?

Though Daniels left the emergency room after a four-hour wait without being treated, the hospital billed her anyway. Her health plan, provided through her job as a state employee, paid for her treatment at the second hospital but denied the Carle claim, leaving her on the hook for the charges.

“Under the terms of her health plan, claims associated with a patient leaving the facility against medical advice are not eligible for coverage,” Leslie Porras, a spokesperson for HealthLink, which administers Daniels’ plan, said in a statement.

When Daniels asked about her bill, a Carle representative responded in an email that said: “Effective March 1, 2026, Emergency Department visits may result in charges even if you are not seen directly by a provider. When you arrive at the Emergency Department, your visit begins as soon as care is initiated.”

The email said “care” could mean registration and nursing assessment, in addition to diagnostic testing and treatment. It said that even if patients leave without being seen by a provider, they may still be charged, because the hospital is using resources to maintain its staff, space, and equipment.

Carle Health declined to discuss Daniels’ bill or her care with 吃瓜不打烊, even though Daniels signed a privacy waiver that authorized it to do so.

In a statement, Carle Health spokesperson Brittany Simon said, “Our Emergency Department has consistent billing practices for triage care,” referring to the process through which patients are evaluated to ensure the most critical cases are treated first.

“Carle Health takes patient concerns seriously and supports transparency in our billing processes,” she said.

Typically, an ER bill would include separate dollar amounts for physician charges and hospital charges, said Amber Padron, assistant director of case management at the Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit that assists patients with chronic or life-threatening conditions.

Daniels’ bill listed a single charge, for $410. Under the description, it said “Emergency Room Level 1” and included the current procedural terminology code “99281.” CPT codes are used to bill for evaluation and management, or E/M, services provided by a medical professional. is the lowest level of emergency care.

But there’s a catch: According to the American Medical Association’s CPT guide, “Triage alone is not an E/M service; therefore, it cannot be reported with an E/M code.”

It gets murkier. According to Robert Mills, a spokesperson for the AMA, the physician charge for an emergency visit under that CPT code would generally be significantly less than $410.

“It is likely the hospital consolidated the provider-billed charge with a facility fee,” Mills said, referring to a fee that hospitals tack onto bills to cover their overhead costs, such as utilities.

Amid the billing uncertainty, Daniels is clear about one thing: The decision to charge ER patients who leave without getting treatment is recent.

In 2025, she went to the same emergency room with gastrointestinal problems. After waiting for several hours, she went elsewhere for care. She said that before leaving, her mother, who accompanied her that day, confirmed with the front desk that Daniels wouldn’t be charged if they left then. And she wasn’t.

“So when I went in for this visit in April, I had no idea I was going to be charged, because it was a very similar set of circumstances,” Daniels said.

The health system didn’t respond to a question about why it changed its policy.

The Resolution

Carle didn’t budge. According to the health system’s email to Daniels, “the charges have been determined to be accurate and fully supported by the medical record documentation.”

Daniels said she paid $25 of the $410 bill and has applied for financial assistance.

Meanwhile, according to HealthLink’s statement to 吃瓜不打烊, Daniels can contest her health plan’s denial: “Ms. Daniels has the right to appeal the decision through the established appeals process.”

She’s considering it, but she remains outraged about what happened.

“How is it ethical or even legal for a hospital to essentially bill for occupying a waiting room?” she asked.

The Takeaway

Don’t assume you won’t be billed if you leave a hospital before receiving medical care. You can check with the front desk about the facility’s policy, as well as ask your insurer whether it provides coverage for such bills.

If the hospital billing department isn’t giving you information about what services you’re being billed for, request your medical records, said Padron, of the Patient Advocate Foundation.

Furthermore, when your health plan processes a claim, you should receive an explanation of benefits informing you of that and explaining what you may owe. Keep an eye on your mail and your insurance portal.

When a claim is denied, filing an appeal with your health plan is always a smart idea, Padron said.

“It’s always going to be a no if you don’t appeal,” she said.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by 吃瓜不打烊 and that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Each year, Amgen, which makes the drug, called , sent the coupon card worth thousands of dollars, and that counted toward Gruber’s health insurance deductible and out-of-pocket maximum.

Using the card, Gruber usually met that maximum by February, leaving his health insurance to fully cover his in-network medical costs and reducing his cost for the drug to $0 for the rest of the year.

But this year, his new health insurer, , pocketed the coupon card and required Gruber to pay for the drug until he satisfied the cost-sharing requirements on his own.

If Oscar Health had applied Amgen’s coupon toward Gruber’s cost sharing, he would have been on the hook for about $3,000 in covered services. Without it, he had to use his savings to meet the plan’s $10,600 out-of-pocket maximum.

“The real insult here is that they’re taking the money that’s intended to help you,” said Gruber, who had planned to buy a home next year with his savings. “I feel desperate, pressed against the wall, and squeezed.”

Oscar Health is one of many commercial health insurers that use what are often called copay accumulator programs to keep funds that are meant to defray patients’ out-of-pocket costs for expensive specialty drugs. Over the past decade, more insurers have to reduce their prescription drug costs, according to Avalere Health, a consulting company.

Patients who rely on copay assistance from drugmakers are typically heavy users of healthcare for whom delays in treatment or worsening conditions can lead to higher costs, according to patient advocates.

, Florida market president for Oscar Health, did not comment on the specifics of Gruber’s case. He said the company uses copay accumulators to manage rising medical and prescription costs and “to keep monthly premiums as low as possible.”

Drugmakers argue that insurers and pharmacy benefit managers use copay accumulators and other strategies to delay or deny care and steer patients toward medicines that insurers prefer instead. Insurers counter that coupon cards and other patient financial assistance from drug manufacturers drive up premiums and encourage patients to use higher-priced, brand-name drugs instead of less-expensive generics.

Meanwhile, patient advocates say it’s difficult for consumers to find out if their plan uses a copay accumulator or to understand how they work. Not only do the programs make medications unaffordable for consumers, critics argue, but they allow insurers to double-dip.

“They’re collecting the money twice and they’re hurting patients,” said , executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, a patient advocacy group.

“Why does it make a difference to Oscar if they get the money from a drug company or, you know, his mother or him?” he said of Gruber’s experience. “They’re still getting the money.”

Controlling Costs or Harming Patients?

Not all insurance types use copay accumulators. Medicare and Medicaid prohibit copay assistance because federal anti-kickback laws forbid drug manufacturers from offering financial incentives to influence patients’ choices. And the Internal Revenue Service prohibits such help for high-deductible plans with health savings accounts. But individual and commercial group plans can use them.

Regulation of copay accumulator programs has fallen largely to states, which oversee individual and small-group plans sold on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

For 2026, of ACA marketplace plans have such a program, according to a review from The AIDS Institute, a nonprofit group that opposes the programs. Of the 16 insurers that sell plans on the marketplace in Florida, 10 use copay accumulator programs, the review found.

Patients who take brand-name specialty drugs for conditions such as autoimmune disorders, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, HIV, and cancer are most likely to encounter these programs. Health insurers say that making patients share the costs for specialty drugs encourages them to choose value over brand.

But Gruber doesn’t have a choice because there is no medically equivalent generic for Enbrel. Gruber’s livelihood as a trainer depends on his athleticism. The weekly injections, which he has to take for the rest of his life, prevent his joints from getting stiff. When he was diagnosed in 2010, Gruber said, he couldn’t shake hands or lift his knee to get into bed. Without treatment, he said, “I ache from my neck down to my toes.”

If manufacturers priced their drugs affordably, patients like Gruber wouldn’t need financial assistance, said , a senior vice president for AHIP, a trade association representing insurers.

“Drugmakers offer short-term ‘discounts’ to justify overcharging Americans in the long term, driving up healthcare costs for everyone,” he said in a statement. “Research shows limiting copay coupons can reduce premiums and lower consumers’ out-of-pocket costs.”

Sarah Ryan, a spokesperson for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade association for the pharmaceutical industry, said copay assistance helps patients access medications free of charge or at reduced cost.

“Health insurance is supposed to protect patients,” Ryan said, adding that insurers and pharmacy benefit managers that refuse to count copay assistance toward cost sharing are “leaving patients facing unexpected costs and disrupting their care.”

Insurance companies already have tools to control costs without keeping financial assistance intended for patients, said , deputy executive director for The AIDS Institute.

Insurers choose what drugs to cover, whether they are medically necessary, and if a patient must try a cheaper alternative first.

“They are the ones making the decisions,” Klein said. “Now the individual is left trying to figure out how they’re going to pay for it.”

Consumers Stuck in the Middle

Before moving to Florida in 2024, Gruber said, he had bought coverage on the ACA marketplaces in Illinois and Louisiana, which prohibit copay accumulators. Gruber said he hadn’t encountered one until his experience with Oscar Health.

He complained to the office of Florida’s insurance consumer advocate, which informed him that the practice is legal in the state and that Oscar Health had disclosed its use of a copay accumulator program. Page 127 of his 168-page evidence of coverage states, “Third party assistance will not count towards your out-of-pocket maximum or deductible.”

Gruber said he selected his coverage using a tool on that listed all the Florida ACA plans that cover Enbrel. “I always choose the one with the highest deductible to get the lowest premium,” he said, “because I know I’m going to meet it.” His monthly premium is about $315 after subsidies.

Adding to Gruber’s confusion, he said, was that his patient portal with Oscar Health was counting his coupon card at first. He said he met his out-of-pocket maximum in February, and in March Oscar covered all the cost for the medication.

But when he ordered his refill for April, the pharmacy told him that Oscar would cover only $1,000 of the medication’s cost for that month. He would have to pay the remaining $6,700.

Gruber then received a letter from Oscar Health, telling him that an incorrect amount had been applied to his deductible.

“They sent me a letter that basically stated they made a mistake,” he said. “The fact that they’re allowed to sort of change things midstream is also, I think, a little galling.”

He began rationing the injections, taking them every other week instead of weekly. By May, he had dipped into his savings to pay for the drug.

States Step Up While Federal Oversight Stalls

The first state laws banning copay accumulators were adopted in 2019, and since then more states have moved to regulate the programs, said , public policy director for the Alliance for Patient Access, an advocacy group.

“The goal is to build upon that progress at the federal level and to continue to drive this momentum forward,” he said.

Twenty-six states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico have adopted laws banning copay accumulators or prohibiting them for drugs that do not have a generic equivalent. Colorado also prohibits copay accumulators for drugs without a biosimilar. In states that have not banned or restricted the programs, insurance companies decide whether to use them.

But federal regulation of the programs, which would apply to all states, remains at a standstill.

A federal court in 2023 struck down a policy enacted during President Donald Trump’s first term that had permitted insurers to use copay accumulator programs. As a result, the Department of Health and Human Services reverted to that restricts their use to brand-name drugs with a medically appropriate generic equivalent.

After the court ruling, the Biden administration pledged to address copay accumulators in future rulemaking. But HHS has yet to do so, said Schmid, whose group, the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, led a coalition of patient advocacy groups that sued to overturn the rule.

“The Trump administration can stop this once and for all at the national level,” Schmid said. “If they really care about patient affordability, this is something they can do.”

Bipartisan legislation in Congress called the would require financial assistance to count toward deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs on plans regulated by the federal government, including much employer-sponsored coverage.

Schmid said the bill has not gotten “enough traction on the Hill yet.”

Other ways to obtain medication don’t help patients facing copay accumulators either. The president’s , an online platform through which consumers can buy prescription drugs at a discount, requires patients to pay out-of-pocket, and the cost does not count toward their plan’s cost-sharing requirements.

Christopher Krepich, a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spokesperson, said that HHS, along with the departments of Labor and the Treasury, intend to address the issue of whether copay assistance must apply toward health plan cost sharing.

Until then, he wrote, “the Departments do not intend to take any enforcement action against health insurance issuers or group health plans based on their treatment of such manufacturer assistance.”

Outside of government regulation, consumers have few protections or alternatives.

Patients who rely on expensive medications — and who have a choice in their health insurance plan — should research their coverage options and choose wisely so they’re not caught by surprise, Clingham said.

That may mean reading plan benefit explanation packages, contacting their state’s insurance regulator, or calling an insurance company to ask if their plans use copay accumulator programs.

For Gruber, the extra expense means he won’t take a vacation this year. He’s also concerned that the money he was saving for a home will now go to his medication costs instead.

“It’s the first thing I think of when I wake up in the morning,” he said. “If this happens every year, it would be financially devastating.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact 吃瓜不打烊 and share your story.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

“REMOVE ME FROM YOUR LIST!!!! DO NOT EMAIL OR MAIL ME ANY MORE!

“It is because of your animal based pre-term artificial baby food crap that you peddle to hospital NICU’s that my son is dead from NEC.”

The mother was referring to neonatal intensive care units and necrotizing enterocolitis, an often fatal condition in which intestinal tissue can die and allow infection to spread through the body of an infant born prematurely.

In an internal memo, Mead Johnson cited its “extensive quality and safety checks” and concluded there was “not a reasonable possibility” that the formula caused the baby’s death. “No further investigation is needed. This file can be closed,” the memo said.

And with that decision, the company narrowed the chance that the mother’s anguish could draw attention to any danger the formula might pose to other infants.

The mother’s email and the company’s memo assessing it were used as evidence in the court cases and .

When doctors, hospitals, parents, or others alert manufacturers that babies got sick or died while receiving infant formula, what happens next is left largely to manufacturers such as Abbott Laboratories and Mead Johnson Nutrition, giants of the industry.

Mead Johnson’s handling of the mother’s email showed how that can play out.

Under , if a complaint about an infant formula 鈥� such as a report of an adverse event 鈥� shows a possible health hazard, the company must investigate.

But it doesn’t always have to inform the government agency that oversees the safety of infant formula.

A company must complete an investigation and notify the Food and Drug Administration within only if it finds “a reasonable possibility of a causal relationship between the consumption of an infant formula and an infant’s death.”

If that happened even once over more than a quarter century, the FDA could find no record of it, according to information obtained through public records requests.

鈥楴ever Reported’

Under the Freedom of Information Act, 吃瓜不打烊 asked the FDA for all notifications that manufacturers of infant formula sent the agency per the regulatory requirement since Jan. 1, 2020. The agency’s Human Foods Program “did not receive any,” Kimberly Jones, a government information specialist at the FDA, responded in March.

吃瓜不打烊 then asked the FDA to go back decades further 鈥� to Jan. 1, 2000. “After a diligent search of our files, we did not locate any responsive records,” Jones wrote on May 5.

The FDA’s search results were consistent with court testimony.

John Wallingford, a paid expert witness for Abbott, testified in a Missouri court in October 2024 that Abbott had under any regulation for preterm infant formula.

that he was not referring to adverse events in clinical trials, which are studies used for research and development and are subject to different procedures. Abbott informed the FDA about adverse events that occurred during a clinical trial, .

Christina Valentine testified in a 2024 deposition that she never sent the FDA a report of death from NEC during her seven years as Mead Johnson’s medical director for North America. In the deposition, used in the Whitfield case, she said she never concluded there was a reasonable possibility that an infant’s death from NEC might have been related to a Mead Johnson product.

As medical director for North America, she was responsible for signing off on those determinations, she testified in the Watson trial.

In the deposition, Valentine said she wasn’t sure whether anyone else at the company sent a death report to the FDA.

In late May and mid-June, Mead Johnson spokesperson Jen O’Neill added to the picture.

“Where there is a physician report that includes an opinion that one of our products caused NEC in a preterm infant, we have treated that as a 鈥榬easonable possibility of a causal relationship,’ and we submitted an adverse event report to the FDA,” she wrote.

“These physician reports were generally made by plaintiffs’ paid experts, with which we disagree,” she wrote.

O’Neill left unclear whether events Mead Johnson reported to the FDA were raised in lawsuits and, if so, whether the company reported them to the FDA before they surfaced in litigation.

Asked repeatedly when Mead Johnson filed the reports, O’Neill didn’t say.

It’s unclear why the FDA found no record of them.

Nor would O’Neill say whether the company submitted one related to the distraught mother’s September 2016 complaint.

That mother’s name wasn’t publicly disclosed in the court record containing her complaint.

“[P]rior to the current litigation, we received very few reports relating to our products and NEC and even fewer for which our investigation uncovered any evidence supporting a reasonable possibility of a causal relationship,” O’Neill wrote.

Industry personnel have reacted to some complaints with circular reasoning, as shown by court records from the Watson, Whitfield, and cases. Company personnel didn’t think their products caused harm, and they didn’t view new cases as evidence of harm, records show.

鈥楻eprehensible’ Conduct

About 2,300 newborns died of necrotizing enterocolitis in the United States from 2017 through 2023, the equivalent of almost , according to a 吃瓜不打烊 analysis of a for those years. The database doesn’t attempt to explain what caused those babies to develop NEC, and it doesn’t count babies who survived NEC.

A wave of lawsuits has alleged that infant formula made by Abbott or Mead Johnson harmed or killed preterm babies by causing or contributing to cases of NEC. As of late January, 1,760 NEC lawsuits were pending against Abbott, company spokesperson Scott Stoffel said, clarifying a disclosure in a .

This article is based largely on transcripts, deposition videos, and exhibits from three court cases that went to trial in 2024. The lawsuits were filed by parents of babies who suffered or died from NEC.

Abbott and Mead Johnson have denied fault. They, along with various medical authorities including and the , have said that, when nutritional needs can’t be met with human milk, formula is vital.

One of the cases, , led to a against Mead Johnson. , Gill v. Abbott, led to a against Abbott. , Whitfield v. St. Louis Children’s Hospital, et al., led to a jury verdict in favor of Abbott and Mead Johnson, but the judge found errors and misconduct on the part of defense counsel, faulted his own performance, and .

The judge’s ruling in the Whitfield case is on appeal.

On May 5, a Missouri appeals court against Abbott, saying “we find Abbott’s conduct significantly reprehensible.”

“Throughout the trial, the jury heard evidence that Abbott knew its formula posed significant risks to preterm infants weighing under 1500g yet made little effort to mitigate that risk,” the court wrote.

On June 12, an Illinois appeals court against Mead Johnson and sent the case back for a new trial. The trial court risked prejudicing the jury by improperly admitting evidence about Mead Johnson’s finances, including its revenues, profits, and executive compensation, the appeals court said.

In addition, the trial judge gave the jury erroneous instructions, the appeals court ruled. Any negligence on Mead Johnson’s part hinged on a failure to warn, and the company’s duty was not to warn the mother in that case of any danger, as she had claimed, but rather to warn doctors, the appeals court ruled.

In April, after another trial, a jury in Chicago ordered Abbott to pay four plaintiffs a total of $70 million. Abbott is contesting that verdict and the Missouri appeals court’s decision.

In at least four cases, judges have in favor of Abbott 鈥� ruling for the company before the lawsuits reached trial.

鈥楤randing NICU Babies’

Abbott makes Similac products, and Mead Johnson makes the Enfamil line.

The two companies have vied to place their products in neonatal intensive care units, which serve as entry points to hospital contracts and the retail market, 吃瓜不打烊 reported in a March article based largely on records from court cases.

For instance, a Mead Johnson slide deck for a 2020 national sales meeting 鈥� later used in the Whitfield trial 鈥� outlined a plan for “Branding NICU Babies.”

The litigation opened a wider window into the business and regulation of infant formula, including adverse event reports.

“Abbott complies with all applicable FDA regulations on adverse event reporting, including by keeping detailed records of every single complaint/adverse event report Abbott receives and investigating NEC complaints,” Stoffel said in November. “FDA routinely conducts audits that include Abbott’s adverse event investigations and reporting as part of its active regulation of infant nutrition.”

Mead Johnson’s O’Neill echoed that.

“Our adverse event reporting complies with all applicable regulatory requirements,” O’Neill said in a November statement to 吃瓜不打烊. “The FDA audits Mead Johnson on an annual basis and has never identified any issue about our approach to reporting.”

The reports the company filed with the FDA were submitted through the agency’s regional office in Detroit, she said.

It’s unclear whether the FDA looked in Detroit.

FDA rules require manufacturers to send written confirmations in the Washington area that oversees infant formula and other foods.

Asked if the company sent them to that office, O’Neill did not answer.

吃瓜不打烊 requested an interview with Mead Johnson to clarify its statements about how it handled adverse event reports. The company did not grant one.

Plaintiffs have used internal documents from the companies to allege that, in house, people have long recognized a correlation between NEC and the use of preterm formulas made from cow’s milk.

For example, in a 2010 research proposal shown in a deposition used in the Gill case, Abbott scientists wrote that NEC “is the most severe GI complication of prematurity and the use of bovine milk-based fortifiers and formulas are believed to be the primary risk factor.”

A Mead Johnson document used in the Whitfield lawsuit cited “80% necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) risk reduction when human milk is used in place of formula.”

Abbott that correlation does not equal causation.

“Numerous studies and NEC authorities have made clear that preterm infant formula does not cause NEC; it’s the absence of human milk that increases NEC risk rather than anything harmful in formula,” Abbott spokesperson Stoffel said.

The FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health weighed in with a in October 2024, saying, “There is no conclusive evidence that preterm infant formula causes NEC” and “there is strong evidence that human milk is protective against NEC.”

Mead Johnson’s O’Neill said the scientific consensus is that there is no established causal link between the use of specialized preterm hospital nutrition products and NEC.

O’Neill cited a statement by the saying the causes of NEC “are multifaceted and not completely understood.”

In a legal brief filed with an Illinois appeals court in the Watson case, the company said “the NEC related risks” of a formula for preterm infants “are the subject of medical debate.”

Managing Potential Warnings

Court records from lawsuits shed light on how the manufacturers have managed potential warnings from the field.

Fabrizis Suarez, who was director of medical safety and surveillance at Abbott from 2006 to 2023, said in a January 2024 deposition used in the Gill and Whitfield cases that he knew of no instance in which Abbott notified the FDA that a baby had died of NEC that could have been caused by Abbott’s formula for preterm infants.

There were numerous cases in which healthcare providers told Abbott they believed the formula caused the NEC, but Abbott disagreed every time, Suarez testified.

Abbott tracks and reviews every NEC report it receives and looks for patterns, Suarez testified.

Courtney Colombo, who identified herself in a March 2024 deposition used in the Gill and Whitfield cases as director of postmarketing medical safety and surveillance at Abbott, likewise testified that she knew of no instance in which Abbott reported to any regulatory authority anywhere in the world that one of its preterm infant formulas was possibly related to a death caused by NEC.

Abbott from the FDA, according to testimony from Wallingford, a paid expert witness on regulatory matters who spent 10 years at the FDA. The complaints were in company files FDA inspectors reviewed during annual inspections, he said in the Whitfield case.

Wallingford also testified that inspections are for reporting infant deaths.

Questioning Wallingford in court, plaintiff’s lawyer Kevin Carnie Jr. invoked the cliché about the .

Wallingford declined to comment for this article. Valentine and Colombo did not respond to messages sent via LinkedIn. Valentine and Suarez did not respond to letters mailed to addresses that appeared to be associated with them. A letter to Colombo with signature required, sent to an address apparently associated with her, was returned unopened.

Not Publicly Reported

Adverse event reports can prompt the FDA to take action to protect the public.

For example, in 2011, the parents, caregivers, and healthcare providers not to feed SimplyThick, a thickening gel, to premature infants fitting a particular profile. The product, used to manage swallowing difficulties, might cause NEC, the FDA said.

The FDA first learned about possible problems with SimplyThick from physicians, according to an FDA document that an attorney for Abbott, Sierra Elizabeth, read from during the Whitfield trial.

The stakes for companies and consumers are high.

A finding under the “reasonable possibility” standard could trigger a product recall, said Martin Hahn, a regulatory attorney for Mead Johnson.

The FDA’s handling of adverse event reports for infant formulas 鈥� and fortifiers, which are used to nutritionally supplement a mother’s milk when babies are born prematurely 鈥� contrasts with its handling of reports about drugs and medical devices.

The FDA posts manufacturers’ adverse event reports on and online in databases available to the public.

But the notifications manufacturers are required to submit about formulas and fortifiers are not publicly reported, said Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA.

In addition, the FDA’s reporting requirements for drugs and medical devices are, in key ways, more demanding than those for infant formula.

Device makers not just deaths but also “serious injuries” that the product “may have caused or contributed to.”

Drugmakers are required to report any “” adverse event, “.” That fatal or life-threatening events.

The FDA also maintains a about dietary supplements, foods, and infant formulas, among other products, that includes from consumers and healthcare practitioners.

吃瓜不打烊 searched that database and found one death report that mentioned NEC and a formula made for premature or low-birth-weight babies.

The search turned up seven other reports of infant deaths that mentioned NEC and fortifiers designed for premature or low-birth-weight babies. One of those reports, obtained by 吃瓜不打烊 through the Freedom of Information Act, said three preterm babies at the same hospital had NEC and died within a month of one another in 2024.

The FDA cautions that reports are not verified and do not prove causation.

A former attorney for Abbott now leads the FDA.

Before becoming the FDA’s last year and being named acting head of the agency in May, Kyle Diamantas in the and lawsuits, court records show.

Diamantas “complies with all applicable ethics laws and regulations,” said Hilliard, the HHS spokesperson. “That included a specific recusal related to Abbott Laboratories, which concluded in January 2026.”

“During that period, Mr. Diamantas voluntarily recused himself from all matters involving infant formula to avoid any appearance of partiality,” Hilliard said.

鈥楴o Health Hazard’

吃瓜不打烊 asked the FDA a series of questions for this article. The agency left many unanswered.

“Infant formula safety is a top priority of the FDA given the vulnerability of the intended population,” Hilliard said.

吃瓜不打烊 asked Abbott and Mead Johnson for data on all infant death reports the companies received and those they forwarded to the FDA. Neither company provided that information.

Court records provide fragmentary data.

Abbott lawyer Elizabeth said in court that, before Wallingford took the stand as an expert witness, the company gave him from 2005 through 2022 that contained the search term “NEC.”

When Wallingford went through the files, he found that mentioned death and NEC, he testified.

If Similac Special Care products for preterm infants were a problem, and if only 1% of adverse events led to a report, “you would expect to see of complaints,” Wallingford testified.

In 2010, a registered dietitian at a Cincinnati hospital notified Abbott that three babies had died of NEC shortly after starting on an Abbott formula. The dietitian thought there might be a correlation, according to an internal Abbott summary of the complaint shown during Colombo’s deposition. The babies, who were about 17 days old, had no complications other than prematurity, the summary said.

After reviewing the complaint, Abbott’s Colombo wrote, as shown in a deposition video, that she found “NO OTHER REPORTS OF DEATH AND NO TRENDS FOR NEC REPORTED BY OTHER FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS STOCK CODE.”

“PREVIOUS COMPLAINT HISTORY INDICATES NO HEALTH HAZARD,” she concluded.

As for Mead Johnson, Valentine “testified that NEC was not one of the top adverse event complaints for Enfamil premature formulas of the 68 received between 2015-2019,” O’Neill, the company spokesperson, told 吃瓜不打烊.

Valentine 鈥� who was Mead Johnson Nutrition’s medical director for North America from 2014 to 2021 and parent company Reckitt’s chief medical officer from 2022 to 2023, according to a LinkedIn profile 鈥� signed off on the decision to close the 2016 file on the distraught mother’s complaint, according to an exhibit and her deposition testimony played in the Whitfield trial.

When she signed off, Mead Johnson didn’t know which of its products the complaint involved, Valentine said in the deposition.

Asked about it during the Watson trial in February 2024, Valentine testified that, in light of the mother’s request never to contact her again, it wouldn’t have been appropriate to call her back for more information.

Valentine “testified that she believes that the Mead Johnson complaint team appropriately investigated reports of death from NEC based on the information provided,” Mead Johnson’s O’Neill said.

Valentine also testified that the FDA encourages infant formula companies to send in all adverse event reports and that nothing prevented Mead Johnson from doing so.

As reflected in an email thread used in the Watson case, Valentine reacted skeptically in 2019 when a colleague told her a particular hospital wanted to exit its contract with Mead Johnson.

“They had 3 cases of NEC since they started using our formulas. They had 0 cases when they were with Abbott,” the colleague reported.

Valentine agreed to follow up but added: “Sad but please reassure them we are not seeing this with our formula 鈥� so no science basis for sure.”

Share your story with us: Do you have experience with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) or infant formula that you’d like to share? We’d like to hear from you. Click here to contact the 吃瓜不打烊 reporting team.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Can’t see the audio player? Visit kffhealthnews.org to listen.

Cara Anthony tries to convince her HealthQ co-host Blake Farmer that there are benefits to embracing the caregiver identity when helping an aging parent.

When his father was diagnosed with gallbladder cancer in 2025, William Morrison immediately went into caregiving mode.

“We were in the hospital every day,” he said. “I was really playing the intermediary between the medical staff and our family and kind of helping have those conversations and push for those answers.”

One in 10 Americans say they are a caregiver for a parent 65 or older, . And many people in the sandwich generation 鈥� those who have both children and aging parents 鈥� start their caregiving journeys like Morrison: stepping up during a medical crisis and becoming a family caregiver essentially overnight.

For other people, taking on the role and identity of a caregiver happens more slowly.

Researchers and experts say the spectrum of caregiving is broader than many people realize and that embracing the caregiver title before there’s a crisis can make a significant difference in this phase of life.

Worry Comes First

Being a caregiver can start long before you go to a doctor appointment with a loved one or move your parents into your house. “Oftentimes what we see out in the world is a very limited definition of who a family caregiver is,” said Denise Brown, a caregiving coach and the founder of Caregiving Years Training Academy in Illinois. Being a caregiver is “not necessarily around defining caregiving by tasks and chores, but about that emotional impact.”

Brown created a framework that defines caregiving as a . She said the first stage 鈥� the “expectant caregiver” 鈥� begins the moment you start to feel concerned about a loved one.

“鈥奩ou look into the future and you think, 鈥極h, I think someone’s going to need help in the family,’” Brown said.

When you start to get actively involved in a loved one’s care, that triggers the second stage, what Brown calls the “freshman caregiver”: “You’re learning the lay of the land. You’re learning the language of all the systems that you now manage. The best thing to do in this stage is to get comfortable experimenting.”

Caring for Parents Brings Different Stressors

The kind of care that Morrison provided 鈥� responding to an immediate medical crisis 鈥� catapulted him into the third stage of caregiving, the “entrenched caregiver.” By the time you hit this point, Brown said, “you can feel completely overwhelmed and swallowed up by the experience.”

that the stress is especially acute for people taking care of parents. The role reversal stresses the relationship: Caregivers who focus solely on children don’t deal with the tension linked to shifting power dynamics and other changes that happen when an adult child starts to care for a parent.

Burnout, defined by physical and psychological fatigue, was higher among caregivers of aging parents than among caregivers caring only for children. And for caregivers in the “sandwich generation,” who were taking care of both children and aging parents, personal burnout scores were even higher.

The Title Makes a Difference

Many people who perform care tasks don’t consider themselves caregivers, , but those who do are more likely to access support services and feel a sense of community with other caregivers.

“Anyone in a caregiving situation deserves support and help,” Brown said.

Embracing the role of caregiver early also allows you to have “really good conversations with people in your life” about their desires 鈥� and yours 鈥� as you enter this phase, Brown said.

Morrison, whose father died earlier this year, is about to enter his own sandwich generation era: He and his wife are expecting a baby boy in August, and he’s been stepping in to help his mom with housework and administrative tasks.

Morrison and his wife have already had conversations about making time for themselves and each other after their son is born. Morrison also wants to be more intentional with his own health, even if that means just going for walks.

People and Policy

Beyond the emotional strain, caregiving comes with substantial costs. On average, caregivers spend more than $7,000 a year on medical and other expenses to support a loved one, according to in 2021.

Some efforts aim to mitigate the financial burden. In most states, family members can get paid to take care of relatives who qualify for Medicaid. But state Medicaid programs face new pressure from federal cuts, and some states have pulled back funding for home-care programs designed to help residents with disabilities.

Meanwhile, a handful of states for unpaid caregivers. For example, starting in 2027, Connecticut will allow family caregivers who make less than $50,000, or couples who make under $100,000, to apply for a tax credit up to $2,000.

This installment is part of HealthQ’s reporting on caregiving among the sandwich generation. For more, check out the series archive.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

She spoke at rallies. With other members of the advocacy organization Compassion & Choices, she visited legislators’ offices. In 2024, as the state Assembly was debating the aid in dying bill, she helped unfurl a banner in the chamber gallery that read, “Stop the Suffering.”

Her activism was becoming difficult. Netherland, who is 59 and works for a nonprofit, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2019. “I did a full year of aggressive treatment,” she said. “Chemotherapy. A mastectomy. Radiation treatment every weekday for five weeks. Six months of two oral medications.”

She recovered and felt well until the cancer returned a few years later. Although metastatic breast cancer is incurable, drugs are keeping her disease at bay for now. Netherland feels fortunate but also fatigued, and she contends with brain fog, gastrointestinal symptoms, and joint pain.

“My energy is really limited,” she said.

As she emailed and called legislators, Netherland feared she might die before the aid in dying bill 鈥� first introduced in New York in 2016 鈥� could become law.

鈥楢 Breakthrough Moment’

On June 9, 2025, after the Assembly approved the bill, Netherland was in the state Senate chamber, watching the aye votes mount, and seeing it pass.  an amended version in February; it is scheduled to take effect Aug. 5.

A similar law is  in September in Illinois, which would become the (plus the District of Columbia) where medical aid in dying is legal.

“A breakthrough moment,” said Kevin Díaz, president of Compassion & Choices, which has spearheaded the long campaign for such laws. After almost 30 years 鈥� Oregon’s law, the first in the country, was enacted in 1997 鈥� the addition of two populous states means that almost a third of Americans will live in one where medical aid in dying is legally available. “It shows that there’s broad support for this model,” Díaz said.

Polls consistently back that claim. A  last spring found that almost two-thirds of respondents didn’t consider the practice “morally wrong,” either because they thought it was acceptable or not a moral issue. Support crossed many political and religious lines: A narrow majority of Republicans and 76% of Democrats both found “physician-assisted death” (also sometimes called “physician-assisted suicide”) permissible; so did most Catholics, Jews, and nonevangelical white Protestants.

In New York,  that 54% of respondents supported aid in dying, including majorities of men and women, of all age groups, and of city, suburban, and upstate residents. A plurality of Latinos supported it; Black respondents narrowly opposed it.

Passing these laws has grown somewhat easier, said Thaddeus Pope, a bioethicist and professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, who tracks such policies. “You can say, 鈥榃e have 10 years in California, 18 years in Washington, and 29 years in Oregon, and nothing bad has happened.’ It becomes more accepted.”

鈥榊ou Need A, B, and C’

Yet legalizing medical aid in dying, or MAID, has been and remains a long, contentious process. Catholic leadership and many disability organizations staunchly oppose it. (Pope Leo XIV personally  not to sign the bill.)

The American Medical Association says that “physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer” and poses “serious societal risks,” although a number of state medical organizations have opted to remain neutral or, as in New York, to .

The Patients’ Rights Action Fund, through a sister organization, has lawsuits pending or on appeal in California, Delaware, and Colorado, arguing that aid in dying laws discriminate against people with disabilities by steering them toward physician-assisted suicide instead of treatment.

“This is a litigation strategy we’ve developed to ultimately get to the Supreme Court,” said Matt Vallière, the group’s executive director, who declined to say whether it would sue to block the Illinois and New York laws.

Even when aid in dying laws succeed, using them can prove challenging. In every state (except Montana, where it became legal through a court decision, so there is no statute governing eligibility), aid in dying is available only to people with incurable illnesses who are expected to die within six months.

It typically involves oral and written requests to two doctors, with mandated waiting periods between requests. Patients must have the mental capacity to make the decision, which disqualifies those with dementia, and they must ingest the medication without assistance. (An amendment Hochul insisted on adds a psychologist or psychiatrist to the process.)

All but two states require patients to be residents. Oregon and Vermont scrapped their residency requirements  brought by Compassion & Choices. ( a .)

Moreover, any doctor, hospital, or healthcare system can legally decline to provide aid in dying, and religiously affiliated institutions often opt out. Those that participate can add their own requirements.

“The state can say 鈥榊ou need A, B, and C,’ and Columbia-Presbyterian can say, 鈥榃e also want D, E, and F,’” said Pope, the Minnesota bioethicist.

Hotly Debated, Seldom Used

Perhaps these restrictions, or a lack of public awareness, help explain why, despite the headlines and fervent debates, the number of people who actually use the law is tiny in every state 鈥� usually 1% or fewer of the deaths recorded annually. The support for giving patients this kind of autonomy at the end of life remains widespread, but the desire to personally exercise it apparently is not.

Still, after studies showed that many patients seeking MAID were dying , the trend has been to loosen restrictions. California cut its 15-day waiting period to 48 hours; New Mexico allows physician assistants and advanced-practice nurses to write prescriptions along with doctors.

“Most states have now amended their laws two or three times,” Pope said. “We have liberalized.” Telehealth can also facilitate access to participating doctors.

Compassion & Choices is planning legal challenges to end residency requirements in additional states, Díaz said. It is also considering how to “make inroads in jurisdictions with a much different cultural and political environment,” he added, mentioning Florida and other Southern states.

Medical aid in dying represents a shift in power, Díaz said. “The person who has to bear the burden of the suffering should have the ability to decide when it’s enough,” he added.

Anne Gurnett Bander, 72, a retired research scientist in Carmel, New York, cared for her husband for four years as ALS 鈥� the relentlessly disabling neurological disorder also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease 鈥� rendered him bedridden and dependent on feeding and breathing tubes. “By the time he died, the only thing he could do was nod his head,” she recalled.

So being diagnosed with ALS herself last year was “my worst possible nightmare,” Gurnett Bander said. She was planning to fly to Switzerland, where the nonprofit organization Dignitas provides medical aid in dying, when she learned about the New York bill and began speaking publicly in support of it, her voice faltering as her illness advanced.

Gurnett Bander and Netherland say they’re not certain they’ll use lethal drugs to end their lives as their symptoms intensify. Not infrequently, patients complete the necessary steps, secure the prescribed medication, decide they don’t need it after all, and die of their diseases. But both women insist that the choice should be theirs.

“It can offer so much peace of mind,” Netherland said. “I thought, 鈥楶eople should have this option.’ Now, they will.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

He had rolled his wheelchair to the oven to keep himself warm as he tried to regulate his temperature, she recalled, and was drenched in sweat from an apparent infection.

In that moment, Quette knew that she and her son’s grandmother could no longer meet his medical needs on their own at their Illinois home just outside St. Louis. He had become paralyzed when he was shot in 2023, and, despite their efforts, they struggled to take care of him. But she never imagined that her quick call for help that day would turn into a months-long hospital stay for her son 鈥� even after he was well enough to be discharged.

She said their family had been begging hospitals for a home health aide to help care for his wounds, only to be accused of neglect. “They were like, 鈥榃ell, y’all almost killed him,’” she recalled officials telling her. 吃瓜不打烊 agreed to use only her nickname to protect the safety of her son.

“I had to give up. I just couldn’t take care of him anymore,” Quette said. “It was just a lot on me. It was something that I was not ready for.”

Once his immediate medical needs were addressed, her son didn’t leave the hospital. His grandmother, who was his legal guardian, had died and the teen ultimately became a ward of the state. He continued living inside a St. Louis children’s hospital for what’s commonly called a “social stay.” Also referred to as hospital boarding or delayed discharge, the practice of keeping children in hospitals “beyond medical necessity” has become a persistent problem 鈥� flummoxing officials in Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Georgia, and beyond 鈥� when there’s no safe place to care for the child.

Finding homes for foster kids is difficult across the country. They have spent nights in casino hotels in Nevada and offices in Georgia . This problem even has a name: “hoteling.” But add medical needs to the mix, and hospitals become the holding station for some kids.

Many children stuck in this limbo have mental health or behavioral issues, while some have chronic physical conditions or disabilities for which they need technology, equipment, or other assistance.

“It’s definitely a national problem,” said , a pediatrician at Boston Children’s Hospital and the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ . “Every state has different options in terms of where kids can go post-acute care. But in general, there’s many of our kids with medical complexity who just don’t have access to the appropriate home nursing to bring them home safely.”

It’s gotten so bad that Missouri lawmakers have repeatedly to try to significantly reduce the number of hospital boarding days each year and eventually end the practice altogether.

Quette said her son was housed in a private hospital room while he waited for the state to find a place for him elsewhere. Other children spend weeks, months, and, in extreme cases, years in acute care hospitals while grown-ups scramble to find them safe places to go, according to Lynn Rasnick, a nurse and vice president at the Missouri Hospital Association. She said some children sleep on emergency room stretchers. They sit in windowless rooms. They miss school. And they’re exposed to all the trauma that comes through the hospital on any given day.

To keep young boarders safe, some hospitals hire “sitters” for kids with no place to go, while other institutions have passed along chaperoning duties to hospital workers.

But all that comes at a cost beyond the toll it takes on kids and families. When a child no longer needs hospital-level care, insurers don’t have to pay for their stay. Some hospitals eat the cost. Others ask the state for reimbursement if the child who is waiting for placement is in state custody.

According to the Missouri Hospital Association, the state’s Department of Social Services reimbursed $16.3 million to 19 hospitals for 9,943 boarding days last year 鈥� more than $1,600 a night. But association spokesperson Dave Dillon said that’s a substantial undercount of the problem and that hospitals often aren’t reimbursed for housing children.

One study found that boarding a child with a complex medical condition in Minnesota a day in 2017. And a 2023 Minnesota Hospital Association survey of about 100 hospitals of “unnecessary” patient stays for adults and kids at $487 million for 195,000 days of care.

Lin, the Boston-based pediatrician, said a shortage of home healthcare workers forces some families to keep their children in the hospital, even though they’re well enough to go home.

State Medicaid programs face new pressure from federal cuts in congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Medicaid, which provides healthcare coverage for those with low incomes or disabilities, is expected to lose nearly $1 trillion in federal funding by 2034, so some states are already threatening to scale back optional home-care programs.

Quette, a single mom who once worked as a paid caregiver and now works as a custodian, said her family repeatedly asked hospitals for a home health aide but was told her son’s insurance wouldn’t cover it. Her son’s paternal grandmother, who had helped raise him, was in a wheelchair herself at that point. Quette’s son needed his bandages changed regularly, and she had to turn him around in his bed every four hours.

“I had to wake up out of my sleep to rotate him,” Quette said. “And I couldn’t do it. I was oversleeping.”

Parents across the country face similar challenges. Last year, Georgia officials said 500 children had been and turned over to the state’s Division of Family & Children Services due to complex behavioral or psychiatric needs.

In Colorado, a hospital worker emailed a state representative for help after an autistic 13-year-old boy at UCHealth Longs Peak Hospital in Longmont. After his father left him there, officials told hospital workers that it would take months to find a safe place for the boy to go.

Last fiscal year, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services logged 304 cases of youth in psychiatric hospitals beyond medical necessity, according to an released by the state. About 43% of those cases were among patients ages 13 to 16.

This year, Missouri state Sen. , a Republican, introduced a bill that would require his state to move faster and pay for care when a child is stuck in a hospital. Similar bills died in committee and . This year, Burger’s bill remained stuck in committee when the legislative session ended May 15.

According to a attached to the bill, paying for hospital boarding could cost more than $148 million a year in a state that already to fund its upcoming $50.7 billion budget.

Over 18 months, the Mercy hospital system, one of the largest in Missouri, logged 2,687 boarding days, testified Patty Morrow, a Mercy vice president, in a March hearing on the bill. That included adults who also were stuck without a safe place to go.

“That was never really ever the intended purpose of a hospital,” Morrow told 吃瓜不打烊. “The current state cannot be the ongoing solution.”

The bill requires the juvenile court system to ensure that children are placed in “an appropriate setting,” which would entail involvement of social workers and other public servants.

Rasnick, with the Missouri Hospital Association, also spelled out the issue during the hearing. “You can’t just discharge a 9-year-old into the street,” she told lawmakers.

Quette’s son is still in state custody but no longer hospitalized. Illinois officials declined to let the teen share his story with 吃瓜不打烊.

His mother said she is still holding on to his brace, bandages, ointment, and other medical supplies in her home. “That’s all I have,” Quette said. “That’s the stuff I will never give away.”

This piece was supported by a grant from the Association of Health Care Journalists, with funding from The Joyce Foundation.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .