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

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

The law worked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Promising Tool To Prevent Medical Debt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Help for the Insured

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

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

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

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

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

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

鈥楢 Very Different World’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The labor and delivery unit where she used to work in this rural northeastern Georgia community is no longer open. So, she asked former co-workers to be on standby around her anticipated due date. She and her midwife mapped out emergency rooms along the more-than-50-mile trek to the hospital in Greenville, South Carolina, where she planned to give birth. And, to prepare for a worst-case scenario, she curated items to keep in the car in case she went into labor en route.

“That’s a horrible place to put a pregnant woman in,” said Holden, who on Oct. 11 made the painful, hourlong trip to Greenville Memorial Hospital to deliver her son Tucker.

Holden lives roughly midway between Athens and Greenville, two of the nearest cities with labor and delivery units. Owing partly to Medicaid cuts from President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, St. Mary’s Sacred Heart Hospital in Lavonia nearly a year ago. Its closure is part of a trend touching rural communities nationwide. From South Dakota to and from to , low Medicaid reimbursement and dwindling birth rates are pushing hospitals to shutter these services. Today, of rural hospitals offer labor and delivery services.

In Georgia, only 36% of rural hospitals have a labor and delivery unit, and four have closed since 2020, according to data from the .

To address the challenge the closings pose to patients seeking care, the state 鈥� which ranks among the for maternal health outcomes 鈥� has turned to federal money from the $50 billion . This fund was created by congressional Republicans to offset concerns about the outsize fallout Trump’s signature legislation would have in rural communities.

More than $12 million 鈥� out of the nearly $219 million approved for Georgia in the program’s first year 鈥� will be allocated toward placing obstetric carts in 43 rural hospitals without labor and delivery units. The carts will be outfitted with supplies needed for a birth or obstetric emergency. For example, they’ll have neonatal resuscitation tools, thermal blankets, and essential medications such as oxytocin, which stimulates contractions, and magnesium sulfate, used to treat seizures in pregnant people with high blood pressure.

The delivery carts sound fine, in theory, said Justin Peterson, an OB-GYN who practices in southern Georgia and has seen the pressures rural health institutions face providing maternal care.

Like Holden, Peterson worries that the carts, while helpful, will put supplies in the hands of ER doctors lacking extensive obstetric experience. Instead, he wants the state to fill coverage gaps by investing more to prevent the closure of labor and delivery units in rural areas.

“You’re putting a band-aid on a hemorrhage,” he said.

‘Can’t Practice Scared’

Brittany Mitchell was about seven months pregnant when Sacred Heart’s labor and delivery unit closed. She was reassigned to an OB-GYN in Athens, even though the nearly 50-mile drive from Lavonia was stressful and inconvenient.

That OB-GYN wanted to see Mitchell weekly after finding high levels of protein in her urine 鈥� a warning sign of preeclampsia, which can cause organ damage, seizures, and other complications. To make it to those prenatal appointments, she routinely gave up a day of work as a home health aide, a job she said already didn’t pay much.

But if Mitchell were to have another baby, she said, she’d still prefer to drive to Athens to see an OB-GYN than be treated by an ER doctor. When she had her first child nine years ago, the local OB-GYN had to act quickly when her daughter briefly lost oxygen.

“If they were in that situation,” she wondered of ER doctors, “would they know how to do all that?”

In written responses to 吃瓜不打烊, Lauren Williams, director of communications for the Georgia Department of Community Health, said that training ER medical staff is the main goal of the obstetric cart initiative. The rollout will include simulation drills, during which ER staff will practice high-risk procedures.

The Georgia Hospital Association will procure and distribute the carts. When exactly that will happen is unknown, but the grant funding must be spent by Sept. 30, 2027, said Anna Adams, the organization’s chief government relations officer.

The concept of obstetric carts is great, said Justin Law, an emergency doctor with SouthlandMD, a physician-owned and -operated healthcare management and staffing company. Most items planned for the carts are already available in ERs. But having them in one organized spot will be helpful, he said.

Still, while ER doctors are more frequently positioned at the front lines as labor and delivery closures persist, advocates argue that they shouldn’t be used as a stopgap in obstetric care.

In the decade he’s worked across rural Georgia, Law said, he’s never delivered a baby in the ER even though he’s trained in emergency obstetrics and has experience delivering babies as a paramedic. When a mother needs an emergency cesarean section or has another high-risk complication, she would likely be transferred to a hospital with labor and delivery capabilities, Law said.

Holden, the former obstetric nurse, said familiarity with obstetric delivery practices and procedures is essential because some complications can’t wait for a transfer. “You’re not going to save anybody’s life just because you got access to some equipment,” she said.

Adams understands the concerns and acknowledged that the ER is not the ideal location for delivering a baby. “But sometimes things happen that are outside of our control,” she said. “And when it does, we want to make sure those hospitals are prepared.”

Robin Clyatt, maternal health community outreach coordinator for , said ER doctors have vast knowledge. But they might see someone with a major maternal health complication, such as a hemorrhage, only a few times a year, and therefore may lack the skills to act immediately, she said.

“You can’t practice scared when it comes to obstetrics,” Clyatt said. “And that’s important, because when you practice scared, you do stupid things.”

Ways To Keep Access

The labor and delivery unit at the Coffee Regional Medical Center in Douglas serves six counties in southern Georgia. The number of live births there increased from to , which shows the impact when nearby facilities close, said Peterson, who practices at the Coffee Regional Hospital Women’s Center.

While he understands that hospitals must consider their bottom lines, business decisions in recent years have often taken precedence over patient care, he said.

“They just say, 鈥極h, you know, the numbers aren’t there. We’re closing,’” he said, adding that when rural labor and delivery units shutter, the chance they’ll reopen is small.

Mark Ralston, public relations manager for St. Mary’s Health Care System, which owns Sacred Heart, did not respond to multiple requests to further discuss the unit’s closure. But in its announcement, the system said the decision followed “an extensive 18-month discernment process that included intensive efforts to recruit additional physicians, create new partnerships, and pursue incremental funding sources.”

Nationwide, states are attempting to narrow gaps in maternal healthcare using federal funds. will establish maternal health hubs to determine where resources are needed and help mothers navigate the health system. in rural communities.

In its proposal for federal rural transformation money, Georgia included incentives such as funding 75 new residency slots in various specialties and creating a grant program that would reimburse physicians up to $250,000 in relocation fees if they chose to practice in rural areas.

State legislators could incentivize doctors to stay in rural areas, offer higher reimbursement rates for hospitals, and provide loan forgiveness for physicians, Peterson said. Communities should also look to incorporate certified midwives and community health workers, Holden and Clyatt said, though for both groups to practice. Currently, certified nurse midwives are allowed to practice only in partnership with a physician, which maternal health advocates argue creates a .

Holden had the ability to send her vitals to her doctor and meet with them virtually for prenatal care.

As she adorned bookshelves in baby Tucker’s cozy, sage-green nursery with vintage trinkets and family heirlooms, she said she thought of less-resourced mothers in the area, who may be on Medicaid or not have the luxury to travel an hour for a prenatal appointment.

Holden worries that without prenatal care, conditions like preeclampsia could go undiagnosed more often. “They don’t make it, and their baby doesn’t make it, because they never got that diagnosed and managed,” she said.

People like to remain optimistic that everything will go as planned, but “there are so many things that can go wrong,” she said. “And they can go wrong really quick.”

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

Three Democratic senators issued recommendations a year after launching an inquiry into companies 鈥� Deloitte, General Dynamics Information Technology, Gainwell Technologies, and Conduent 鈥� that are paid billions in taxpayer dollars to build or run eligibility systems for safety net health coverage. Those benefits, provided to the poorest Americans, can mean the difference between having medical care or going without.

A handful of states directly operate their Medicaid eligibility systems, but most rely on contractors to build and run them. 吃瓜不打烊 found that Deloitte dominates this slice of government business. Deloitte-run systems have been plagued by errors that can result in eligible people losing their health coverage, previous 吃瓜不打烊 investigations have shown. Malfunctions can cost millions of taxpayer dollars and take years to fix.

“Administrative errors in this line of work are not like errors in other fields,” the senators . “There are life-and-death consequences for sick Americans who seek care only to find that their Medicaid coverage has been terminated.”

President Donald Trump’s signature tax and domestic policy law has mandated Medicaid changes that are forcing states to adapt their computer systems on a compressed timeline. Medicaid policies under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act add red tape and restrictions that make it harder for people to stay enrolled.

Those include the first federally mandated work requirements in Medicaid’s history. Next year, to keep benefits, millions of adult Medicaid enrollees in more than 40 states must prove they’re working or doing a similar activity for at least 80 hours a month, unless they qualify for an exemption.

Democratic senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Raphael Warnock of Georgia say the new restrictions 鈥� layered atop computer systems with histories of problems 鈥� will result in large numbers of people improperly losing health coverage.

State eligibility systems “have been built up, patched, and frankensteined for decades,” the senators said.

The senators sit on the powerful Senate Finance Committee, which oversees government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Many of their recommendations target the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Their ideas face long odds at the moment. Republicans control executive branch agencies, and any potential legislation would need to advance in a Republican-controlled Congress.

That balance of power could shift if Democrats win a majority of Senate seats in November’s midterm elections. The three lawmakers called on CMS to establish mandatory standards in state contracts with companies so states can receive federal funds.

These companies sign contracts with state governments, but the federal government approves them and pays the bulk of the cost. The federal government covers 90% of state costs to develop and implement state Medicaid eligibility systems and 75% of ongoing maintenance and operations expenses, according to federal regulations.

The lawmakers also said CMS should publicize the contracts and contract amendments. Currently, those documents can be obtained from state governments, but accessibility varies significantly.

The senators also said CMS should publicly disclose companies’ performance data and change orders. Change orders are used to adjust computer systems, and states set aside millions of dollars for them. But systems may require fixes beyond the agreed-upon work.

“The millions of Medicaid enrollees who will be required to prove their eligibility every six months, to document every hour of work on a glitchy portal, to find a doctor willing to certify that their cancer or their chronic condition is bad enough to qualify for an exemption 鈥� deserve contractors who are accountable for what happens when the system fails them,” they wrote.

In October 2025, the three Democratic senators, as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), sent letters to several companies that CMS identified as eligibility system contractors. At the time, they wrote that it is each company’s responsibility to build functioning eligibility systems, “rather than to prioritize their bottom line.”

As of June, were enrolled in Medicaid, according to CMS.

The lawmakers had asked the companies about their contracts, lobbying expenditures, and protocols for making changes in light of system errors, among other issues. The companies provided the lawmakers with some details but often did not answer their questions.

The companies said states are responsible for making the final call on whether a person receives benefits. State workers approve or deny eligibility, Deloitte said in its response letter, “not a private contractor or an automated system acting alone.”

The companies did not provide the senators with specific details about documents or processes they use to help states make eligibility determinations.

The companies also denied they have any financial incentives to remove people from Medicaid. Conduent said it gets paid less if enrollment drops.

The companies did not say whether states are on the hook for paying to fix the companies’ errors.

Deloitte, Gainwell, GDIT, and Conduent said it’s common for states to require that they meet certain performance metrics.

Gainwell told lawmakers, “We take seriously the issues raised.”

GDIT said it would answer additional questions from lawmakers and told 吃瓜不打烊 that it “has a strong track record” of supporting Medicaid programs. In New York, GDIT said it has a “limited role” in determining eligibility because it relies on rules provided by the state. GDIT operates New York’s online Affordable Care Act marketplace, where New Yorkers can enroll in various health plans, including Medicaid.

Deloitte said in its response to the lawmakers: “We are proud of our work serving individuals and families across the U.S.”

CMS did not respond to a request for comment.

CMS takes steps to check whether Medicaid eligibility systems are working properly. As part of the process for certifying states’ systems, federal officials . They include whether states are correctly calculating people’s incomes, whether individuals are given timely eligibility decisions, and whether eligibility categories are accurate. However, it is rare for the federal government to withdraw federal money from states for falling short.

In August, CMS announced it intends to for Medicaid systems. The ultimate goal is to improve enrollees’ access to care and their experiences with these systems, CMS said. The agency also has said the standards will hold companies accountable to deliver systems that are “continuously improving” and have a “stronger capacity to implement critical policy changes.”

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

But in January 2025, the city’s health systems had no good options for Debbie Doppelt, a 60-year-old jeweler with an unusual form of lung cancer that mostly afflicts nonsmokers like her. The Food and Drug Administration hadn’t yet approved sunvozertinib, a drug developed in China that targets the mutation driving Doppelt’s tumors. She had been through chemotherapy and surgery, but the cancer had now spread to her brain. And she didn’t qualify for the relevant clinical trials.

Then an option emerged, in an offhand remark.

“Too bad she’s not Chinese,” a doctor told her son Max Doppelt, who had organized his mother’s care since her 2023 diagnosis. “She could go to a pharmacy in China and buy it.”

Within hours, mother and son had reached out to friends and relatives, one of whom procured a small supply of sunvozertinib from a contact living in China. A few months later, Max flew to Shanghai to get a refill.

Other patients have followed. “No organization or doctor is guiding patients to China, but word gets out,” Max said. He said he knows of at least 30 Americans who’ve made the pilgrimage to obtain the drug, which the FDA licensed in July 2025 but wasn’t yet on the U.S. market as of mid-October of this year.

Sunvozertinib, made by Shanghai-based Dizal Pharmaceutical, isn’t the only treatment drawing patients to China. Americans, Europeans, and others are trekking there to enter clinical trials for CAR-T therapy, an area in which China is .

China, until recently known more as a supplier of drug precursor chemicals and generic medicines, has become a biotech powerhouse, accounting for of new drugs tested around the world in 2025. U.S. pharmaceutical companies are testing new therapies there and signing billion-dollar contracts with Chinese firms to develop and market their drugs.

China’s progress has alarmed some politicians, who warn of lost jobs and U.S. dependency on Chinese medicines. The Trump administration in June kicked off Operation TrialBlazer, aimed at speeding up some FDA regulatory processes to lure back more clinical trials.

China’s poor showing in vaccine and drug development during the covid pandemic prompted the country to overhaul its biotech sector, dramatically altering the global industry, said Sam Rasty, a veteran of small biotech companies who now leads one called FynderBio. Venture capital now flows heavily to early-stage clinical work in China and Australia, where regulatory systems enable key first-in-human studies much more quickly than in the United States.

Chinese companies are so much faster at this process that U.S. biotechs, which used to share early advances at conferences or funding meetings, now routinely conceal their progress out of fear that competitors will take their ideas and speed them to market, said Steve Potts, CEO of Breakthru Medicine, a small biotech.

At a meeting he attended in May, nearly all the 60 biotech CEOs in the room planned to run phase 1 trials in Australia, Europe, or China, Potts said. Five or 10 years ago, most of those trials would have been carried out in the U.S.

“Slow and prohibitive” FDA requirements are driving investment to more-nimble Chinese companies, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the agency, Heidi Overton, warned in her opening statement at her Sept. 24 confirmation hearing.

The movement of clinical trials overseas “should give pause to every American and those who serve on their behalf,” Overton said. “When we lose this advantage, we lose our health security. And when we lose our health security, we lose everything.”

Overton pledged to continue TrialBlazer, which mirrors Australian processes begun in 1991. It is aimed at accelerating clinical trials and approvals so patients do not feel compelled to seek treatment abroad, said Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard. It is sometimes legal to obtain medication abroad for personal use, but the FDA “cautions patients about potential safety and quality risks associated with treatments outside our regulatory system,” she added.

As the FDA moves to streamline drug development, members of Congress are trying to slow Chinese firms’ integration into U.S. biotech.

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, in June co-sponsored legislation with Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) requiring all U.S. pharmaceutical deals with Chinese companies to be cleared by the Treasury Department.

Others see biotech protectionism as misguided. China’s focus on improved medicines can only help us, said Peter Kolchinsky, managing partner of RA Capital Management, which has Chinese investments in its biotech portfolio.

“We may be adversaries in many areas, but we’re not competing with them to cure cancer. We are collaborating with them to cure cancer,” he said. “There are things that are bigger enemies than any other nation on Earth.”

Cancer Knows No Boundaries

A minor but persistent cough led to the diagnosis of Debbie Doppelt’s cancer in late 2023. Chemo, immunotherapy, and surgery kept it at bay for months, but in December 2024, scans showed the cancer had spread to her brain, with 10 tiny tumors.

The FDA earlier that year had approved amivantamab, a drug that targeted the mutation driving Doppelt’s tumor, but Max was concerned about its toxicity. Also, several doctors he consulted told him that amivantamab might not penetrate brain tissue to fight cancer there.

Doppelt tried to enter a clinical trial at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, where she was a patient, for zipalertinib, another drug that targeted her mutation. But in January 2025, the Doppelts learned that a slight scarring on her lungs had rendered her ineligible for the study.

That left sunvozertinib, which gained approval in China in 2023. It was also being tested in the U.S., but only in late-stage trials in which half the subjects received chemotherapy only. That risk was a nonstarter for Doppelt, whose cancer had already outsmarted chemo.

So Max flew to Shanghai, returning with 26 boxes of sunvozertinib in his luggage. The drugs cost about $10,000, he said.

“Getting on the plane and bringing the medicine home felt like my life’s purpose,” Max said. “The data was so clear that this drug had significant efficacy in the brain. Anything else she might do, she might not last a year.”

On Sept. 1 of this year, AstraZeneca signed an agreement with Dizal to distribute the drug worldwide, and it plans to make it available in the U.S. by the start of 2027, spokesperson Tara Parsell said.

Doppelt, who runs a diamond business with her husband, has tried to stay positive and healthy, scarcely missing a day of work since her 2023 diagnosis. She said she’s grateful she has a loving community and the means to afford the best available therapies.

“I think I’ve been pretty successful at having, actually, an amazing three years,” she said. “In some ways a better three years, with all of it, than the three years before, because you’re so appreciative of everything.”

Doppelt’s parents were Holocaust survivors. “They were always saying: 鈥楾his piece of bread tastes so good! Do you know what it is to be hungry?’”

吃瓜不打烊ing for help for his mother gave Max, a 30-year-old computer engineer, an idea for helping patients find the right treatment 鈥� which, in cases of advanced cancers, may be a clinical trial.

A year ago, he quit his tech job and that uses artificial intelligence to combine data from research and drug company sites with a patient’s health records to help them find the right study.

Similar apps are being used to help drug companies and hospital systems increase the percentage of U.S. cancer patients who enter clinical treatment trials, currently . This will also strengthen the U.S. drug industry, said CEO Kent Thoelke, whose company offers an AI program designed to help hospitals and clinics enroll trial subjects.

About 300 patients have used Max’s app. So far his clients, whom he doesn’t charge, have all been lung cancer patients like his mom. Sunvozertinib seems to help about half those who take it, he said.

A 70-year-old woman whom Max had assisted got a six-month supply of the drug earlier this year from China, only to learn after three months that it wasn’t working. “My cancer had spread,” said the woman, whom 吃瓜不打烊 agreed not to name, to protect sensitive health information.

鈥業’ll Do Everything in Our Power’

Doppelt has done well on the drug. Some 19 months after starting on it, her cancer was still mostly kept at bay, with the help of a few radiation treatments and dose adjustments.

AstraZeneca’s plans to widely distribute sunvozertinib would mean no more trips to China. But Max had few illusions that the drug would work for his mom forever.

“She has a metastasizing cancer that will learn to bypass the drug,” he said. “At that point we’ll be dependent on the latest and greatest therapies. If they happen to be in China, I’ll do everything in our power to go there.”

At his Upper East Side apartment one recent afternoon, Max examined the current clinical trial outlook for his mother. He pulled up her profile on the app and scrolled down a list scoring available trial sites according to their fit and proximity.

“This one looks good,” he said, pointing to a clinical trial for firmonertinib, a drug China approved in 2021 that’s under study in the U.S. and elsewhere.

CAR-T therapy is another possibility, particularly a variety that the University of Colorado has developed to boost patients’ immunological attack on mutations like the ones driving Doppelt’s cancer.

But Kyle Concannon, a leader of the Colorado research team, said regulatory uncertainty has slowed his progress. As new tools enable sophisticated measures of things like toxicity and tissue distribution, they add time, cost, and risk to the therapy’s development. These technologies may be better at detecting possible harms, “which is good,” Concannon said, “but the alternative to a new medicine, with a natural disease like lung cancer, is the individuals will die from their disease.”

Max Doppelt and other patient advocates, while pushing for faster FDA processes, don’t want to rule out more Chinese medicine runs.

“When drugs are approved in China but not in the U.S., of course we will deploy the China option where necessary,” said Marcia Horn, CEO of the nonprofit International Cancer Advocacy Network. “Lives depend on it.”

Max would prefer to see the drugs his mother needs developed in the United States. But he, too, opposes any effort to freeze out the Chinese biotech industry.

The discovery of new life-preserving drugs “really brings us together,” he said. “We’re all humans at the end of the day.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 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.

鈥� 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 鈥� I will not refuse. My current terror is that I might do this to my remaining family.

鈥� 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.

鈥� 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.

鈥� 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 鈥� over $400 鈥� was submitted for payment.

What is pain anyway 鈥� 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  鈥� which could be anything from a brain injury, an upcoming stroke, or a hemorrhage 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 鈥� 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.

鈥� 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 鈥� 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.

鈥� 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 “鈥楥ancer 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鈥揚ico 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 Hawai鈥榠 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.

鈥� Elaine Dong; Los Angeles

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

On Oct. 14, a temporary “” appeared on a White House docket, proposing to allow licensed pharmacies to make and sell certain unapproved peptides to people. Scientists at the FDA had advised against the measure at a , warning that the drugs hadn’t been adequately vetted in clinical trials.

A panel that advises the FDA disagreed, however, voting to loosen restrictions. Many of the panel members are new appointees with in the peptide industry. In an email, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said that every committee member satisfies the FDA’s ethics requirements.

“I voted ‘yes’ for patient safety, the greater good, and medical freedom,” Haleem Mohammed, one of the new committee members, said at the . He’s the chief medical officer of a men’s clinic that sells peptides, Gameday Men’s Health.

To make good decisions, consumers need to rely on accurate information, but much of the hype around peptides is misleading. 吃瓜不打烊 flags four misleading phrases commonly used by those promoting peptides — and one truth.

Red Flag: Peptides aren’t drugs.

Gary Brecka, a co-chair of the MAHA Action committee, says peptides aren’t drugs of his podcast. He talks about using them to “help regulate cortisol, improve circulation, all kinds of things.” When peptides are used to treat, prevent, or cure conditions, or to affect the body’s function, they are, , drugs.

“Peptide” is a general term for substances that are smaller than proteins but made of the same building blocks. Humans make many peptides, including insulin. Insulin is a drug when people inject it to regulate blood sugar.

“Most of the drugs we have had some antecedent in nature,” said Jacob Sherkow, a professor of law specializing in biotechnology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “Heroin is natural. No one in their right mind would call it not a drug.”

Brecka did not respond to requests for comment, but Chris Woodward, a public relations representative for him, said in an email that the health issues discussed on Brecka’s podcast do not constitute medical advice.

Red Flag: Peptides are safe because they’re natural.

Peptide promoters that peptides are safe because they’re natural. This clip of Brecka’s discussion with Brigham Buhler, a co-author of The Peptide Revolution and owner of a that sells peptides, is an example. Some influencers go further, saying that peptides are safe because they’re made by the human body. Buhler did not respond to requests for comment.

It’s murky territory. One of the most popular experimental peptides, BPC-157, was developed by Croatian scientists who isolated what they called “body protective compound” from gastric juices in the stomach lining. However, researchers have been unable to find a trace of BPC in the human genome, meaning it’s not made by humans, said Katrin Svensson, a peptide scientist at Stanford University. Researchers in Taiwan suggest the peptide is produced by stomach microbes, according to .

Even if BPC-157 and other peptides exist in nature, Svensson said, “natural things can be toxic.” People have died from taking , for example. And drugs considered safe can still make people feel ill. To learn about safety, and whether the benefits of a drug offset the side effects, researchers conduct placebo-controlled trials. These reveal problems that might not be obvious in the short term, such as liver damage, as well as underlying conditions that could turn minor issues into something serious.

The FDA is considering lowering restrictions on BPC-157 and five other experimental peptides that have not undergone high-quality clinical trials and are not FDA-approved. “I am excited about peptides too,” said Svensson, whose lab studies several peptides that she hopes to develop into drugs. “But,” she added, “you need to show they’re not harmful.”

Red Flag: These peptides treat illnesses and heal injuries.

Kris Wusterhausen, one of the new appointees to the FDA advisory panel, that the experimental peptide BPC-157 “can reduce [acid] reflux disease” and treat “neurologic disorders.” He’s the founder of an antiaging company that sells “clinically guided peptide treatments.” He did not respond to requests for comment.

Such claims are common among peptide promoters who say that various experimental peptides treat muscle injuries, covid, inflammatory bowel disease, and more. But vanishingly few clinical trials have been conducted.

A summary of a small clinical trial testing BPC-157 as a treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was published in 2005, but it lacked critical details about how the study was conducted. FDA scientists who called it “inadequate.”

Another concluded that BPC-157 relieved knee pain for 14 of the 16 patients involved, but it lacked a control group, meaning the participants might have felt better because of other factors, or their pain simply resolved over time.

In a 2025 on BPC-157 as a treatment for musculoskeletal injuries, researchers warned that it should be “approached with caution” because of a lack of evidence. Flynn McGuire, a physical rehabilitation doctor at the University of Utah and an author of the review, said anecdotes about people having miraculous recoveries are even less reliable.

He has told patients he won’t prescribe BPC-157 until quality studies are conducted. “People want new things quickly,” he said, “but medicine and science just don’t work fast.”

Peptide enthusiasts also tout laboratory studies, such as a particular peptide stimulating blood vessel growth. Such research is critical, but it doesn’t speak to safety, efficacy, or off-target effects in people, like fueling cancerous growths. Human biology is complicated, which is why most substances that show promise in early experiments fail in clinical trials.

Red Flag: Peptides can’t be patented.

A few months before Kennedy took charge at HHS, on the social media platform X that the FDA hindered access to peptides and other alternative therapies because they couldn’t be patented. It’s a common misconception about peptides: In an about the drugs, researchers found many posts suggesting that mainstream medicine has sidelined peptides because pharmaceutical companies cannot patent the substances and therefore can’t turn a profit.

Yet hundreds of peptide patents are listed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database. A patent on an early formulation of BPC-157 is .

“One cannot obtain a patent on the natural thing itself,” Sherkow said, “but if you slightly modify it, link it to something that allows me to inject it, formulate it to be more stable, all of that stuff is patentable and is being patented.”

Peptide patents can be lucrative. Pharmaceutical companies are suing one another over patents surrounding GLP-1 peptides, the basis of Ozempic and other such weight loss drugs. The market for those medicines is projected to within the next decade, according to the investment bank Morgan Stanley.

So why haven’t pharmaceutical companies invested in clinical trials on popular peptides? Clinical trials cost millions of dollars, so companies first must be convinced the drugs look promising enough for FDA approval, as well as have an edge over current medications.

Companies conduct experiments before investing big bucks. They may have done so for certain peptides and been discouraged by the results, Svensson said.

Pinchas Cohen, a gerontology scientist at the University of Southern California, said investors backed out of funding trials on a peptide he helped discover, MOTS-c, because they worried its use overlapped with GLP-1 medications. “Investors felt we couldn’t compete with that,” he said.

Kennedy’s push to make experimental peptides more accessible might make clinical trials even more unlikely, researchers say, because compounding pharmacies wouldn’t need FDA approval to sell the drugs for human use.

In a letter to the FDA, the pharmaceutical trade organization PhRMA advised against easing restrictions on unapproved peptides, saying it would “erode incentives for manufacturers to undertake the substantial time and cost required for FDA approval.”

True: Americans aren’t as healthy as they could be.

Kennedy and other leaders of the MAHA movement are right when the U.S. spends per person than any other nation and ranks below all other wealthy nations in . They also rightly note the high cost of treatment. Six in 10 U.S. adults said they worried about affording prescription drugs in a , with 4 in 10 saying they’ve skipped doses or taken other measures because of the price.

Researchers have outlined policies to lower healthcare costs and improve public health, such as limiting and improving access to . What’s not on the list: skipping clinical trials to sell unproven treatments that could harm people.

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

Not all of those kicked off were fraudulently enrolled, 吃瓜不打烊 has learned. Insurance industry sources said the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has reinstated a small number of people whose coverage should not have been canceled. More could follow in the coming weeks if enrollees discover they are uninsured when they go to use their coverage.

Still, the sweep was long overdue, say supporters such as Brian Blase, whose Paragon Health Institute has of the cited by those who allege in the ACA. But other policy experts question how many legitimate consumers were caught in the dragnet, perhaps because they failed to open a letter from their insurer or answer a phone call.

Questions continue to swirl, even as a second phase of the anti-fraud effort is underway. An additional 419,000 sign-ups are being scrutinized. Insurers must let CMS know how many of those enrollees don’t respond to outreach efforts by “around mid-to-late November, after the midterm elections,” said David Merritt, senior vice president of external affairs at the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

He confirmed that some BCBS members are among those who have been reinstated. He also said that CMS has an expedited review process for those who discover they have been improperly disenrolled.

Overall, however, the administration is providing few details about the cancellations, such as how robust the outreach was to those it targeted, how long it takes for people to get reinstated after discovering their coverage was wrongly canceled, and how many such cancellations have been reversed.

“It may be true that some of those enrollments were not authorized, but it can be equally true that people got lost in the shuffle and have a valid enrollment. Without more information, it’s almost impossible to tell,” said , a director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown Law. “That they are not being very transparent is telling too,” she said of the administration.

The enrollment cut comes as part of a larger Republican strategy to focus on fraud in government programs, including and , which resonates with GOP voters.

At an Oct. 14 press conference, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz touted the removal this year of subsidies for with duplicate Medicare, Medicaid, or Children’s Health Insurance Program coverage, citing not fraud but a failure to look for concurrent enrollments or continued coverage for dead people. They credited an by the Trump administration to restore more frequent data matching checks than were done under the prior administration.

Unauthorized sign-ups by rogue insurance agents seeking commissions and other potential impropriety in the ACA marketplace 鈥� applicants’ providing incorrect income estimates, for example 鈥� has been a concern for several years, with much debate over the magnitude of the problem.

Even so, how the recent move to cancel the 760,000 enrollments will play out politically is uncertain. with gas prices as a top concern for voters. It is likely that many removed from the ACA are in red states, such as Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Those areas in ACA enrollment from 2020 to 2025, driven in part by now-expired enhanced subsidies put in place during Joe Biden’s presidency. Additionally, the cancellations target only enrollees in states that use , the federal ACA marketplace. The fully running their own marketplaces generally have programs, such as multifactor authentication, and have reported few or none of the kinds of unauthorized sign-ups plaguing the federal marketplace.

“To the extent there is a reaction depends on whether the government got it wrong, whether people try to get care and then find out their coverage is no longer active,” said Adrianna McIntyre, assistant professor of health policy and politics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

How It Played Out

According to information the agency provided to 吃瓜不打烊, CMS in June selected for further review nearly 1.2 million enrollments that had all of what it deemed four warning signs for fraud:

• The application included no Social Security number or immigration document number.
• A broker was involved in the sign-up process.
• The plan had no monthly premium payment.
• The enrollee had had no contact with their insurer and no claims filed.

Then, as first reported by 吃瓜不打烊, CMS sent lists of those ACA accounts to specific insurers, instructing the carriers to review them and use at least two methods of contact 鈥� such as a phone call and a letter 鈥� to try to reach the enrollees. Policyholders were given 30 days to respond to the insurers’ outreach and provide the missing information. CMS disenrolled those who didn’t respond.

Johnny Wallin, chief operating officer of Texas-based Marketplace Insurance Exchange, which helps clients in about 35 states enroll in coverage, said insurers reached out to his organization for help contacting people on the CMS lists, prompting “an all-hands-on-deck” effort by agents to reach clients, some of whom were vacationing overseas.

“Getting them to answer the phone isn’t easy,” he noted, although he suspects his agents had a better chance of getting a reply than an insurer because their clients are familiar with their phone numbers. Still, they could not reach about 60 of them.

Additionally, his team has been asked by insurers to help contact those targeted in the second phase of CMS’ review. A recent case involved a client who needed to upload his new green card after his previous one expired, but language barriers meant that he had to take time off work to come in for agents to help with the process.

CMS would not provide a list of the insurers it contacted, but publicly available documents show that New York-based Oscar Health was one.

In an August earnings call with analysts and investors, CEO Mark Bertolini said the company was reviewing the files and that “there are a number of cases ” with people on the list. In other words, the company reached enrollees CMS had targeted over fraud concerns.

He did not specify how many it had reached. The company declined to comment for this article because it is in a voluntary “quiet period,” when publicly traded companies limit disclosing information before the release of an earnings report.

Still, in with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Oscar Health estimated that 250,000 to 300,000 of its members might be disenrolled because of the CMS effort. Nationally, the company had about 3 million members in the second quarter and reported strong profits.

A Smaller Patient Pool

Overall ACA enrollment has , falling by nearly 3 million in the first few months of the year, due in large part to the expiration at the end of last year of the enhanced subsidies. The Trump administration has also taken some credit, saying its focus on weeding out improper enrollments and other changes, such as eliminating a special year-round low-income enrollment period, led to the decline.

CMS has also suspended some brokers for improper activity and barred new brokers from enrolling clients in ACA insurance on the federal exchange during the upcoming open enrollment period.

CMS did not respond to requests for data on the reasons it canceled enrollments. What percentage of enrollees were deemed ineligible due to incorrect income reporting or because they had other health coverage, such as through their jobs? How many because their ACA applications lacked immigration documents or Social Security numbers?

“Currently, there is no additional data to share,” the agency’s press office said.

But people outside the administration have been vocal.

“This was clearly phantom enrollees,” said Paragon’s Blase. He thinks more than 99% of the cancellations are of zero-premium coverage that people were signed up for by rogue call centers without their knowledge, or for people who don’t exist at all.

Blase said the carriers had a big incentive to get hold of the enrollees because they would lose the subsidies they were being paid if the plans were canceled.

And for any people unfairly caught up, Blase and Trump administration officials say all they have to do to be reinstated is call the marketplace and provide their Social Security number or other missing information.

“Everyone has the political incentive for that process to be that easy,” Blase said. “We’re a month before the election.”

But, as prior reporting has shown, it isn’t always a quick process to get an ACA plan canceled or reinstated following an unauthorized sign-up or switch, even when a consumer discovers it themselves and reaches out to the marketplace.

Brokers and policy analysts note that some of the factors used to question enrollments 鈥� such as a plan’s having no claims filed in a year 鈥� are not that unusual because many people don’t visit a doctor or hospital in a given year.

Insurers “want those healthy people in the insurance pool to help bring down the rates,” said Ronnell Nolan, president and CEO of Health Agents for America, a trade group for health insurance agents. “We’re against fraud, and CMS has allowed a lot of fraud to happen. But we don’t want people who just didn’t go to the doctor to be canceled.”

And even with the outreach required by CMS, not everyone answers phone calls from unknown numbers or opens their mail or emails.

A found an average “open rate” on emails of 28.6%.

Policy experts also note that, while lack of a Social Security number on an ACA application could indicate a fake enrollee, it might also be an oversight, or the number might not be required, like for a child if the who is not seeking coverage for the child.

“There will be legitimate people who don’t have a claim or don’t respond to an inquiry from an insurer,” said , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “If the goal is to target fraudulent enrollment, what CMS did is better than tossing people at random, but is likely to miss the mark.”

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

Mary Agnes Carey 吃瓜不打烊 Mary Agnes Carey is managing editor of 吃瓜不打烊. She previously served as the director of news partnerships, overseeing placement of 吃瓜不打烊 content in publications nationwide. As a senior correspondent, Mary Agnes covered health reform and federal health policy.

This week, Trump administration officials announced their latest efforts to trim what they identified as duplicative and ineligible enrollees from government health programs. They tied the efforts to the administration’s broader crackdown on waste, fraud, and abuse 鈥� just as some states are opening polling stations for early voting.

The outcome of the midterm elections is expected to affect how and whether Congress addresses several healthcare issues during the lame-duck session, not the least of which is government spending. Plus, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled a new initiative to identify vaccine injuries, complete with a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the National Institutes of Health.

This week’s panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of 吃瓜不打烊, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law, and Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Sun.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University

Sandhya Raman Bloomberg Law

Paige Winfield Cunningham The Washington Sun

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Federal health officials this week pointed to their efforts to cut Affordable Care Act plan subsidies from people who were dead or found to have duplicate coverage under government health programs. While they were careful to say that these cases were not fraud, they tied their housekeeping activities to the Trump administration’s broader crackdown on waste, fraud, and abuse 鈥� and made that point just as some states are beginning early voting.
• The outcome of the midterm elections is expected to shape how Congress spends its time during the coming lame-duck session, with benefits or repercussions for health policy. Should the Democrats win control of one or both chambers, for instance, the party’s leaders could push to hold off on tackling government spending until they have more clout next year. Among the issues on the table are changes to the No Surprises Act, which has shielded patients from many bills but also has come under criticism for problems with the arbitration system it created.
• And Kennedy is pursuing a new initiative on vaccine injuries, opening a designated clinic at the NIH. The federal health department has also proposed reimbursing medical professionals for reporting vaccine-related injuries.

Also this week, 吃瓜不打烊’ Julie Rovner talks with Dan Weissmann, host of the healthcare podcast An Arm and a Leg, about the new and even more confusing landscape for Medicare enrollees as open enrollment begins.

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

Mary Agnes Carey: 吃瓜不打烊’ “People Say These Peptides Hurt Them. Their Stories Are Muffled in MAHA’s Push for Medical Freedom,” by Amy Maxmen.

Sandhya Raman: Stat’s “,” by Andrew Joseph.

Paige Winfield Cunningham: 吃瓜不打烊’ “AI, Tech Leaders Are Lobbying Trump Health Officials in a Government-Run Chat Room,” by Amanda Seitz, Maia Rosenfeld, and Darius Tahir.

Joanne Kenen: On CBS News’ Face the Nation, host Margaret Brennan’s interview with Shyam Sankar, chief technology officer at Palantir. () 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Reuters’ “,” by Andy Sullivan, Helen Coster, Ahmed Aboulenein, and Tim McLaughlin.

Credits

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From 吃瓜不打烊” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most Texas Hospitals Can Automatically Give Help

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill First or Screen First?

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

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

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

CommonSpirit declined an interview request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospitals Want To Help Patients — And Get Paid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘You Had To Pay It’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Few Hospitals Give Refunds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

States Seek Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .