Within months, the state enacted a that required hospitals to proactively screen patients and give financial aid to those who qualify for it. Oregon’s new rules, which took effect in July 2024, required hospitals to skip applications for nearly all patients 鈥� a rarity among hospitals nationwide.

“They will be told up front, Hey, we got you,” said Democratic Oregon state Sen. Lisa Reynolds, who introduced the legislation. “You are here at a very scary time in your life because of illness or injury, and we got your back.”

The law worked.

Oregon Health & Science University’s hospital, one of the largest in the state, saw 64% of its patients automatically qualify for financial assistance in the early months of the new law, up from 12% previously.

In their first full fiscal year under the law, spending by Oregon hospitals on financial assistance more than doubled, on average, according to federal financial reports from about two-thirds of the state’s hospitals. That’s compared with their last full year before the change.

For patients, the switch meant direct relief from high healthcare costs, advocates said.

“They don’t have to have the late nights being like, how am I going to afford my mortgage? How am I going to afford these medical bills?” said Adam Zarrin, a director of state government affairs for the advocacy group Blood Cancer United.

Hospitals in the state have pushed back on the requirements, saying they , and they face added financial strain from the Trump administration’s domestic policy agenda. Millions of people are health insurance in coming years under cuts to Medicaid pushed through by Republicans in Congress.

Oregon’s early success is the first big test of a new approach that more states are turning to, known as . Hospitals skip the applications and screen patients automatically to determine if they qualify for aid.

North Carolina this year to include patients with income up to triple the poverty line. and are requiring hospitals to automatically grant financial aid by July 2027.

A Promising Tool To Prevent Medical Debt

As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. have healthcare debt, according to a 吃瓜不打烊 analysis. That financial burden can alter people’s lives, forcing them to skip prescriptions and follow-up care to avoid further bills.

Hospitals are a of that debt, and they have faced growing scrutiny over and billing practices.

Policymakers have focused specifically on nonprofit hospitals, which account for the sector. Nonprofit hospitals , in exchange for providing benefits to their communities 鈥� a vaguely defined standard under federal law. Many hospitals meet this requirement by providing free or discounted care to low-income patients.

That financial assistance, however, can be difficult to get. Applications can be onerous and confusing. Congress and state officials have spent years testing policies to and , with mixed results.

Research finds , as does the degree to which hospitals property, sales, or income taxes.

“Hospitals have been on the winning side of this deal for a long time,” said Reynolds, the Oregon lawmaker. “They enjoy millions and millions and millions of dollars in tax breaks, and that money is supposed to be then spent on poor people who can’t afford their care or even their copayments. It has not penciled out.”

Reynolds pressed for Oregon’s screening requirement, she said, to hold hospitals “accountable for what they should have been doing all along.”

Early evidence suggests the law is doing what Reynolds hoped. Oregon hospitals’ spending on free and discounted care increased to 2.7% of all operating expenses, on average, from 1.4%, among the roughly two-thirds of hospitals with available federal data.

That brings hospitals in Oregon closer to the national average for nonprofit hospitals, which from 2021 to 2024 was about 2.4%, according to an analysis by Johns Hopkins University researcher Hossein Zare, who studies the industry.

More Help for the Insured

Among those in Oregon who started to get more help: patients with health insurance.

OHSU’s spending on help for insured patients reached about $39 million in the first year under the law, federal data shows, about five times as much as in previous years.

Lawrence Furnstahl, then OHSU’s chief financial officer, said in a public meeting in January 2025 that, before the law, insured patients often didn’t apply for help and instead paid their share of the bills. The new automatic screening often wiped out or reduced what they owed 鈥� including for large deductibles that patients have to meet out-of-pocket before insurance will kick in.

Patients who pay hospital bills often still carry medical debt, surveys show, because many use from family, friends, or banks to afford their care.

A from the Commonwealth Fund found that 1 in 3 adults with private insurance have medical debt.

“It defies the purpose of health insurance coverage, which is to enable people to get healthcare when they need it and protect them from serious costs,” said Sara Collins, an economist and senior scholar with the Commonwealth Fund.

鈥楢 Very Different World’

For hospitals, the new requirements come as healthcare costs are climbing and federal support for the safety net is shrinking. Nationally, an estimated will be uninsured in 2034 as a result of President Donald Trump’s signature tax-and-domestic-spending law and the expiration of enhanced Obamacare subsidies that Republican lawmakers allowed to lapse at the end of last year.

Hospitals supported Oregon’s new presumptive eligibility law, said Sean Kolmer, an executive vice president for the Hospital Association of Oregon. But they’re feeling more financial pressure, with the organization expecting the state’s uninsured rate to 10% or higher in coming years, he said, up from about 3% .

“That’s a very different world,” he said.

OHSU saw costs rise rapidly. “It is a good thing, but it is an expensive thing,” Furnstahl said in a public meeting as he gave an update on the first months under the law.

In the first year under the new law, OHSU spent about $64 million on free and discounted care 鈥� of what it spent on operations that year.

The true cost of more up-front screening is hard to quantify, medical debt experts said. It must also take into account how many people would have never paid their bills anyway and how much hospitals save by not chasing payments.

Lawmakers said hospitals pressed them for relief, and in April, Oregon to ease the state’s screening requirement.

The original law required hospitals to screen everyone on Medicaid or who was uninsured and anyone who owed $500 or more. Lawmakers raised the monetary screening threshold for a single visit . The Medicaid or uninsured requirement remains.

Reynolds, who spearheaded the original law, was unsympathetic to hospitals’ cost concerns. But she agreed to the rollback because she wanted hospitals to have some relief as they fine-tuned their screening process. Oregon hospitals reported that their screening data was less accurate for patients with higher incomes, leading some people who didn’t qualify for help to receive financial assistance.

OHSU studied economic data for Oregon’s residents and reported that about 57% likely had incomes that qualified them for its financial assistance, slightly under the 64% of patients who were receiving help.

Hospitals’ warning of increasing financial stress was a motivator for Democratic Rep. Rob Nosse, who chairs the healthcare committee in the Oregon House of Representatives.

“I don’t want any suburban or rural hospitals to close on my watch,” Nosse said.

People who are no longer automatically eligible can still apply for help with bills less than $1,500, he said.

“I’ve got to make it more expensive for someone to get healthcare so that the hospitals can stay in business,” he added. “What a country.”

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.

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

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 .

“It was like I was underwater, like it took the most to do anything,” he said.

Meetze stopped taking the drug but endured fatigue and anxiety for months afterward, and his eyes and muscles twitched, he said.

He had taken BPC-157, a peptide drug popularized by podcasts about wellness, longevity, and what’s called “body optimization.” “Peptide” is a general term for substances that are smaller than proteins but composed of the same building blocks. Dozens of , including insulin and GLP-1 weight loss medicines, have garnered approval by the Food and Drug Administration. But BPC-157 and many others have not because they haven’t undergone clinical trials.

This fact hasn’t stopped online influencers from promoting them as remedies for muscle injuries, gut issues, covid, and more. Use of BPC-157 is growing in the U.S., particularly among white males, according to a of millions of de-identified electronic health records. Since 2020, the analysis, which hasn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, found that more than 1,000 people told doctors they had used the drug.

Meetze said he decided to take BPC-157 after listening to Andrew Huberman, a Stanford neuroscientist with more than 16 million followers on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, who talks up peptides frequently . Studies in mice suggest that BPC-157 helps muscles heal and has “very high safety profiles,” Huberman , “at least, with respect to the lethal dosing.” His guest on , Craig Koniver, a doctor who sells peptides through his wellness clinic, called BPC-157 “super safe” and recommended it for “anyone who’s working out on a regular basis.” Koniver did not respond to requests for comment.

Huberman didn’t respond to multiple queries from 吃瓜不打烊, but an automatic reply on his Huberman Lab website that says the podcast doesn’t constitute medical advice: “Any reliance on information provided through the podcast is solely at the user’s own risk.”

Hoping BPC-157 might help him advance as a weightlifter, Meetze said he bought the drug last year from an online vendor, Researchem. A chemical supply company with that name sells experimental peptides , warning that the substances are “solely for laboratory research” and are “not intended for human consumption.” (It lists an address in Hillsboro, Oregon, that corresponds to a shared office space. A receptionist at the space said Researchem wasn’t registered there, and multiple queries from 吃瓜不打烊 to the email address listed on the website went unanswered.)

Companies are required to warn that experimental peptides, which haven’t been approved by the FDA, are for research use only. But many companies may soon be permitted to drop the warning because of a push by health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lower barriers to their use. He and other leaders of the Make America Healthy Again movement have promoted peptides as a way to improve the country’s health.

On the social media platform X, before he took the helm at the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy the “aggressive suppression” of “peptides, stem cells, raw milk” and “anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.” (In fact, peptides are heavily patented.)

He has repeated the pledge since taking office. On early this year, Kennedy said he was a “big fan” of peptides and wanted to make many of them “more accessible.” On a podcast with the co-chair of the MAHA Action committee, Gary Brecka, the FDA’s role should be to assess science, “but not tell people and not tell physicians what they can and cannot prescribe.”

“If you want to take an experimental drug,” he added, “you ought to be able to do that.”

This summer, Kennedy’s health department with financial stakes in the peptide industry to a panel that advises the FDA. At an in July, the new appointees voted to ease restrictions on six experimental peptides, including the trendy compounds BPC-157, TB-500, and MOTS-c. Specifically, they advised adding these peptides to a list, called 503A, that would allow specialized pharmacies to make the drugs for human use, even though the FDA hasn’t approved them.

In an email, HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard wrote that every committee member satisfies the FDA’s ethics requirements. “FDA — not podcasts or politics — determines which substances qualify for inclusion on the 503A Bulks List,” she wrote. The FDA has yet to issue a final decision.

The vote went against FDA scientists who on the six peptides, concluding there wasn’t enough evidence to show they improved any condition. Furthermore, the scientists highlighted a potential for liver damage, allergic reactions, or other serious consequences.

“People are saying this is about medical freedom — putting decisions back in the hands of patients,” said Reshma Ramachandran, a regulatory science researcher at Yale School of Medicine. “But what we see in practice is that incentives aren’t actually centered around patients. They’re centered around selling products.”

Scientists also warned that drugmakers would be reluctant to invest millions of dollars into clinical trials on peptides if they could be sold without FDA approval.

“The chances of clinical trials getting done now are diminished,” said Eric Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research, a biomedical science institute in San Diego. “We will have more people who are prey to predators that will sell, sell, sell.”

A lack of data leaves consumers in the dark.

Meetze sought help on Reddit, where people post about pain, headaches, vision problems, and a lack of motivation after taking experimental peptides. Peptide enthusiasts often comment on these posts with skepticism, attributing a person’s problems to contaminated products, preexisting conditions, or misuse of the drugs. The online vitriol in the Reddit conversations can be intense, so Meetze welcomed an invitation to join a private group on the social platform Discord in which people with BPC-157 side effects tried to figure out what happened to them and how to fix it.

“There are millions of success stories with these peptides,” Meetze said, “but no one wants to believe that this wrecks some of our lives.”

Wolverines and Migraines

One member of the private side-effects group, a 46-year-old software engineer named Dominik E., said he got an excruciating migraine within days of taking BPC-157 with TB-4, another unapproved peptide — a combination called the “Wolverine Stack” because of its purported ability to heal wounds rapidly, like its namesake Marvel superhero.

“My left eye started throbbing really badly, and the left side of my face became numb,” he told 吃瓜不打烊, which agreed to only partially identify him and others interviewed for this article who were concerned about divulging sensitive health information.

After two months of migraines, Dominik said, the pain eased, but his face felt inflamed. “It is a total nightmare,” he said.

“I’m afraid how people will judge me,” said Lois S., a woman who works at a Michigan elementary school. She hoped BPC-157 and another unapproved peptide, retatrutide, would help with weight loss, but she stopped taking the treatment when she felt pain.

“I sought out this substance from a lab that clearly labeled it not for human use, purchased a syringe, and injected this in my kitchen,” she said. “That belies all logic about what a normal person would do.”

Peptide proponents argue that shoddy manufacturing — not the peptides — causes harm. Therefore, they say, the FDA must protect the public by allowing doctors to prescribe peptides made for human use by pharmacies that specialize in . Typically, compounding pharmacies manufacture alternatives to FDA-approved drugs so a patient can, say, get a liquid version of a drug that the original manufacturer makes only as pills.

Adding unapproved peptides to the FDA’s list of compoundable drugs would mark a departure from the list’s purpose, said Peter Lurie, a former FDA official who now directs the advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest. He noted that federal and state oversight for compounding pharmacies is often lax, and they’ve been .

Furthermore, he added, the move would mislead consumers into thinking they’re buying drugs backed by clinical trials. People promoting peptides often point to promising laboratory research as evidence. Rats with spinal injuries after BPC-157 injections, for example, and old mice given the experimental could run longer. On average, however, fewer than 10% of substances that show promise in animal studies prove effective in clinical trials.

“A lot of this pseudoscience stuff sounds deeply impressive — inflammation this and telomere that — but at the end of the day, none of it really matters,” Lurie said. “You’ve got to show clinical benefit in humans: Does it work?”

Peptide promoters lean on anecdotes, often without verifiable numbers. In a at the White House, the MAHA influencer Brecka said: “Twenty million people have been prescribed these things without adverse events.” His guest on the episode, Brigham Buhler — who is the co-author of The Peptide Revolution and owner of a compounding pharmacy that sells peptides and a clinic, Ways2Well, that prescribes them — told Brecka that none of its 75,000-plus patients had reported adverse events from peptides.

Buhler cited even higher numbers in the movie , a documentary featuring Kennedy and other leaders of the MAHA movement and that bears the MAHA trademark. In the segment on peptides, Buhler said: “Having treated literally hundreds of thousands of people through our compounding pharmacy, we’ve never had a major adverse event.”

Topol asks why those boasting success haven’t conducted clinical studies. “If influencers and companies really believe these peptides are helping people,” Topol said, “then they should put their profits back into rigorous research.”

Chris Woodward, a spokesperson for Brecka and his company, the Ultimate Human, said in an email that the health and wellness issues discussed on Brecka’s podcast do not constitute medical advice. “Mr. Brecka consistently advises his audience to consult a licensed physician,” Woodward wrote. Buhler did not respond to requests for comment.

Not all anecdotes are rosy. At an antiaging conference last summer in Las Vegas, two women were rushed to the hospital and intubated after being injected with experimental peptides and vitamins, according to citations that Nevada’s state pharmacy board issued against the doctor running the booth and his colleagues for prescribing and administering drugs without a state medical license.

An for adverse events contains concerning reports. Although the database can’t prove that a drug, vaccine, or medical device caused harm — the reports are brief, unverified, and voluntary — it signals issues worth exploring. A 36-year-old woman was hospitalized in December after taking the experimental peptide BPC-157 for weight control and a skin disorder, for example, and a 48-year-old man was hospitalized with a “life-threatening” condition after taking the peptide.

FDA scientists presented some of these reports at the July meeting and flagged worrisome outcomes in animal experiments, such as a revealing signs of liver toxicity in rats and dogs injected with BPC-157.

Brian Lee, a liver disease specialist at the University of Southern California, was among the panel’s minority who voted against easing restrictions. Without clinical studies, he said, afflictions that take time to develop, like liver damage and cancer, might not be spotted for years: “I think this endorsement can be potentially harmful, and I cannot in good conscience vote ‘yes.’”

The panel’s newcomers disagreed. “I do not believe the FDA made a good case on issues with safety with BPC,” said Kris Wusterhausen, founder of an antiaging company in Texas, the Resurge Clinic, which sells a BPC-157 product for $149.

“Once you’ve seen the effects of BPC,” he said, “you can’t unsee it.”

Awaiting Trial

Deepak Srivastava, president of the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, designed a clinical trial two decades ago to see if a peptide he studies, TB-4, could repair tissue after a heart attack. Before enrollment, people volunteering for the study would be screened for early signs of cancer because TB-4 triggers vessel growth and cell migration, which might exacerbate malignant growths. He worries about the FDA panel’s vote to ease restrictions on a derivative of TB-4, before such trials have been completed, saying, “You need to have a healthy respect for the fact that drugs can be harmful.”

Pinchas Cohen, a peptide researcher at the University of Southern California, was less cautious, saying the FDA buzz might drive investors to fund trials. He’s seeking support to bring a peptide his lab identified, MOTS-c, to market. It’s “un-ideal” for people to take unproven drugs, Cohen said, but that’s what’s happening: “The world is changing and people like me need to accept that this is the new reality and find ways to make it as safe as possible.”

In the meantime, people like Meetze resort to podcasts and online forums for advice. His symptoms faded after a year, but he still had spells of feeling “zero emotions.”

Peptide users describe this condition as anhedonia. It’s come up on .

Huberman occasionally mentions other potential peptide risks, like cancer, sprinkling them into advice on how to take them. Take a with 1.2 million views: “I do not think that BPC-157 is not without its quote-unquote ‘side effects,’” Huberman says. “If you’re going to go down this path of taking BPC-157, I would encourage you to take the minimal effective dose, to not simply do it every day, and certainly to not do it continuously, and of course to monitor your other health metrics for anything that could potentially resemble cancer or tumor growth, because obviously stimulating angiogenesis for wound repair sounds like a great thing, recovering and being able to do your workouts or play your sport, or move about more comfortably, of course, a wonderfully attractive thing to do.”

“Isn’t that what we all want? But obviously not with the trade-off of growing a tumor,” he said, before interrupting the discussion to advertise a supplement company sponsoring the show.

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

But Democratic strongholds across the country 鈥� including Oregon, California, , and 鈥� have more ambitious goals: single-payer, universal healthcare systems.

No state is closer to that goal than Oregon. A panel created by the state legislature in 2023 is slated to send lawmakers its proposal for a universal health plan by Dec. 1. The nine-person seeks to establish, starting in 2032, medical, vision, dental, and mental health benefits for every state resident from cradle to grave 鈥� with no premiums, deductibles, or copayments. Lawmakers could vote on a plan during the 2027 legislative session or refer it to voters as a ballot measure in 2028.

If approved, the state would be the first in the U.S. to implement what’s called a single-payer health coverage system. It could serve as a model for other states 鈥� and potentially the nation.

Proponents of the proposal argue that the public supports universal healthcare more than ever as healthcare spending and complexity grow. patients often delay care due to out-of-pocket costs. And medical debt remains a in the nation.

States have often served as laboratories to test health policies later implemented nationally. The Affordable Care Act was modeled after Massachusetts’ attempt to achieve universal health insurance coverage, once single-payer efforts there stalled. And Canada’s universal healthcare system began with a provincial plan in Saskatchewan.

“In the short to medium term, there is no chance that 鈥楳edicare for All’ can be passed at the national level,” said , a University of North Carolina health policy professor. “That’s where the states come in. A state like Oregon provides a more hospitable political environment and a more realistic path to single-payer reform.”

But advocates of the plan expect a significant fight from healthcare behemoths, including large hospital systems, seeking to sour public opinion on making such widespread changes. are health insurers. The industry’s deep pockets have helped derail myriad universal healthcare efforts at the federal and state levels.

In 2011, the Vermont Legislature voted to implement a universal healthcare plan but, three years later, Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin, who had campaigned on the promise of single-payer, pulled the plug, citing “potential economic disruption.”

States that took the issue directly to voters have fared no better. Ballot measures in in 2016, in 2002, and in 1994 all failed by large margins.

“The aspirations of progressive reformers usually run smack into sobering political realities,” Oberlander said. “Translating a slogan into a legislative and political reality is a daunting task.”

Redirected Healthcare Dollars

Oregon’s proposal seeks to maintain the current level of spending on healthcare by government, business, and consumers with new corporate and personal taxes to replace insurance premiums and other out-of-pocket costs. Those would be combined with federal and state spending to create a single fund from which all hospitals, doctors, and other practitioners would be paid.

Board members said savings from cutting red tape, reducing fraud, and negotiating drug costs should allow the state to provide better benefits to more people.

In , the board estimated that a 30-year-old making $55,000 and purchasing a benchmark silver-level plan through the Affordable Care Act now pays $5,478 a year for insurance premiums in Oregon, but instead could pay $2,331 in taxes under the proposed plan.

Someone making $55,000 a year with coverage through their employer now pays $3,063 in premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Under the draft plan, that person could pay nothing for health services and could see any doctor in the state.

Currently, many employers pay much of the health insurance costs for their workers. The plan seeks to maintain those contributions by establishing a corporate payroll tax for companies whose payrolls exceed $500,000. Their employees could receive a partial tax credit for the taxes their employers pay. As a result, 31% to 60% of Oregonians wouldn’t pay anything for health benefits.

More affluent people, however, could end up paying more than they do now. The exact numbers would depend on how lawmakers set tax rates and payment thresholds.

“What we are proposing is something very different,” said , executive director of the Oregon board. “Everyone contributes based on the amount that they are able to contribute and not based on utilization.”

Messaging Challenge Lies Ahead

The plan’s backers will try to convince hospitals and health systems that they would benefit from reducing red tape and eliminating unpaid bills. Currently, hospitals to bill dozens of public and private health plans, each with its own coverage and billing rules. A single plan covering everyone in the state could streamline the process, saving billions.

Rural hospitals could gain financial stability. They now often struggle to stay afloat because they typically have higher rates of patients who are uninsured or on Medicaid, with its often low reimbursement rates.

Hospitals aren’t so sure.

“The universal health plan proposal preserves much of the broken, fragmented status quo and adds new taxes and complexity that Oregonians can’t afford,” said Becky Hultberg, president and CEO of the . “With federal policy changes looming, we are entering a period of tremendous upheaval. This proposal could destabilize a system that is already struggling.”

Under the proposal, doctors and other practitioners would be paid somewhere between what Medicare pays on the low end and what private insurance pays on the high end. Although total payments to doctors would remain unchanged, rates would be negotiated with physician groups to shift more money into primary care and less into specialty services.

But it is unclear whether doctors would agree that more patient time, fewer administrative hurdles, and no more unpaid bills would be worth a payment structure that could cause specialists to lose out.

“There’s always winners and losers in designing something like this, and so how to distribute those is the hardest part,” said , an associate health policy professor at Pacific University who is slated to join the Oregon board in January. “But the second-hardest part is, I think, messaging this.”

Courtni Dresser, vice president of government relations for the , said her physicians group shares many of the board’s goals in improving access to care and reducing administrative burdens. But the group has yet to declare its support or opposition to the effort.

Health insurers haven’t formally weighed in on Oregon’s proposal either, but a single-payer system would, in essence, close off Oregon to any private healthcare plans.

“We expect insurance companies to put every ounce of money they can against this idea because our system is broken and they profit from it,” said Collin Stackhouse, communications coordinator for , a consumer group advocating for universal healthcare.

, a former insurance company executive who now works to expose industry influence, said he expects health plans to hammer the Oregon proposal with claims of high taxes, loss of choice, and the specter of “socialized medicine.”

“Most people go year to year without testing the limits of their health insurance policy,” Potter said. “And so, they’re easily scared into thinking that something valuable will be taken away from them, and that they will have something that’s inferior in its place.”

Health insurers argue their health plans help shield consumers from the full impact of rising healthcare costs.

“Americans consistently report strong satisfaction with their health coverage, including more than 180 million covered through work and 36 million who choose Medicare Advantage,” said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for the health insurance . “Policy solutions are needed to rein in the ever-higher prices charged by hospitals and drugmakers and make care more affordable for everyone.”

Federal Approval Needed

It’s unclear whether Oregon could secure federal approval to redirect Medicare and Medicaid dollars into its universal plan. Backers of the proposal do not expect the Trump administration to be receptive but say it will be years before approval is needed and hope the 2028 presidential election ushers in a more supportive administration. If federal waivers are not secured, Oregon could proceed in stages, starting with the non-Medicare population.

In California, Democratic candidates for governor are not debating whether to implement single-payer but how. New York lawmakers are debating a single-payer bill called the . And in Washington, state legislators have created a commission to design a universal healthcare plan.

The Oregon board has had regular contact with teams working on single-payer proposals in California and Washington, sharing approaches and looking for ways to collaborate, McDonell said.

, an Oregon family physician and a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, said he could envision the other West Coast states joining Oregon in implementing single-payer, much as California, Washington, and 贬补飞补颈鈥榠 have in to counter changes in federal vaccine recommendations.

“If our four states could do it,” he said, “that would be the momentum we would need to get it nationally.”

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 .

In , President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act will require most adults to work, go to school or enter a training program, or volunteer for at least 80 hours a month. Native Americans and Alaska Natives are exempt from the mandates, which take effect in January.

Of the nearly in the U.S., around 47% live in 贬补飞补颈鈥榠. Within the contiguous United States, California, Washington, Nevada, Texas, and Oregon have the largest populations of Native Hawaiians.

Hawai驶i’s Medicaid administrator, Meredith Nichols, said the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services didn’t respond to the state’s request to include an exemption for Native Hawaiians but said she believes the decision came down to the population’s lack of recognition as a tribal nation. 贬补飞补颈鈥榠 has about , 15% of whom identify as Native Hawaiian, Nichols said.

“We know that when we’ve asked similar questions in the past, it all comes down to federal recognition,” she said.

Hawai驶i health administrators met with Trump administration officials in June. Some unsuccessfully pushed to add an exemption to the new law, which would need congressional approval.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to requests for comment. In a statement, CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster confirmed that the agency met with 16 health centers in 贬补飞补颈鈥榠 about Medicaid changes but didn’t respond to other questions.

Barriers to Care

Native Hawaiians face many of the same as , including higher risks during pregnancy, higher infant mortality rates, and higher rates of being uninsured than the white population. And in Hawai驶i, Native Hawaiians have the among ethnic groups after other Pacific Islanders.

Kapono Chong-Hanssen is the medical director of Ho鈥樑峫a L膩hui, the Native Hawaiian healthcare system on Kaua鈥榠 that also serves the privately owned island of Ni鈥榠hau, whose 170 full-time residents are predominantly Native Hawaiian. Chong-Hanssen said he anticipates many of his patients will no longer receive the care they need once the new work requirements take effect.

The new requirements will erode the trust healthcare providers worked hard to build among Native Hawaiian patients, who, in response to , are more likely to disengage and “throw the whole system out” when they run into barriers, Chong-Hanssen said. “It just flies in the face of everything that we’re trying to do.”

Beyond medical services, Medicaid covers transportation expenses when patients travel between islands for care. A round-trip ticket between Kaua鈥榠 and O鈥榓hu, for example, can cost hundreds of dollars.

Congress placed over 200,000 acres of land in a trust for Hawaiian homesteads in 1921 to bring Hawaiians back to their native lands after the U.S. backed the 1893 . Nearly 30,000 Native Hawaiians , while, as of the , more than 34,000 people lived on Hawaiian homelands. The homesteads are often far from Honolulu, where most health services are located.

Waianae Coast Comprehensive Health Center primarily serves the west side of O鈥榓hu, which is home to the island’s largest Native Hawaiian population, near four Hawaiian homesteads.

The center’s vice president, Leinaala Kanana, said that many of its patients are geographically isolated and that few jobs are available in the area. Patients also have trouble securing transportation to get to work or finding affordable childcare.

The center’s CEO, Rich Bettini, said 贬补飞补颈鈥榠’s high living costs and depressed wages have pushed many people into homelessness, creating another barrier to complying with the new Medicaid requirements. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders make up about 60% of O鈥榓hu’s . The center estimated about 2,800 of its patients may be affected by the requirements, half of whom are Native Hawaiian.

The annual “cost of living for a family of four in Hawai驶i on O鈥榓hu is $100,000-plus. The average income of our patients is under $30,000 a year,” he said. “That is an enormous gap.”

鈥楤igger Fish To Fry’

Native Hawaiians face obstacles to being granted the same exemptions as other Indigenous groups. While several federal laws refer to Native Hawaiians as an Indigenous group, they are not among the 575 tribes recognized by the federal government. Federal recognition can be granted either by Congress or administratively through a process established by the . Native Hawaiians about whether they would even want , with some fearing it would jeopardize their ability to restore Hawaiian independence.

Laws governing Medicaid also don’t acknowledge Native Hawaiians, aside from the 2021 , signed by former President Joe Biden. In the covid-era law, the federal government fully reimbursed Native Hawaiian health centers for Medicaid services for two years. However, all the qualifying Native Hawaiian health centers were in 贬补飞补颈鈥榠, where in the country now live.

The federal government fully reimburses Indian Health Service and tribal facilities for healthcare services provided to Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Native Hawaiian instead receive the same reimbursement rate as in the rest of Hawai驶i.

Keolamaikalani Dean, the CEO of the King Lunalilo Trust, which provides services for Native Hawaiian elders, pointed to the new Medicaid requirements as just one of many federal policies limiting Native Hawaiians’ healthcare.

“It’s horrible as a policy, but there are bigger fish to fry,” he said.

Dean said he’d rather advocate for giving Native Hawaiian healthcare systems the same full Medicaid reimbursement that the Indian Health Service receives. The change would have greater impact on patients seeking care, he said.

Native Hawaiian advocates said they have been overextended as they work to guard against an onslaught of threats to revoke other federal funding by the Trump administration.

In Trump’s proposed 2027 budget, cuts to Native Hawaiian programs cited the group’s lack of federal recognition as a “tribal nation.” The proposed cuts coincide with challenging education programs and that provides homestead land to some Native Hawaiians at almost no cost, alleging the programs racially discriminate against other groups.

, a nonprofit that oversees the Native Hawaiian healthcare systems in the state, declined to comment for this article. The group is involved in a lawsuit filed by a conservative group aiming to stop a university scholarship for Native Hawaiians pursuing healthcare careers.

U.S. Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-Hawai驶i) viewed the exclusion of Native Hawaiians from the exemptions to Medicaid work requirements as an attempt to further erode Native Hawaiians’ Indigenous status, pointing to recent challenges by the Trump administration and lawsuits.

“These are not one-offs,” Tokuda said. “This is a targeted, coordinated attack to undercut the Indigenous status of Native Hawaiians.”

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

But U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, in a , also agreed with the administration that it was unconstitutional for the government to use race or ethnicity as the basis to award money under a program created to expand internet skills and access.

“It was definitely disappointing,” said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that filed suit last year after not receiving a award meant to bolster digital and internet skills nationwide. “With this administration it’s really worrisome.”

Congress passed the $2.75 billion Digital Equity Act in 2021 as the skill development component of a multilayered “” initiative under President Joe Biden’s signature infrastructure law, which included a bigger pot of money for expanding internet infrastructure.

A few months into his second term, Trump directly attacked the Digital Equity Act on social media, pledging “” and calling the program “illegal.” The language echoed two Trump executive orders characterizing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs .

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which oversees implementation of the law, responded by Digital Equity Act grant programs, leaving states and organizations like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance in limbo.

In response to Bates’ decision, federal attorneys said the government would reinstate the NDIA-related competitive grant program without racial classification. The government aims to release a new grant application in December, according to a filed in the case.

The NDIA now must reapply for the grant award, which was slated to be disbursed among more than a dozen organizations and tribes, including the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, El Centro Hispano in Arkansas, Portland Community College in Oregon, and Community Service Programs of West Alabama. The grants are meant to go toward digital navigator programs, in which community workers teach technology and internet skills, according to the NDIA.

In western Ohio, Jamie Huber said her organization was a subrecipient of the NDIA grant funds. Huber, director of community services at the Northwestern Ohio Community Action Commission, said that without the funding, she is left searching for money to continue navigator programs such as one she runs for people who are unemployed, homeless, or both.

“How do you find a home? Well, you got to look online. And how do you find a job? You have to look online,” Huber said.

Huber’s digital navigators also teach internet skills at 10 senior centers in rural counties stretching along the corner of Ohio bordering Michigan and Indiana. They help active older adults learn how to go online to pay bills and get healthcare, so they “continue having agency over their own life,” Huber said.

Rural residents live sicker and die younger on average than people in the rest of the country when they live in counties lacking high-speed internet access and healthcare, an analysis by 吃瓜不打烊 found.

At Computer Reach in western Pennsylvania, Executive Director Dave Sevick said his organization has cut staff and programs. He said the nonprofit, which started in 2001, has refurbished more than 24,000 computers, giving them away to families it finds through schools and churches.

“We’re aware that affordability is the biggest issue around, and this doesn’t make it any better for folks,” Sevick said. “We’re helping a little bit by getting a free computer out to people.”

The Digital Equity Act the money should benefit, including low-income households, older people, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups.

According to by the Pew Research Center, people in rural communities were less likely to have internet subscriptions compared with their urban and suburban counterparts.

The Pew Research polling that home broadband use among Black and Hispanic adults lagged that of white and Asian adults. While 81% of white adults surveyed said they subscribed to broadband at home, only 71% of Black adults and 68% of Hispanic adults said the same.

In court, lead federal attorney Patrick Butler argued that Congress failed to prove a compelling government interest when including the racial or ethnic criteria. Congress did not “identify anything close to” a specific instance of discrimination in the broadband industry, Butler said, .

Butler then surprised the court, if the racial or ethnic status could be severed from the law, “we would obviously apply the grant program without considering race.”

In his opinion severing the race factor, Bates that “the President lacks the power to cancel laws passed by Congress based on his bald disagreement with Congress’s policy determinations.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a primary , said she will be “watching very carefully to ensure this administration does what Congress intended.”

“It is indisputable that these challenges are particularly pronounced in low income, rural, and Tribal communities 鈥� and there’s a reason Democrats and Republicans across the country support this program so strongly,” Murray said in a statement to 吃瓜不打烊. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Biden’s infrastructure bill in 2021 and to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in late 2024 asking the agency to pause the $1.25 billion competitive grants program, arguing the use of racial classifications “does not serve a compelling governmental interest.” Cruz did not respond to requests for comment.

Arielle Roth, administrator of the agency, previously worked as the telecommunications policy director for the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee’s majority staff under Cruz. She was to lead the agency.

In June, during a House committee hearing, Roth had tense exchanges with Democrats who took issue with changes to the Biden-era infrastructure law’s internet deployment program, which now allows more satellite services rather than prioritizing fiber-optic cable lines.

Lawmakers also asked about the Digital Equity Act’s grant programs.

“Communities across the country deserve a clear answer and a path forward,” Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) said during the hearing. While the National Digital Inclusion Alliance’s lawsuit does not include the state grants, Barragán asked how those grants would be rolled out, considering the federal judge’s decision on race.

California was awarded a $70 million state capacity grant. Early this year, the Justice Department to Congress asserting that the state grant and the competitive grant program both are illegally based on race, citing the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating affirmative action in higher education admissions. Roth declined to answer Barragán’s question, noting there is active litigation.

Barragán said she was “extremely” frustrated by “some of the responses or nonresponses.”

Stephen Yusko, a spokesperson with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, declined to comment or respond to questions for this article.

The government and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance agreed to pause court proceedings to give the agency time to reinstate the competitive grant program. The NDIA has also proposed that the agency provide status reports every 30 days during the court pause “to ensure prompt attention to reinstatement,” according to the most recent .

“We need to make sure it’s all moving forward,” Siefer said.

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

If the state Office of Health Care Affordability adopts the fines next week, hospitals, medical groups, insurers, and others could face penalties that amount to as much as 125% of the total they spend above the state’s annual growth targets.

The penalty proposal comes after healthcare entities in California were asked to limit growth by 3.5% last year and ramp down to 3% by 2029. Seven hospitals that state officials consider particularly expensive face even smaller growth targets: 1.8% in 2026, dropping to 1.6% by 2029.

Consumer advocates argue that state financial deterrents are critical to bring relief to millions of Californians struggling with high insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. Hospitals accounted for in U.S. health spending from 2022 to 2024, compared with 11% from retail prescription drugs. But adding teeth to those targets sets up a fight with the powerful hospital industry, which has a challenging the spending limits as unreasonable. Hospitals warned that they will cut back on vital services, including in emergency rooms, obstetrics, and behavioral health.

Healthcare industry representatives said the state affordability office hasn’t accounted for year-to-year volatility or other factors beyond the industry’s control, such as rising minimum wages, state earthquake retrofit requirements, and expensive new drugs.

“They’re building the plane while flying it,” said Ben Johnson, group vice president for financial policy at the California Hospital Association. “We know improvements in affordability are needed, but we have serious questions about how and about what the unintended consequences could be under OHCA’s rather stringent approaches.”

When calculating penalties, California regulators would consider various factors, including a healthcare entity’s financial situation, its market impact, and the gravity and number of offenses, according to a in June. And entities would first be given opportunities to implement performance improvement plans to bring their spending into line before penalties are imposed. For those that don’t comply, the board is considering penalties of $10,000 a day or a flat $500,000.

The penalties, which the affordability office’s eight-member board is required by to adopt, are slated for discussion, and a potential vote, at the board’s . The soonest healthcare providers would be subject to penalties is 2028, because it’s expected it will take two years to collect and publicly report spending data to measure against the 2026 targets. The state is still collecting data on how entities performed against the 2025 targets, which aren’t enforceable, according to Andrew DiLuccia, a spokesperson for the California Department of Health Care Access and Information.

States Set Targets

California is one of at least eight states that have set spending targets as part of an expanding effort to curb soaring healthcare spending across the nation. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Rhode Island have also authorized the use of some type of financial penalty. The specifics of each vary widely, although so far no state has applied them.

A by the California Health Care Foundation found that 4 out of 10 state residents said they had medical debt, and 6 in 10 reported that they or a family member had skipped or delayed medical care in the previous 12 months because of cost. Nationwide, about say it is difficult to afford healthcare costs.

After Rosalyn Book got stiches on her chin, the elementary school teacher received a $15,000 ER bill from a local hospital, despite having insurance. Many teachers in her district leave because they can’t afford the cost of healthcare and insurance premiums, she said.

“The healthcare charges are just insanity, and what we get as patients for the care, it’s not the best either,” said Book, president of the Monterey Bay Teachers Association. “If you’re a working, regular individual in terms of how much you make, the cost of living and especially the healthcare is just not doable.”

Meanwhile, hospitals are warning there’s a risk of more closures. According to Yale University’s , 17 hospitals have closed in the state since 2016, compared with only six openings.

Hospitals and other healthcare providers have said the proposed multimillion-dollar penalties are too steep and could destabilize their operations at a time when they’re facing funding challenges, including massive federal cuts to Medicaid, the end of enhanced federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans, and a sharp rise in uninsured patients. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by congressional Republicans and signed by President Donald Trump last summer, is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than 鈥� including by in California 鈥� and increase the rolls of the uninsured in the U.S. by over a decade.

Johnson said hospitals raise prices on commercial payers to offset the expense of treating uninsured patients, as well as patients on Medicaid and Medicare, which can reimburse care providers at rates that fall short of treatment costs.

In addition, said Anete Millers, vice president of legal and regulatory affairs at the California Association of Health Plans, tax increases on managed-care plans recently to offset federal Medicaid cuts will force plans to increase their prices for consumers.

“Some spending pressures originate outside of the control of health plans and are the result of public policy decisions rather than underlying changes in healthcare utilization or efficiency,” she told the affordability office’s .

Kristof Stremikis, the director of market analysis and insight at the nonprofit California Health Care Foundation, acknowledged that external forces can drive costs but said that plenty of unnecessary spending is within the healthcare system’s control, such as administrative waste and duplicative tests and procedures. of U.S. healthcare spending is considered wasteful, according to .

Elizabeth Mitchell, a former Office of Health Care Affordability board member whose term ended in May, agreed.

“Every business has external challenges,” said Mitchell, who is now president and CEO of Purchaser Business Group on Health, a nonprofit coalition representing large employers. “The hospital industry has not taken accountability to actually manage costs. I have heard those excuses for decades, and at some point, they have to make changes.”

First Step To Bring Down Costs

of five states with cost growth benchmarks, published in June, found that some have succeeded in modestly slowing healthcare spending, particularly those with enforcement mechanisms. However, spending growth in most states has still set. 

Jeremy Vandehey, a consultant with the Peterson-Milbank Program for Sustainable Health Care Costs, said setting benchmarks and collecting data to analyze which entities meet them is only a first step. Armed with information about what and who is driving up costs, states are more empowered to take additional action, such as imposing penalties or regulating prices, to bring down costs, he said.

“I don’t think anybody in any state is declaring victory on healthcare costs, but I wouldn’t say that that means the programs are a failure,” Vandehey said. “In all of these states, there’s much more robust conversations happening about, OK, we haven’t solved our cost crisis, so we need additional action.”

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

“I’ve seen nurses get shoved, pushed, scratched. The biggest one is bitten,” said Dhooghe, who works at in Grand Blanc, Michigan.

The in healthcare has in states such as , , , , and , where Dhooghe and many of her co-workers have been on the picket line since Labor Day last year.

“People will question me and be like, 鈥榃hy are you still working in a place if you’re treated like this?’” said Dhooghe, who gets by on strike benefits and working extra shifts at another hospital. The problem, she said, is that other hospitals aren’t any better. “It’s the same everywhere I go.”

In a statement, spokesperson Dana Jay acknowledged violence against healthcare workers is a “national epidemic” and said the health system’s efforts to address the problem include metal detectors, armed security officers trained to make “misdemeanor arrests,” and de-escalation training.

“We have zero tolerance for violence of any kind,” said Jay, asserting the strike is not about safety but is instead “simply an economic strike.”

Nationwide, hospital workers are seven times as likely to be injured on the job due to violent acts as members of the general working population, according to the available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The outcry over workplace violence in healthcare is pitting workers’ demands for better compensation and staffing against hospital operators pressured to cut costs.

鈥楢 Powder Keg’

Violent outbursts are so common that they’ve been dramatized on the popular medical TV series . “Emergency rooms right now are like a powder keg,” said Rachel Odes, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Nursing.

In hospitals, a combative or violent patient is known as a “.” Outbursts can be spontaneous and unpredictable, making some almost impossible to prevent. But research shows the increases when hospitals are understaffed or employees are insufficiently trained or experienced.

Mental health worker Andrew Kimball-Mirzaie said he got hurt in February 2024 at Butler Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island.

He’d been working at the private psychiatric hospital for about six weeks and said he hadn’t yet worked in the ER. He said he was sent there to “monitor” a man in his 20s who was waiting for an inpatient bed.

The patient was alone in a back room watching a Knicks basketball game on TV, he recalled. Kimball-Mirzaie said he got the patient a drink and a snack. They were watching the game when, suddenly, he said, the patient stood up and punched him in the face. He said the assault left him with a concussion and broken nose. His injuries were documented in the hospital’s.

“I understand that there is an inherent danger with the job,” Kimball-Mirzaie said. He doesn’t blame the patient, who was very ill at the time. “We should have had at least another staff member with us,” he said, “and I should have been adequately trained on the unit.”

The attack emboldened Kimball-Mirzaie to join some 700 other unionized Butler workers last spring and summer in a months-long strike, which forced the hospital to close . Service Employees International Union 1199 New England declared the strike a win.

Employees received wage increases that union leaders said would enable the hospital to attract and retain more staff. The hospital also agreed to provide financial support for workers violently injured on the job. And the hospital and union agreed to jointly fund a “time bank” to supplement workers’ compensation for injured workers who need more time to recover.

But five months later, a nurse supervisor at Butler had to call 911 because an unarmed patient in the hospital’s ER was assaulting staff. According to the police report, by the time police arrested the patient, he’d injured two nurses, a security guard, and a police officer.

“Butler recognizes the importance of being proactive in protecting those who provide care,” Mary Marran, Butler’s president and chief operating officer, said in a statement. She added that hospital leadership meets regularly with staff to review safety measures and “identify opportunities to strengthen protection for everyone.”

The patient was charged with four counts of , including against the two nurses.

The American Hospital Association has said punishment is key to preventing violence. It has been to make assaulting healthcare workers a that would carry in prison. At least , including and , have enacted similar laws. But workplace safety experts say there is no evidence that such laws have reduced the incidence of violence against healthcare workers.

Calls for 鈥楽afe Staffing’

Striking healthcare workers around the country often have demanded “safe staffing” instead of stronger punishments for patients who cause injuries.

The against healthcare workers has caught the attention of the , the accreditation organization for more than 80% of U.S. hospitals and health systems. The commission released national performance goals that and require hospitals to be and that staff be trained “to provide safe, quality care.”

But no federal law limits the number of patients in a nurse’s care across healthcare settings, despite the nation’s largest nurses union, National Nurses United, having pressed for a national standard . Hospitals must “safely staff all units” to enable nurses to “provide the care that patients need before they get agitated or disoriented,” said , lead industrial hygienist for .

Some states have passed their own staffing laws. Only has enacted broad mandatory nurse staffing ratios, which were associated with lower mortality rates and likely higher retention. Oregon enacted a staffing law, . Legislators in and have introduced similar bills, but they have failed to advance to floor votes.

The American Hospital Association opposes mandatory minimum nurse staffing ratios in hospitals, saying they would “remove real-time clinical judgment and flexibility,” , and potentially force some hospitals to turn away patients or delay care, spokesperson Colleen Kincaid said. And she pointed to California, whose for psychiatric hospitals reportedly in at least four counties.

“There are a lot of other things you can do to prevent workplace violence than just increasing staffing levels,” said , who was a deputy assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration during the Obama administration and helped develop OSHA’s for healthcare and social service workers.

Barab said hospitals can, for example, train employees in de-escalation, install metal detectors, or have specially trained security guards on-site so staff don’t have to wait for police to arrive when an incident happens.

, a worker safety and health policy expert at Georgetown University, said the in congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act will in the next few years.

When funding dries up, she said, “protecting workers is going to be the first thing that gets cut.”

This article is from a partnership that includes and 吃瓜不打烊.

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

While knee replacement procedures have become standard, however, the prices charged have not.

At Catawba Valley Medical Center in Hickory, North Carolina, for example, the cost of the procedure under a Blue Cross Blue Shield health plan this year was about $16,000, according to data from Serif Health, a San Francisco startup that collects recently released data from hospitals and insurers. Little more than an hour’s drive west, however, at Mission Hospital in Asheville, the cost of the procedure under the same health plan was around $40,000, or more than double, the data showed.

Formed by the merger of the two largest hospitals in the region, Mission has little competition and more power to demand the higher price.

This comparison between these two hospitals illuminates how large hospital systems created by a in recent decades can dominate the competition and push up healthcare costs.

While many factors affect the price of a medical procedure, hospitals with few competitors can charge more, health economists say.

The hospital price hikes mean patients and their insurers must pay more for an episode of healthcare. But there is an important side effect, too, even for people who don’t require medical care. When insurers face higher hospital prices, they pass the costs on and raise the prices they charge for everyone’s health insurance.

Using Serif Health’s pricing data, it is possible to see how mergers like the one that created Mission Hospital influence costs. For years, it was difficult to determine how much hospital monopolies boosted charges. But since 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to disclose prices, making it possible to gather comprehensive data such as Serif Health’s.

The connection between market power and prices exists across the country. In Melbourne, Florida, Holmes Regional Medical Center is part of a health system, Health First, that dominates surrounding Brevard County. The center has charged Cigna two times what a hospital two hours north did for a knee replacement this year, the Serif Health data shows.

Banner North Colorado Medical Center, which ranks as the leading healthcare provider in Weld County, Colorado, charged a UnitedHealthcare patient $20,000 more for the surgery in Greeley than a health system an hour’s drive south in Denver, according to Serif’s figures.

The American Hospital Association that hospital mergers can improve quality and reduce healthcare costs by creating “a fiscally sustainable environment.” A Mission Hospital spokesperson said comparing hospitals’ prices was unfair or misleading because their practices and constraints vary so much.

For years, economists suspected that the run of mergers beginning in the late 1990s was a main driver of the rising costs of U.S. healthcare. From 2002 to 2020 alone, unfolded in the United States.

But until the recent federal disclosure rule, the effect of healthcare monopolies on pricing was often overlooked or harder to detect. Hospitals do not advertise their prices, and even when they are revealed on a bill, patients scarcely notice the bottom line because they don’t pay most of it 鈥� their insurers do.

“What the data shows pretty clearly is that when hospitals have bargaining leverage, they tend to have higher prices,” said Zack Cooper, an associate professor of public health and economics at Yale University who has spent more than a decade studying hospital monopolies.

Over the last quarter century, Cooper said, hospital prices have risen faster than those for any other economic sector, and “hospital consolidation is one of the primary drivers.”

Federal and state officials have wavered over when to intervene when hospitals are proposing to merge. Last summer, former President Joe Biden’s that urged federal agencies to challenge mergers that could harm consumers, reversing course from Biden’s more aggressive enforcement of antitrust law. In a , however, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson called for a task force on healthcare mergers that are leading to “higher prices” and “decreased quality” of care.

Several states have sought to curb healthcare monopolies. In 2023, Minnesota banning anticompetitive healthcare mergers and bolstering state oversight. In 2022, requiring healthcare businesses to give the state a 90-day notice of large mergers and to investigate their effects on competition. And in 2021 enabling the state health department to block acquisitions and mergers of hospitals.

Nothing has stopped the overall trend, however, as hospitals seek to grow and gain leverage over insurers and competitors. Last year alone, hospital and health systems announced 46 mergers and acquisitions, , a healthcare business consulting firm. Five ranked as “mega-mergers,” meaning they were valued at more than $1 billion. One across Connecticut and New York into a powerful interstate health system. Another linked , a deal that created a 56-hospital system across the Midwest 鈥� including Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming 鈥� with combined revenue of about $10 billion.

Other mergers have been proposed in , , and Minnesota.

Asheville’s Dominant Hospital

Few places in the United States better exemplify how hospital mergers reshape healthcare than Asheville.

In 1998, the state authorized a deal that joined the city’s two acute-care hospitals, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Memorial Mission Medical Center, . Ever since, its effects have been studied and its prices fiercely contested.

Marcelle Crago, a nurse and lactation consultant, is one of many patients who have accused Mission Health, which operates Mission Hospital, of gouging consumers. Last year, she tweaked her knee while cross-country skiing.

“My knee went 鈥榩op, pop, pop,’” she recalled. She had torn her meniscus, the rubbery cartilage around the knee that acts as a shock absorber. A doctor advised her to have a portion of it removed.

Two days before the surgery, Mission Health told her the total charge would be over $9,000, according to paperwork on her case filed with the state’s Consumer Protection Division.

“I was shocked at the number,” she said.

Crago’s insurance policy from UnitedHealth Group had a high deductible, so she would have had to pay most of the cost. She decided to postpone the surgery and shop around, eventually arranging to have it done at an outpatient center not affiliated with Mission. There, the bill came to less than a third of the price Mission Health charged, according to paperwork she kept.

“The way Mission Health handled the whole thing felt predatory,” Crago recalled, noting that when she balked at the $9,000 figure, the hospital offered a 20% discount if she paid up-front. “It makes you wonder how much they are playing with prices.”

In responding to Crago’s complaint with the state, an attorney for Mission and HCA Healthcare, which owns the hospital, wrote that hospital charges “represent the cost for supporting the entire episode of care” and must cover the hospital’s investments in advanced technology, training, staff, and other critical needs.

“Patients are certainly entitled to 鈥榮hop around’ for surgical procedures,” wrote the attorney, Phillip Jackson.

It is not just patients who bear the burden of rising hospital prices.

Over time, anyone who pays for health insurance pays a price for hospital monopolies, as insurers boost premiums as medical costs rise. The full cost for an employer to pay for an average family health insurance plan rose to more than $27,000 in 2025, up from $21,000 just six years ago, according to .

Around Asheville, employers and employees complain that their insurance premiums are higher because Mission’s prices are so high.

As the chef and co-founder of Cúrate restaurant in Asheville, a business with about 100 employees, Katie Button provides employee health coverage and believes she has been paying for Mission Hospital’s excessive prices, according to a pending class-action lawsuit she filed in 2021 with five residents who say the monopoly has harmed them.

Any insurance plan in Asheville must include Mission Hospital, she said, because it is the only one around. This makes the burden of its prices unavoidable.

“We are where we are because we don’t have a choice of hospitals,” Button said. “There is no other option.”

The steady creep of healthcare costs is top of mind not just in Asheville but for most U.S. voters, according to . Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults were worried about being able to afford healthcare, the poll found.

Yet while federal law allows regulators to step in and block mergers deemed to create monopolies, the FTC intervened in only from 2002 to 2020 to stop a hospital merger, according to a Yale University study. The FTC has since announced challenges to five other hospital mergers.

Birth of a Monopoly

When Mission Health was formed by a merger in 1998, state officials recognized that Asheville’s new dominant hospital system would have the power to raise prices and required Mission to sign an agreement to limit spending and profit margins.

Even with these restrictions, the hospital , according to economic research cited by the FTC. But Mission’s prices were about to go up even more. In 2015, Mission Health lobbied the state legislature to drop the state restrictions, abandoning the profit limits.

“After 20 years of the hospital behaving itself, the state decided to terminate its oversight,” said Mark Hall, a professor emeritus at Wake Forest University who of the hospital’s merger history. Then, three years later, HCA, the largest hospital corporation in the country, bought Mission Health. (The Dogwood Health Trust, a nonprofit established as part of HCA’s purchase of Mission Health, helps fund 吃瓜不打烊’ coverage.)

“This put a prepackaged monopoly into the hands of the world’s largest for-profit hospital corporation,” Hall said.

Across a range of services, Mission Hospital charges more than other North Carolina hospitals, according to figures from Serif Health.

Consider the prices that Mission negotiated with UnitedHealthcare compared with those the insurer pays at Catawba Valley Medical Center. For a breast biopsy, UnitedHealth pays $7,500 at Mission and $1,700 at Catawba, according to Serif. For a hernia repair, it pays $17,700 at Mission and $9,600 at Catawba.

“The prices hospitals charge are one of the leading drivers of rising healthcare costs,” according to a UnitedHealthcare statement sent by spokesperson Cole Manbeck.

Mission spokesperson Katie Czerwinski, in a statement, said that it can be misleading to compare one hospital with another.

Mission Hospital is almost three times as large as Catawba Valley Health and is a Level 1 trauma center serving a different population, Czerwinski said. She also said that pulling individual rates for comparison paints an incomplete picture.

But other figures indicate that prices at Mission Hospital are relatively high, even when viewed collectively.

A team at the think tank Rand, led by Christopher Whaley, now a Brown University health economist, uses commercial insurance records to compare average hospital prices across the U.S. relative to those paid by Medicare. , Mission Hospital in 2024 charged prices that were 334% of prices set by Medicare. Catawba Valley Medical Center charged 237%. The state benchmark for prices is 280% of Medicare, Rand figures showed.

“The prices we pay for healthcare vary tremendously and are uncorrelated to the value we receive,” according to the Rand website.

For many in Asheville, the primary complaints about Mission Hospital focus on the quality of patient care. This is consistent with showing that the quality of care declines when hospitals have little competition.

Amid rising complaints about hospital services, North Carolina state Sen. Julie Mayfield, a Democrat, helped launch a nonprofit organization two years ago called Reclaim Healthcare WNC to hold Mission “accountable for its harmful practices.”

“Within a year of the HCA sale, I started hearing stories from physicians and other friends about all the terrible things that were happening there,” Mayfield said, most of them caused by severe staff cuts and physicians leaving.

Three times since 2024, state health inspectors working on behalf of CMS have issued “immediate jeopardy” findings to Mission Hospital, indicating problems so severe that they posed an imminent risk of serious injury or death to patients.

In the most , an 88-year-old woman recovering from a fall and hip surgery at Mission Hospital died after going a night without receiving a blood transfusion.

Czerwinski, the Mission Hospital spokesperson, said a proposed plan of correction “allows Mission to address the findings from the survey and complete a comprehensive review of operations.”

As more hospitals across the United States plan to merge, Mayfield said, the experience in Asheville represents a cautionary tale.

“Unregulated monopolies have never gone well for the public.”

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