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 — 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 — 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 — 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.

‘A 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 — 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ about how hospitals can protect their patients from the life-altering harms of medical debt.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Not-So-Great Healthcare

Why doesn’t world-class medicine produce world-class health?

Hayat Norimine’s reporting gets at something that has bothered me for a long time about American healthcare (Priced Out: “As Health Insurance Costs Soar, Healthcare Workers Also Feel the Pinch,” Sept. 22).

We are very proud of U.S. medicine, and we should be. We are at the forefront of new treatments, our clinician workforce is unmatched, and we deploy technologies that seemed impossible just a few years ago. Yet we are in the middle of the pack compared with other countries, in terms of healthy lifespan and many markers of quality care.

At the same time, the cost of accessing care has become outrageously high. When clinicians stop getting health insurance for themselves and their families, you know something is deeply broken.

What good is our health system if most people cannot afford to use it?

One family in Norimine’s story went without insurance when their premiums climbed. Another person kept her coverage but waited weeks to see a doctor because of a $10,000 deductible. These are different problems, but both expose the distance between the care we can provide and the care people can actually access.

Insurance is supposed to help people get the care they need to stay healthy, not just when they are at death’s door. Yet the way insurance is designed can discourage someone from seeing a clinician early, filling a prescription, or following up before a problem gets worse. A clinician may say, “This is what you should do next,” while a person’s coverage gives them a reason to wait or decline.

That tension is not an accident. It is how the system was built. Doctors design care. Insurers design coverage. The two are put together in separate rooms by different teams, measured on different things, then handed to the same person as if they were one plan. No physician would design a $10,000 deductible; it just blocks people from investing in prevention and getting care early. But no physician was in the room when that threshold was set.

Making coverage affordable is essential. So is asking what that coverage enables people to do. If better health is the goal, the people responsible for a person’s health need a hand in shaping what their coverage pays for and when. Design coverage and care together, and it gets easier for people to get the care we know works while avoiding waste.

— Clay Johnston; Austin, Texas

On Dementia, Violence, and Sedation

Reading “Drugs Are Widely Used To Sedate Dementia Patients. Her Sons Wanted To Keep Her Off Them” (Sept. 30) inspired me to share my own experience.

My husband died of dementia about two years ago at age 86. It was not an easy journey. Dementia made him agitated for the same reason it does to others: People with dementia cannot tolerate being told “no.”

So when I had to tell him to stop driving, he became violent. I was told by an eldercare specialist that if my husband remained at home, he might kill me. So it was off to a memory care center, a really good and really expensive one. And he became violent and agitated there because he couldn’t come home, which was what he wanted, and which I could not safely handle. I was also aware that if he couldn’t make it at the memory care center, there was virtually no other place that would take him.

So did I say yes to medication? I did indeed. Even with the antipsychotic, my husband would become out of control. He often tried to “abscond,” as they say in memory-care speak. I also paid through the nose for one-on-one care, which kept him sort of safe. But one night, he fell in the bathroom and broke his hip. A hip replacement was suggested. He was suffering, he had absolutely no quality of life, and I turned the offer down. He was transferred to palliative care and died peacefully about five days later.

There is no solution to this problem that I can see other than medical aid in dying, which he probably would have refused. Me — I will not refuse. My current terror is that I might do this to my remaining family.

— Nora Staffanell; Monroe, New York

The issue is appropriate treatment, not simply drug avoidance.

Jordan Rau’s report rightly highlights the danger of using sedating medications simply to make people with dementia easier to manage. But inappropriate chemical restraint should not be confused with medically appropriate treatment of serious neuropsychiatric symptoms.

Psychosis, agitation, and aggression are distinct. Before prescribing medication, clinicians should identify the target symptom and look for reversible contributors such as pain, infection, medication effects, constipation, sleep disruption, sensory impairment, fear, environmental overstimulation, or the way personal care is being delivered.

Nonpharmacological, person-centered interventions should generally come first. The American Psychiatric Association recommends antipsychotics, outside of emergencies, only when agitation or psychosis is severe, dangerous, or causes substantial distress and after nonpharmacologic approaches have been assessed. When used, treatment should begin at a low dose and aim for the minimum effective dose.

However, nonpharmacological measures do not always suffice. In 2026, the APA reaffirmed that antipsychotics can benefit some older adults with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia when used judiciously within a comprehensive treatment plan. Brexpiprazole, for example, received FDA approval in 2023 for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s dementia.

These drugs carry real risks, including increased mortality, sedation, orthostasis, extrapyramidal symptoms, cerebrovascular events, and falls. But untreated severe agitation or aggression also carries risks: distress, injury, emergency transfers, hospitalization, caregiver breakdown, and loss of placement.

The responsible question is therefore not whether antipsychotics are dangerous, but whether, for a particular patient and target symptom, likely benefits outweigh risks after reversible causes and nonpharmacological measures have been addressed.

Good dementia care means neither reflexive prescribing nor reflexive withholding. It means careful diagnosis, person-centered care, informed risk-benefit discussion, lowest effective dosing, close monitoring, and periodic attempts to reduce or discontinue medication when appropriate.

— James Ellison; Philadelphia

Decoding ER Bills

Autumn Daniels was billed $410 for an emergency room visit in which no clinician evaluated her (Bill of the Month: “She Left After Waiting Hours in the Emergency Room. The ER Billed Her Anyway,” Sept. 29). She received registration, vital signs, and a single question, then sat in the waiting room for four hours and left.

Carle Health billed CPT code 99281, an evaluation and management service. The American Medical Association’s CPT guidelines, quoted in your article, state that triage alone is not an evaluation and management service and cannot be reported with that code. Carle’s own email confirms the problem by defining “care” to include registration and nursing assessment. That’s triage under another name.

Billing for a service that was not performed is the most important reason insurers deny hospital claims, and it’s what physicians are trained to recognize as fraud. Daniels’ insurer denied the claim under “against medical advice,” a label that cannot apply to a patient no clinician ever saw. The right response is a written refusal to pay, addressed to the hospital, stating that the billed service was never rendered.

I spent 20 years in clinical medicine and over a decade as a health insurance medical director reviewing exactly this question. Daniels should owe nothing.

— Virgie Bright Ellington; New Rochelle, New York

This article goes much deeper than simply exploring lack of treatment in the emergency room. It’s about callous treatment, which is unacceptable on many levels. The ER provided poor care and wasn’t busy, but because the unseen patient was only feeling unwell and not bleeding from every orifice, she wasn’t taken seriously as a priority, so she left. Yet despite not being seen by a doctor, a miscellaneous bill — over $400 — was submitted for payment.

What is pain anyway — feeling uncomfortable? Pain is people dying from triggers in the body. Therefore, treating people like a business by these corporate hospitals is extremely concerning. A person feeling ill, receiving no treatment after four hours of waiting, then leaving the ER with a chronic headache  â€” which could be anything from a brain injury, an upcoming stroke, or a hemorrhage — should not be charged. And certainly a miscellaneous code should not have been applied for the pleasure of pain, waiting, and the five minutes it took to take her temperature.

No, the insurance company should not pay, and it should also let the hospital know that it will be booted from the network for false claims — spending less-than-adequate time with a patient and then submitting bills.

Laws need to be mandated, and advocates must demand optimum care, with healthcare providers abiding by the Hippocratic oath.

People are not stick figures to be treated carelessly and then charged fully. Every time a baseless claim is submitted by the hospital to the insurance company, there’s a trickle-down effect, and rates go up.

It’s akin to being charged for walking on the sidewalk outside a grocery store, checking the fruit stands, getting help from the outside clerk, and then being charged by the store — despite not making a purchase.

Bad service serves no one and will backfire on the provider in the end. How many times do we have to check management at the door for not understanding that very concept? Far too often. We need to show that medical disregard and abuse are not tolerated. It’s essential to pursue change at the federal and state level. Why? Because, ultimately, hospitals are taking advantage of people. They’ve forgotten why they exist.

— Tiff Gadison; Sacramento, California

Living Under the Government’s Thumb

It’s not a good feeling to know that the government has the upper hand and pulls the strings (Health Hub: “Sticker Shock at the Doctor’s Office Could Motivate Midterm Voters,” Sept. 18). Here it is, 2026, and this single mother still struggles — but even more so with talks of cuts and funding to programs I and so many others depend on.

I was interviewed back in November 2018 about an absurd medical bill I received and was expected to pay, even though I have Medicare and Medicaid. Jay Hancock wrote my story, which aired on All Things Considered (Bill of the Month: “Chronically Ill, Traumatically Billed: The $123,000 Medicine for MS,” Nov. 28, 2018). It also appeared on CBS Mornings with Gayle King.

Things definitely haven’t gotten any better for me. I worry about not only my health insurance and my medication but the fact I am on permanent disability. The state of the nation under the current administration is pretty frightening. My Social Security/SSI is my only means of getting by. I receive EBT (electronic benefits transfer for food assistance), and I have a family to feed. I live in government-subsidized housing, based on my income. So pretty much my whole life is controlled by the actions of folks who probably have zero clue how it is to live on a fixed income and with a chronic health condition, one in which stress exacerbates the symptoms, as well as being a single parent.

Don’t even mention being able to afford the price of gas; my car will sit more than go now. I have to pick and choose when to run errands, usually on a day I already have a scheduled appointment. That not only causes me lots of anxiety, but the fatigue is relentless! This is a very stressful, unnerving way to live.

— Shereese Hickson; Niles, Ohio

Uniting for Good

I’m writing on behalf of students with the American Lung Cancer Screening Initiative (ALCSI). Our team recently came across Noam N. Levey’s Common Ground article “‘Cancer Doesn’t Care’: Citizen Lobbyists Unite To Push Past Washington’s Ugly Politics” (Oct. 21, 2025), and its message about cancer bringing people together across political divides strongly resonated with our team.

I wanted to share a recent development in California that reflects a similar idea. A lung cancer screening awareness bill that began as an idea from a small group of California college students was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 28, after receiving support from legislators of both parties.

As students passionate about lung cancer screening awareness, our team began exploring legislative action to improve screening rates. In March 2025, we developed the initial proposal that ultimately became California SB 1124 and continued advocating for the bill throughout the legislative process until it was signed into law.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Screening can catch the disease at an earlier, more treatable stage, but many people eligible for lung cancer screening don’t know they qualify or that screening is available to them. SB 1124 addresses that gap by requiring tobacco retailers across California to post signage about lung cancer screening at the point of sale, reaching people where they already are rather than relying on them to seek out the information. Considering that California has historically been one of the states with the lowest lung cancer screening rates, this action is crucial.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Bob Archuleta (D–Pico Rivera). Through grassroots outreach, students involved with this bill initiative helped build a coalition of support from organizations across California and the country, including the California Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, and the NAACP California ±á²¹·É²¹¾±â€˜i State Conference, among dozens of others.

Our experience really echoed what stood out to us in Levey’s article: that cancer can bring together people who may disagree on plenty of other issues. We also hope our experience shows that young people can have a meaningful voice in that process and contribute to bringing people together around a shared public health goal.

— Elaine Dong; Los Angeles

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

Hospitals have the ability to proactively screen patients to see if they’re eligible for aid and, if so, automatically wipe out or reduce their bills —

A growing number of and researchers believe requiring hospitals to use presumptive eligibility would protect low-income Americans from falling into medical debt, especially with federal funding cuts expected to increase the number of people without health insurance.

Texas has among the highest , and policymakers in Texas are considering legislation that would require to use presumptive eligibility before sending patients a bill.

In a first-of-its-kind analysis, Tradeoffs examined the presumptive eligibility policies of 166 nonprofit general and children’s hospitals in Texas. The goal was to shed light on how easy or difficult hospitals make it for low-income people to get financial aid without an application.

Scroll to the bottom of the page to explore a searchable table with all 166 hospitals’ policies.

Here’s what we found:

1. Nearly half of nonprofit hospitals in Texas (44%) say they will bill patients before screening them for free or discounted care.

Some hospitals screen patients after sending a single bill. Others may send multiple bills and hire collection agencies to chase after debts before they check whether a patient is eligible for help.

The most common approach is for hospitals to say they will screen patients before taking “,” which include garnishing their wages, selling the debt to a debt collector, or denying further care until outstanding bills are paid.

Anna Stelter, vice president of policy for the Texas Hospital Association, said hospitals want to investigate other options for payment — like Medicaid or county safety net programs — before they offer 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.”

Just one nonprofit in Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System, has a written policy that requires its hospitals to check and proactively reduce or wipe out what patients owe before sending bills.

Research shows that when patients receive financial aid makes a difference.

A 2022 study found that patients who received hospital financial aid within weeks of care were to return to the doctor and get treatment for conditions like diabetes and depression. Conversely, published in 2024 found that wiping out people’s medical debt years later on their mental and physical health, healthcare use, or financial situation.

2. Most hospitals say they do not reimburse patients who qualify for financial aid for money they have already paid.

Hospitals often put patients on payment plans to chip away at bills they can’t afford. But only 10 of 166 nonprofit hospitals in Texas guarantee a full refund to patients found to be eligible for financial aid. Most others say they won’t return money that patients paid before being screened.

Surveys show patients and to cover what they owe. , one-third of Americans without health insurance said they had borrowed money for medical care in the previous year.

“It is very frustrating,” said Aimee Carlock, who was required to pay $5,500 to Texas Health Resources to schedule uterus surgery. She later qualified for free care, and the hospital wiped out her remaining $16,000 bill. But the $5,500 was gone. “That’s a lot of money to me,” said Carlock, a self-employed housecleaner who was recently approved for food stamps.

offers refunds only in the amount a patient has paid in excess of what the hospital typically charges someone with insurance. All hospitals must offer refunds to patients who qualify for financial aid in these situations to avoid federal penalties.

Texas Health didn’t respond to an interview request after Carlock agreed to grant the system permission to speak about her experience.

In some cases, patients must fill out extensive applications to recoup their money. The application for Abilene-based instructs patients to “completely and precisely” fill in financial and personal details, describing their savings and listing Social Security numbers for family members they live with who might help with the bills. Patients must submit two current pay stubs, a tax return, two months of bank statements, and a justification of why they need help.

“Explain circumstances in which paying this hospital bill would create a hardship,” the .

Hendrick Health didn’t respond to questions about its policy.

3. Many hospitals never tell patients that their debt has been forgiven.

Some of the largest nonprofit hospital systems in Texas don’t notify patients when their bill has automatically been wiped out. That includes , Texas Health Resources, and Texas hospitals owned by , one of the nation’s largest .

Research shows patients who don’t know their debt has been forgiven may skip needed care. A 2026 study found that people with medical debt were as likely to delay future physical and mental healthcare as people without medical debt.

“If the patient doesn’t get some sort of notice,” said Erin Fuse Brown, a health policy researcher at Brown University, the possibility that they could be billed “hangs like a sword over their neck.”

Stelter, with the Texas Hospital Association, said many hospitals have limited staff in their billing departments. “Notifying patients whose bill was completely forgiven that they were presumptively eligible is probably lower on the totem pole than helping somebody who’s trying to complete an application,” she said.

If hospitals offer someone less than the maximum discount available, the hospital to notify the patient, in case they want to appeal for a full write-off.

Texas Health and Christus Health didn’t respond to interview requests about their policies. A CommonSpirit spokesperson declined an interview.

4. Some hospitals say their financial assistance policies don’t reflect how they actually operate. These discrepancies can work to patients’ advantage — or detriment.

AdventHealth says some of its Texas patients get screened for financial assistance before getting bills, a consumer-friendly practice. The system’s however, has no requirement for when hospitals must screen patients.

“We want patients to understand and have access to available financial assistance before receiving a bill whenever possible,” said Tim Reiner, senior vice president for revenue cycle for the system, which owns and operates four hospitals in Texas.

also screens patients for help before sending bills, if they are uninsured, a spokesperson said. There is no requirement for its eight hospitals to do so under the system’s policy.

According to , Covenant Health, a five-hospital system based in Lubbock, must screen patients before sending bills to collection agencies and lists detailed criteria for who is eligible to have bills proactively wiped out.

But in 2019, the system decided not to use presumptive eligibility “due to the regulatory requirements and administrative complexities,” said spokesperson Ainsley Nelson. “Our focus continues to be ensuring compassionate access to care and helping patients navigate the financial assistance options available to them.”

Covenant is owned by Providence, a multistate Catholic health system based in Renton, Washington, which agreed to refund or erase in patient bills after charged that the system of charity care.

Providence said the system fixed the problem identified by investigators, refunded patients, and now coaches its employees to communicate “with compassion and respect.”

5. Who qualifies for presumptive eligibility varies significantly from one hospital to another.

Hospitals in Texas get to decide who is eligible to be automatically screened for and enrolled in financial assistance.

Presumptive eligibility policies often apply to people who are homeless, deceased, or already enrolled in state or federal programs to help low-income households with medical care, housing, food, or prescriptions. Some hospitals have additional criteria, including writing off bills for anyone in a religious order who took a vow of poverty.

Some hospitals share little to no public information about who they will proactively screen. Thirteen hospitals owned by , one of the nation’s largest Catholic health systems, say only that it may screen patients “with a sufficient unpaid balance.”

Ascension didn’t respond to questions about its eligibility criteria.

This variation means that a patient’s ability to access free care depends greatly on where they go.

6. Some hospitals provide less generous charity care to patients who receive it automatically instead of submitting an application.

At CommonSpirit’s hospitals across southeastern Texas, patients who are auto-enrolled get help with debt from the prior 12 months. Patients who submit an application get the same help with prior bills, plus free or discounted treatment for the next six months.

limits financial assistance for auto-enrolled patients to individual visits. Applicants may be eligible going back 12 months before approval.

North Texas Medical Center didn’t respond to additional questions about its policy.

7. Policies that are supposed to be easily accessible to patients are often difficult to find.

Hospital financial assistance policies are intended to be transparent to patients and the public. For more than a decade, has required nonprofit hospitals to .

In practice, finding these policies and deciphering them is often hard.

To find the policies of all nonprofit hospitals in Texas, Tradeoffs started with a list of hospital financial assistance policy websites maintained by the nonprofit Dollar For. To verify websites were up to date and fill in missing policies, Tradeoffs scoured hospital websites, often clicking through multiple links to locate policies.

In cases in which hospitals did not publish full policies online, Tradeoffs requested copies from hospitals and filed a public records request with the state of Texas, which requires hospitals to submit charity policies annually.

“You would have to know what you’re looking for before you went looking for it, or you’re never going to find it,” said Ray Kluender, an associate professor at Harvard University, who has had to hunt for hospital policies as part of his research on medical debt.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

But if approved by voters in November, it’s unclear how much money the ballot initiative would raise, how quickly the funding would become available, and how lawmakers would spend it.

The measure would steer proceeds from a first-in-the-nation wealth tax to a state healthcare fund, giving the governor and lawmakers the power to decide how to spend what California’s nonpartisan legislative analyst “tens of billions of dollars.” Backers say it could raise up to $100 billion over five years to keep hospitals and emergency rooms open and preserve insurance coverage for millions of Californians. Yet, community health centers, doctors, and other healthcare entities that might benefit from such a cash infusion argue that the union spearheading the measure has readied a blank check for politicians.

“I’m not sure that you can say, with full security, that this will stop clinics from being closed or healthcare workers from being laid off, or people from losing their healthcare,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget & Policy Center, a left-leaning nonprofit.

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

Taxing the Ultrarich

Put on the ballot by one of California’s largest healthcare unions, Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on with a net worth of at least $1 billion, including most of their stock holdings, yachts, and artwork. It would apply to those who were residents of California on Jan. 1, 2026. Real estate, pensions, and retirement accounts would generally be exempt.

The revenue raised is intended to offset the roughly in anticipated losses to the Golden State from congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Over the next four years, state and federal funding cuts are projected to nearly double California’s uninsured population, which stands at , according to the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center.

Securing additional tax revenue is essential because state lawmakers have yet to come up with a way to pay for healthcare services that will be affected by the cuts, said Dave Regan, president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which represents hospital workers and got the wealth tax on the ballot. It would earmark 90% of the tax revenue for healthcare, while the remaining 10% would be split between food assistance and education at lawmakers’ discretion. Regan said such broad categories would give politicians flexibility to be more responsive to the looming cuts.

“Figuring out or predicting exactly what the fallout will be, of where reductions and cuts get made, in a complicated healthcare system, it’s just too difficult to predict,” Regan said.

Among the choices the next governor and lawmakers will face are whether to provide healthcare to people cut off by the new federal Medicaid work requirements, reverse state rollbacks limiting coverage for immigrants with legal status, or raise the low physician reimbursement rates that make some providers reluctant to accept patients enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

Lawmakers could also shore up subsidies on Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace, whose enrollees have seen their premiums skyrocket after losing millions in federal assistance after Congress last year let enhanced subsides expire.

Most of the money must be spent on health, but healthcare experts said the measure’s ambiguous language could allow lawmakers to use the new billionaire health fund to replace existing state dollars, contrary to the text of the proposition.

“A lot of times these propositions are written in a way to get attention and get support,” said Glenn Melnick, a healthcare economist at the University of Southern California. “But in fact, they can be used for other things later.”

Instead, the healthcare industry is pushing for a long-term funding plan. René Bravo, a pediatrician in San Luis Obispo County and the president of the California Medical Association, worries that a one-time infusion of tax dollars “is going to run out.”

“We need to work on a more sustainable, durable funding mechanism for the Medi-Cal system,” he said.

At the same time, doctors are asking him what will happen when the biggest Medi-Cal eligibility cuts begin to take effect next year. Even if voters approve the ballot measure, the money wouldn’t be available for at least a few months while the state collects the tax. And billionaires could spread their payments over five years.

Californians Divided

Pasadena resident Lynne Wines, a 72-year-old retired banker, knows the state needs the money. But she worries that wealthy investors will see the measure as a precedent and flee the state. Even though the ballot measure is clear that it’s a one-time tax, Wines said it’s a slippery slope.

“Taxes have a way of being needed over and over, and politicians have a way of finding those needs,” Wines said. “So, I don’t really feel secure that this is just a one-time thing.”

She noted that Google co-founder and billionaire Sergey Brin bought a home in Nevada and moved some of his businesses to the Silver State late last year. He is backing ad campaigns opposing the measure. Brin has given more than $100 million to a nonprofit promoting two competing measures, Propositions 41 and 42, designed to blunt or block it, according to contributions filed with the secretary of state’s office. One would count some new state taxes toward California’s overall spending limit and require the state auditor to review new state tax proposals before voters weigh in. The other would prohibit new state taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts, and other assets.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, warned on CNN in June that just the threat of the tax “has sent trillions of dollars, by some estimates, of wealth leaving the state.” A March study by the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University projected that the billionaire tax would , citing, in part, the lost revenue from billionaires who have already left the state.

California voters appear torn over departing billionaires. Two independent September polls suggested voter support for Proposition 40 varied from a to a .

Pasadena resident Steve Erler, 74, works full-time as a building manager because he can’t afford to retire. He worries that federal cuts will hurt children and seniors.

“These people who are making all this money, they can never spend it all. What are they going to do, buy another house in the Hamptons, buy another jet? They don’t need that,” Erler said while out walking his dog in August. “They need to be able to say when they go to bed at night, ‘I helped a child with healthcare. I helped a senior get fed.’ That’s what’s important,” he said.

Democrats are divided — one of many ideological fights playing out nationwide this election cycle as progressives take on more centrist candidates. U.S. Sen. (I-Vt.) and the have endorsed Proposition 40, while Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is exploring a presidential bid, and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Xavier Becerra oppose it while saying that ultrawealthy or high-earning people should pay more. “It’s time for an economic reset, a true minimum tax on billionaires that, well, ensures the people at the very top pay at least the tax rate their own workers pay,” said Newsom, who supports a , although legislation for a federal has stalled.

If voters approve the ballot measure, political analysts said, it could show other states that taxing the wealthy may help close budget gaps and pay for essential services. Already several Democratic states, including , , , and , have approved millionaire taxes, but those have been limited to income, not overall wealth. Voters in Washington state will decide this fall whether to .

“I do think this is just the beginning of these proposals nationwide,” said Melnick, the USC healthcare economist.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

LOS ANGELES — Every Tuesday, Naman Shah sees tuberculosis patients at a small public clinic in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley. Shah, a physician and epidemiologist at the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, pores over images of battered lungs, listens to labored breathing, and checks medications.

It’s part of an initiative dating to the early 20th century to control infections so tuberculosis doesn’t spread. “We like doing things upstream,” Shah said, “meaning before they happen, not after the damage is done.”

Today, Shah and his colleagues are applying the same principle to medical debt. A key part of that effort is a new system to allow every hospital in Los Angeles County to easily screen patients for financial aid. The goal: to stop low-income families from getting a bill that buries them in debt.

Shah estimates this system could prevent several hundred million dollars of medical debt every year.

Vicious Cycle

Nationwide, an estimated 100 million adults have some form of healthcare debt. In Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, public health officials calculate that about 800,000 residents have medical bills they can’t pay.

“The impacts of medical debt were staggering,” said Shah, who used to staff a rural health clinic in India and, since 2023, has in Los Angeles to tackle the debt problem.

“People end up with credit card debt and then a vicious cycle of high interest rates and poverty,” he said. “People forgo their prescriptions. People forgo appointments. And then you get into worse health.”

Hospitals typically offer financial aid to patients with low incomes. But information about assistance is often hard for patients to get. Applying can be cumbersome. And many eligible patients never seek aid, research shows.

“Most people walk into the hospital and walk out without any knowledge of financial assistance,” said Jared Walker, founder of Dollar For, a nonprofit that helps patients nationwide apply for aid, often called charity care.

That’s fueling debt. It’s also driving costly collection efforts that even hospital officials acknowledge pointlessly target low-income patients who are unlikely to be able to pay.

“They’re turning their wheels trying to collect on debt that isn’t collectable,” said Adena Tessler, regional vice president for the Hospital Association of Southern California.

Presumptive Eligibility

One potential solution is a system that automatically screens and qualifies low-income patients for financial aid without requiring an application. This is called presumptive eligibility.

Some hospitals already use such systems, which rely on software that checks patient eligibility based on publicly available information such as credit history.

The strategy can be very effective. Shah said hospitals that have deployed presumptive eligibility systems have reported as much as a 50% increase in the amount of financial aid they give patients.

Under a passed last year, all California hospitals will have to start doing presumptive eligibility screening by next July.

But the systems can be expensive and difficult for smaller hospitals to implement. Only about 1 in 5 hospitals in Los Angeles County currently use them, Shah said.

Public health officials wondered if they could help more hospitals set them up.

The county, which, like many local governments, faces major fiscal challenges, couldn’t pay for this, Shah said. But the public health department could bring together healthcare and hospital officials in the county to figure out another solution.

“The beauty of government is not when it always has to do the work,” Shah said. “We have the ability to make sure that people cooperate.”

The Hospital Association of Southern California, initially wary of the county initiative, came to see improving hospital financial aid programs as beneficial to hospitals, many of which were wasting money on collections. “The billing process is cumbersome and costly,” said Paul Young, a senior vice president with the association.

The association agreed to procure a presumptive eligibility system and make it available to its members. This bulk-purchasing approach, which Young compared to “a Costco model,” would lower the cost for individual hospitals, he said.

At the same time, L.A. Care, a nonprofit health plan that administers Medicaid coverage for more than 2.5 million low-income county residents, committed $2 million to set up the system.

The investment reflected the safety net insurer’s mission to make medical care accessible to more people, said Melanie Fontes Rainer, who leads strategic planning for L.A. Care. “It’s going to make Los Angeles County better,” she said.

Making It Work

Getting the new system up and running by January, as the partners hope, faces challenges.

Hospital officials are figuring out how the system will be funded in the long term. And it’s unclear how many of the county’s 88 acute care hospitals will ultimately use it, even if it’s cheaper and easier to access.

The partners are also working to improve data that the system relies on to screen patients. One goal is to link the system to tax records maintained by the state of California. This would provide hospitals with more accurate information on patients’ income than current systems, which often rely on estimated income.

Walker, the patient advocate at Dollar For, said he’s heartened by the county’s effort. “I’m optimistic that we can make a better charity care system,” he said. “And the fact that hospitals in Los Angeles County are willing to be innovative and creative about ways we can do that is super encouraging.”

For his part, Shah said county public health officials recognize that a better screening system at hospitals won’t by itself eliminate medical debt. But he said the public health department couldn’t ignore a problem that affects more county residents than asthma or tobacco use.

“Prevention is our bread and butter,” he said.

This article is part of “,” an investigative series from and ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ about how hospitals can protect their patients from the life-altering harms of medical debt.

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

But Democratic strongholds across the country — including Oregon, California, , and — 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 — 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 — 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 ‘Medicare 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 ±á²¹·É²¹¾±â€˜i 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 — 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 — including Oregon, North Carolina, and Maryland — 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 — like Medicaid or county safety net programs — 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 — 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

On at least 10 days in the previous month, Tingley had hit, kicked, or elbowed aides when they were trying to help her change her briefs, get dressed, bathe, or go to the bathroom, according to Vista Grande behavior logs. Vista Grande wanted permission to sedate her.

Into the new year, Tingley’s sons and Vista Grande fiercely wrangled over one of the most contentious topics in long-term care: the use of antipsychotic medications to pacify agitated people with dementia. The medications come with risks: The Food and Drug Administration requires pharmaceutical companies to warn that these potent drugs increase the chance of death in older people with Alzheimer’s and similar diseases.

More than have a diagnosis of dementia. Despite a 14-year campaign by the federal government to reduce the use of psychotropics, 1 in 4 Medicare beneficiaries with dementia are potentially inappropriately prescribed antipsychotics and other brain-altering medications that can cause delirium, falls, and hospitalizations, a estimated.

While some families and guardians agree that the benefits of these drugs outweigh the risks, those with misgivings confront a wrenching choice: consent to drugging loved ones or risk eviction from a long-term care facility.

As the Tingleys alternately acquiesced to and resisted Vista Grande’s insistence on medication, administrators started calling 911 after altercations, according to ambulance and police dispatch records. Tingley was repeatedly taken to the emergency room for assessment, hospital records show.

After four trips, Vista Grande gave Tingley a 30-day eviction notice, and it sent her to the hospital four more times while the family was arranging a new placement, medical records show.

“I want her out of here,” a flustered administrator told an ambulance crew, one entry shows.

Tingley died at another facility in January 2025. The cause was plaque buildup in her brain, a , a degenerative brain disease and the most common type of dementia.

“They just wanted to have her drugged up,” David Tingley, one of her five sons, said about Vista Grande in an interview. “It’s a lot easier to take care of someone who’s just out of it.”

Her sons’ lawsuit against Vista Grande and its director at the time accused them of negligence, causing emotional distress, and wrongful eviction. The suit also asserted Vista Grande initiated the ER trips in retaliation for the family’s disagreements about Tingley’s care. Vista Grande and its director have denied the allegations. Their attorneys and the director did not respond to requests for comment.

In a legal filing, Vista Grande called the drugs recommended to the Tingleys “routine medication” and said it sent their mother to the hospital “because of her family’s refusal to allow Ms. Tingley to be treated on site.”

A Michigan Circuit Court judge has dismissed the negligence claim on legal grounds. A trial is scheduled for early next year on the remainder of the lawsuit if mediation fails.

Earlier this year, Vista Grande, which was a nonprofit, became a wholly owned subsidiary of Otterbein SeniorLife, which renamed it Otterbein Jackson SeniorLife Community. Otterbein is not named in the lawsuit, and representatives did not respond to requests for comment.

Dangers of Aggression

Diseases that cause dementia damage the parts of the brain that regulate impulse control and perception. Impaired people can become aggressive because of fear — especially when they no longer recognize their caregivers — or because they have no other way to communicate that they are in pain, are hungry, or have some other need.

Altercations between agitated people with dementia and other residents or workers charged with caring for them are in long-term care facilities and private homes. ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ previously found that federal inspectors have cited nursing homes more often for resident-to-resident abuse than for any other type of abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

Those dangers are particularly true in the more than that specialize in dementia care, usually in locked buildings or units populated by people with cognitive damage. These memory care facilities promise specially trained staff and meaningful activities for residents and usually charge more than standard assisted living.

The long-term care industry’s reliance on tranquilizing medications has been a concern of Congress for half a century. A stated that “an ugly pattern of prescription drug misuse, with harsh consequences to patients, exists in many nursing homes of the United States.”

A National Campaign

In 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched its to target overprescribing. It has shown some success with reducing the use of antipsychotics, which the FDA has approved primarily for people with schizophrenia. Excluding those patients, antipsychotics were given to nursing home residents in 2025. An inspector general identified “alarming instances of inappropriate use of antipsychotic drugs.”

Nationally, nearly in assisted living facilities have Alzheimer’s or other diseases and conditions that cause dementia. Unlike nursing homes, assisted living facilities don’t provide skilled medical care around the clock, but they help people with fundamental activities like bathing and eating. States regulate them, not the federal government.

A study published in 2023 in JAMDA, the journal of the society representing post-acute and long-term care medicine, found that, on average, assisted living residents with dementia for 13% of the time they lived there. Other researchers through 2017 concluded the federal campaign “did not appear to affect antipsychotic prescribing” in these residents.

Lauren Gerlach, a geriatric psychiatrist and an associate professor at the University of Michigan Medical School, said there is evidence that aggressive behaviors are better addressed by non-medication interventions, like looking for underlying medical issues or heading off situations that typically upset the person. But, she said, “for some patients, these behaviors are so severe that medications will be required.”

A Steady Decline

The details of Marjorie Tingley’s time at Vista Grande — as alleged in documents filed in the lawsuit; records provided by the Tingleys and their lawyer, Ron Marienfeld; and interviews and emails with the family — provide an unusually intimate look into what can happen when families and caregivers clash over brain-altering drugs.

A Detroit native, Tingley was a volunteer reading teacher in the Jackson, Michigan, public school system and worked in the general office. Later, she was a certified financial planner. Her sons said she was successful but made less money than she might have, because she didn’t direct investments to get the highest commissions. Instead, she did what she thought was best for clients.

“She was just so honest,” David Tingley said.

She was an active member of the Catholic Church. Her husband, Eugene, died in 2010.

Around 2018, her sons noticed she was becoming forgetful, not taking her regular medications or recognizing aides they had hired. David and his brother Mark, who shared power of attorney, said in an interview that their mother’s memory deteriorated further after a head injury in a 2019 car collision.

They hired caregivers to help at her home in Jackson, but by 2021, they decided she needed to be in a facility, choosing the assisted living unit at the nonprofit Vista Grande.

In 2023, Vista Grande told them that their mother’s dementia had progressed and that she needed to go into the memory care unit or leave. Vista Grande’s memory care marketing materials said its “dedicated team creates an individual program of support for each resident” and “provides for the precise services you need.”

David said they reluctantly agreed to the move but thought the quality of care was better in general assisted living, even though memory care cost more. Vista Grande charged Tingley $9,150 a month for memory care, her lease shows.

‘These Pills Have Side Effects’

Vista Grande first contacted the Tingleys in early December 2024 about behavioral incidents. According to facility records, Marjorie Tingley pushed an aide trying to help her use the bathroom and the aide almost fell. She yelled and kicked at staff trying to put on her shoes and socks. She wandered into another resident’s room and took a walker.

The facility requested permission to medicate Tingley, but her sons said they first wanted her checked for a urinary tract infection, which they said had caused her agitation in the past. “These pills have side effects,” Mark said. “I thought, ‘Personally, I don’t want her to have that.’”

Vista Grande collected the sample but didn’t ensure it was tested by a lab for more than a week, by which time the test had to be redone, according to facility and medical records.

In mid-December, Vista Grande sent Tingley to Henry Ford Jackson Hospital for a mental health evaluation, at which psychiatrists could decide whether she required involuntary hospitalization. Doctors did not find that necessary, but they confirmed a urinary tract infection and she was given antibiotics. Vista Grande declared she could not return unless the family agreed to sedating medication, according to hospital records.

In a court filing, Vista Grande said Tingley had become a “danger to herself and others.” Mark recalled feeling at the time that: “It’s like they’re holding her ransom unless I say she can have that pill.”

Medication Begins

The specific medications were prescribed either by hospital doctors or a nurse practitioner working for a medical group that serviced residents of Vista Grande and other long-term care facilities, medical records show. David said Vista Grande had encouraged the family to replace their mother’s longtime physician with that medical group. The lawsuit did not name the nurse, the medical group, or the hospital as defendants. Henry Ford Health declined to comment.

The brothers allowed Vista Grande to give their mother the drug Ativan, the brand name , as needed. Ativan is not an antipsychotic but a benzodiazepine that the FDA for people with anxiety. The label says it can , unsteadiness, and weakness and is supposed to be used “with caution” in patients with breathing problems — like Tingley, who had sleep apnea. It can cause “paradoxical” reactions such as agitation and rage.

After a week, Vista Grande workers gave “mixed reports” about whether the Ativan was calming Tingley, according to her medical records. Employees said she still would yell and was “very agitated.”

The family said they authorized Vista Grande to replace Ativan with a low dose of Zyprexa, the brand name for the , which the FDA has approved to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The FDA requires Zyprexa to carry a stating that it is not approved for the treatment of patients with dementia-related psychosis and places them at greater risk of death.

Nonetheless, Zyprexa has a long history of being prescribed that way. Eli Lilly, the drug’s manufacturer, pleaded guilty in 2009 to allegations that it improperly promoted the use of Zyprexa for dementia with long-term care providers and primary care physicians. The company a criminal fine and civil settlement totaling $1.4 billion.

The black box warning on Zyprexa alarmed the sons, and their online research made them worried that Zyprexa could damage their mother’s heart, since she had . While the family approved the prescription, they authorized only 2.5 milligrams of Zyprexa a day, half the starter dose recommended by Eli Lilly.

‘She Could Barely Function’

On both New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, Vista Grande sent Tingley to the emergency room. On Jan. 2, Vista Grande gave the family the 30-day eviction notice. “We have determined we are unable to meet the level of care and expectations required for your mother’s well-being,” it said in the letter.

While the family started looking for another facility, Vista Grande sent Tingley to the ER four more times.

A psychiatrist consulting with the hospital endorsed doubling the Zyprexa to the starter dose recommended by Eli Lilly, and the Tingleys consented, according to medical records.

For five days, there were no incidents at Vista Grande, according to her medical records. But the family alleged in court filings that Tingley was being excessively sedated. They instructed that the Zyprexa be cut back to its initial level, according to her medical records.

“She could barely function,” David said in the interview.

The sons said they were especially disturbed to learn she was being given both Ativan and Zyprexa after they had approved Zyprexa as a replacement drug.

Reports from emergency room crews and the hospital made the sons doubt their mother was as aggressive as Vista Grande described, they said. Those records show that throughout the ER trips, Henry Ford employees and ambulance workers generally found Tingley cooperative and polite.

A nurse said Tingley allowed her to braid her hair and blew her kisses when she left. “Just the sweetest patient and very loving,” another ER worker wrote in the medical records. A physician noted the discrepancy from what Vista Grande was reporting, writing in her record: “Her behavior on what I am witnessing is completely contrary to what they are indicating.”

In a legal filing, Vista Grande attributed Tingley’s calm to medication and the “familial love and attention” her sons gave her at the emergency room.

“The next time Ms. Tingley decompensated, the cycle predictably resumed,” Vista Grande said in the filing.

Vista Grande reported that aggressive behaviors resumed and continued sending Tingley to the hospital. On the last trip, Jennifer Wheeler, then-director of Vista Grande’s memory care unit, told ambulance workers that Marjorie would not be accepted back, according to EMS notes. “She is a danger to other residents and a danger to my staff,” Wheeler said.

Tingley stayed in the hospital until she was moved to another memory care facility in Jackson. on Jan. 26, 2025, less than two weeks later.

Her sons asserted in their lawsuit that the frequent trips back and forth to the hospital hastened their mother’s demise.

“They weren’t really caring about my mom,” Mark said. “If they were, they would know that all this back-and-forth to the hospital was no good for her.”

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

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

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

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

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

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

Then the bill came.

The Medical Service

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

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

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

The Bill

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

This is not the first time that a patient has complained to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ “Bill of the Month” about receiving a bill after leaving a Carle Health emergency room without being treated. In 2023, Maggi Wettstein took her toddler to a different Carle Health hospital and was billed $445 for a nasal swab test for covid and influenza. They, too, left before getting treatment.

The Billing Problem: What Counts as Care?

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

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

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

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

Carle Health declined to discuss Daniels’ bill or her care with ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, even though Daniels signed a privacy waiver that authorized it to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Resolution

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

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

Meanwhile, according to HealthLink’s statement to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, Daniels can contest her health plan’s denial: “Ms. Daniels has the right to appeal the decision through the established appeals process.”

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

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

The Takeaway

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

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

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

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

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

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

This article first appeared on ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .