Researchers say the children at about a mile away pay the price. They discovered the students there and at other elementary schools near major pollution sites in Pennsylvania had than other children in the state.

Residents and environmental advocates saw reason for hope and relief in the form of a designed to tamp down on coke oven plant pollution. But even before it took effect, President Donald Trump granted in the U.S. — including the one in Clairton — a from the standards.

Trump and Republicans have sought to align themselves with the Make America Healthy Again movement’s populist ideals, such as improving Americans’ food choices and reducing corporate harm to the environment. But the administration is ratcheting up its attacks on the very environmental protections that MAHA followers hold dear.

Taken together, these anti-environmental initiatives will lead to more pollution-related illnesses and higher health care spending, health researchers say. They could also have political ramifications, eroding MAHA’s support for GOP candidates in the November midterm elections if followers believe the party is more beholden to industry than to the movement’s agenda.

, including about a quarter of Republicans, support rolling back environmental regulations, according to a poll by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Some MAHA supporters believe voters will support Republicans because the Trump administration is delivering on other goals important to the movement.

“MAHA has a pretty diverse set of policy goals, ranging from medical freedom to food and the environment,” said David Mansdoerfer, who served in Health and Human Services leadership during Trump’s first term. “In totality, the Trump administration has strongly delivered on much of the MAHA agenda.”

While MAHA voters have been upset at some of the administration’s actions that promote industry, it’s hard to know how that may play out in the midterms, said Christopher Bosso, a professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University. Many were disillusioned by a Trump they viewed as promoting glyphosate, which HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has .

“The glyphosate thing really ticks off a lot of them; they’re really upset,” Bosso said. “Kennedy said it was poison. If it is a poison, why aren’t we regulating it? That’s where the tension plays out.”

The situation with the Clairton coke plant and the others granted exemptions from regulations underscores the potential public health risks. Six of the 11 factories had “high priority” violations of the Clean Air Act as of last May, according to a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis. Five coke oven plants logged major violations every quarter for at least three years straight.

“Poisoning continues to some of the most vulnerable residents of Allegheny County,” , who had lived in nearby Glassport, Pennsylvania, said at a about the coke plant.

Environmental Protection Agency spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said the president gave companies extra time because the technology needed to meet a new standard isn’t ready yet.

“Forcing plants to comply before the tools exist doesn’t make the air cleaner, it just shuts down facilities and kills jobs with nothing to show for it,” Hirsch said.

But environmental groups disagree that the plants were unable to comply at a reasonable cost, and they say the exemption from the EPA requirements shows the Trump administration is prioritizing the coal industry at the expense of public health.

“The Trump administration’s relentless actions to dismantle lifesaving environmental protections are a gut punch to the administration’s own promise to Make America Healthy Again,” said Cathleen Kelly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Hard Times in Clairton

Sprawled across , the Clairton plant operates ovens in which coal is heated to as much as 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit to make up to 4.3 million tons annually of the carbon-rich fuel known as coke. The product is used in blast furnaces to produce iron.

It’s a dirty operation. The process leads to hazardous emissions of that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says can lead to anemia and leukemia, as well as , which can trigger severe asthma.

The Clairton operation has had repeated problems with its emissions and operations, including and of toxic chemicals. The plant has received more than from the Allegheny County Health Department since 2022, stemming largely from a fire in 2018 that led to high emissions, and violated the Clean Air Act in each of the last , with the last compliance monitoring in July 2025, according to the EPA.

Nippon Steel Corp. last year acquired U.S. Steel, which now operates as a subsidiary. The company didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. U.S. Steel said it spends $100 million annually on environmental compliance at Clairton.

“Environmental stewardship is a core value at U. S. Steel, and we remain committed to the safety of our communities,” spokesperson Andrew Fulton said in a written statement.

Clairton was once bustling with movie theaters, a mix of grocery stores, and riverside parks, with a dance pavilion and . But the decline of steel hit hard. The town’s population dwindled from more than in the mid-20th century to as of 2024. until they were razed and replaced with signs saying to keep out. The 1978 movie , which depicts a hardscrabble industrial town, is partly set there. Today, about 33% of residents live in poverty.

While the plant brings jobs and revenue, residents of the town and the surrounding areas have long complained about health problems they attribute to its emissions.

“My parents are gone. My mom had cancer, my dad,” , a Clairton resident, said at a 2025 County Council meeting. “I lost a lot of loved ones and seen other ones pass because of this mill.”

Pediatric allergist looked into asthma rates among 1,200 children who attended school near major pollution sites in the area — including students at Clairton Elementary School. They had nearly triple the national rate of asthma, with the highest rate among African American youth, according to she led.

“We were shocked,” she said. “It was double or triple what we expected. The people are proud of their industrial background. We need steel, but they’re not running a good enough operation.”

A found children with asthma living near the coke plant had an 80% higher chance of missing school when sulfur dioxide pollution was elevated.

Allegheny County, which includes Clairton and Pittsburgh, is home to a number of industrial plants, and to increased deaths, chronic heart disease, and adverse birth outcomes. It was ranked in the top 1% of counties in the nation for cancer risk from stationary industrial air pollutants in a 2018 .

Clairton has an age-adjusted cancer death rate of 170 per 100,000 people, higher than the broader county’s rate of 150 deaths per 100,000 people, based on a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis of .

The American Lung Association in 2025 gave the county an F rating for its particle pollution levels. PennEnvironment, an environmental group that was party to a settlement with U.S. Steel involving the Clairton plant, says the coke operation caused of toxic releases in 2021, which amounted to 60% of all such releases in the county that year.

From 2020 through 2025, the Clairton plant racked up more in fines from Clean Air Act penalties than any other coke oven facility nationwide, costing U.S. Steel over $10 million, according to EPA facility reports.

“We are deeply concerned with exemptions, which allow air toxics to affect public health,” Allegheny County Health Department spokesperson Ronnie Das said in a statement.

The Clairton plant provides and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to the area. The jobs help generate nearly $3 billion in annual economic output, according to estimates from the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association.

Some community members and advocacy groups hoped air quality would improve after the coke plant was sold. has pledged to upgrade facilities in the Monongahela River Valley.

Politics, Waivers, and Environmental Concerns

Under the Biden-era rule, coke plants were supposed to start meeting from the lids and doors of ovens that heat coal. They would also have had to monitor for benzene at their property lines and take steps to lower emissions of the carcinogen if they exceeded certain levels. Compliance deadlines were set for July 2025.

The Trump administration, which has sought to revive the coal industry, intervened. Last year, it , including coke plants such as Clairton’s, to seek from issued in 2024 by the EPA.

Then Trump in November went further, granting all coke plants a two-year compliance break.

The reprieve was necessary, the EPA spokesperson Hirsch said, because the requirements would have meant extra costs for the industry when standards already in effect work “extremely well” at reducing pollution.

Hirsch also said the agency under Trump is protecting the environment, pointing to action the administration has taken to called PFAS, prevent lead poisoning, strengthen chemical safety, and protect Americans’ food and water supply.

“We are building a future where the next generation of Americans is the healthiest in our nation’s history, and they inherit the cleanest air, land and water in the world,” Hirsch said.

However, the administration has taken several steps that environmental advocates say weaken health protections.

The president’s executive order on glyphosate, an herbicide the World Health Organization has linked to cancer, which touched off a who said they felt betrayed. The EPA has decided to stop considering the of reducing pollution when making policy decisions, instead focusing on the cost to industry of complying with rules. The agency also rescinded the legal and scientific basis that had long established as dangerous to public health.

The actions have rankled some MAHA enthusiasts who counted on the administration to tackle chronic disease, especially among children. A petition to Trump on with more than 15,000 signatures called for the removal of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, it said supported corporations over MAHA goals.

Some MAHA enthusiasts have sounded off on social media.

“No one should believe that MAHA is being upheld at the EPA at this point,” , a leader of American Regeneration, which focuses on a conservation approach to farming, said Feb. 8 on X.

, host of a , also aired her concerns on X, saying “there is something really freaking spooky going on at the EPA and I refuse to let the American people be gaslit into thinking they’re upholding the MAHA agenda.”

“A significant number of people who supported Trump are worried these rollbacks are going to hurt their health,” said , a Democratic strategist and the founder of the communications firm Third Degree Strategies. “The MAHA voters, especially women, are very sensitive to this. Republicans have put themselves in a bind.”

MAHA supporters shouldn’t be surprised by a Trump administration that doesn’t prioritize environmental protections over industry, because the president has always championed fossil fuels, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a nonpartisan election forecasting newsletter published by the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

The coke plant exemptions have disappointed some community members, environmental groups, and regulators concerned about public health and emissions.

Nearly 300,000 people live within 3 miles of the 11 active coke plants across the U.S., according to EPA data compiled by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Weakening environmental rules has helped boost Trump with the U.S. coal industry. In February, mining industry executives and lobbyists gathered at the White House, .

Coal miners, including some in white hard hats bedecked with American flags, with a bronze-colored trophy emblazoned “The Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal.”

At the event, Trump praised their work. “We love clean, beautiful coal,” he said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/clairton-pennsylvania-us-steel-make-america-healthy-again-maha-coal-coke/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Other drivers stopped, broke the car window, and pulled him to safety. A passing volunteer firefighter performed CPR until an ambulance arrived to take Masterson to UPMC Mercy hospital.

He spent 18 days in the medical intensive care unit there, 14 of them on a ventilator. He developed delirium, a common ICU condition, and needed antipsychotic drugs. Despite a feeding tube, he lost weight. “We honestly weren’t confident that he would pull through,” said Ron Dedes, his brother-in-law.

But he did. Masterson was discharged Feb. 1 and returned home with near-constant family support. Working diligently with several kinds of therapists, he has regained his ability to walk, despite lingering weakness, and to manage his personal care. His once-garbled speech has markedly improved. He can make himself a sandwich.

Now, “our biggest concern is his memory,” Dedes said. Masterson, who so recently handled complex legal matters, forgets conversations and events that happened a few hours earlier, said Patti Dedes, his sister. He can’t yet operate a microwave or place a phone call.

In an interview, he described himself, accurately, as “much, much better than I was” — but misstated his age. Screening tests after his discharge indicated cognitive impairment and depression.

Among critical-care doctors, prolonged symptoms like his are known as “post-intensive care syndrome,” or PICS. The fallout can be physical or psychological, as well as cognitive, and can persist for months or years.

More than are admitted to intensive care across about 5,000 American hospitals, and research shows that . Older age increases the odds.

Patients and families are often startled by these continuing difficulties. “The belief is that they’ll be discharged from the hospital and in two or three weeks, they’ll be back to normal,” said Brad Butcher, who was Masterson’s doctor and in the medical journal JAMA. “That doesn’t comport with reality.”

In fact, with greater ICU use and improved treatments — the Society of Critical Care Medicine estimates that their stays — the population likely to encounter the syndrome is growing.

“Everyone is grateful that the patient has survived,” said Lauren Ferrante, a pulmonary critical-care doctor and researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “But that’s just the start of a long road to recovery.” In a study of patients 70 and older that she co-authored, within six months after discharge only about half had .

Intensive care patients face a . PICS symptoms — weakness, pain, neuropathy (tingling in arms and legs), and malnutrition — to , primarily anxiety and depression. like Masterson’s are commonplace, including problems with memory, attention and concentration, and language.

“For many people, surviving a critical illness is a life-altering experience,” Butcher said. Patients in intensive care after emergency or elective surgery also of new physical, mental, and cognitive problems a year later.

The same aggressive treatments that save lives contribute to the syndrome. Intensive care patients “have some sort of dramatic organ failure that requires immediate attention” and constant monitoring, explained Carla Sevin, a pulmonary critical-care doctor who directs the ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

That could mean a breathing tube attached to a ventilator, which in turn often requires sedating drugs. Sedation “can precipitate delirium, and delirium is the key factor in cognitive symptoms,” Butcher said.

It doesn’t help that constant beeps and alarms from monitors and round-the-clock bright lighting disrupt sleep, and that restrictive family visiting hours deprive patients of reassuring faces and voices.

Gregory Matthews, a retired accountant in St. Petersburg, Florida, spent nearly a month in an ICU after a lung transplant in 2014. He still vividly remembers his hallucinations, including mice running across the wall and someone trying to frame him for drug running.

“One day, I thought a doctor was an assassin — I could see the rifle,” said Matthews, now 80. “So I jumped out of bed,” he said, and yanked out his IVs. The staff put his arms in restraints for days.

But immobilization exacts its own toll as patients quickly lose muscle mass and strength. “Our bodies were not meant to lie in bed all day,” Ferrante said.

Psychologically, “PTSD is pretty common, similar to what’s seen in combat veterans or sexual assault survivors,” Sevin said, referring to post-traumatic stress disorder. Families can suffer anxiety and depression along with the patients.

Alarmed by such discoveries, doctors and administrators at about 35 U.S. hospitals have established , where teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists (physical, occupational, cognitive, speech), and social workers screen for a host of conditions and help guide patients through them.

Vanderbilt’s clinic saw its first patient in 2012. The Critical Illness Recovery Center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which Butcher founded in 2018, works with about 100 patients a year, including Masterson. Yale opened its clinic in 2022.

They rely on six practices recommended by the Society of Critical Care Medicine that are shown to . The measures call for changes such as using lighter sedation, getting patients up and moving earlier, testing their breathing daily to wean them from ventilators sooner, and removing restrictions on family visiting.

Clinics often offer support groups for patients and families. There’s evidence that keeping an ICU diary, in which patients and caregivers record their experiences, and engaging in exercise and physical rehabilitation after discharge.

Also on the clinics’ agenda: discussions of what other options patients might prefer if they face another critical illness, as many do. Would they agree to undergo intensive care and risk its aftereffects again? Or choose palliative care, which emphasizes comfort rather than cure? Some post-ICU patients remain permanently impaired.

Butcher, although he said that the use of the new practices needed to expand dramatically, sounded optimistic about the future of critical care. “We’re going to find better diagnostic tools, better preventive strategies, and better therapies,” he said.

For now, though, the ICU experience remains disorienting and sometimes traumatic. When Butcher asked 117 patients in his post-ICU clinic those next-time questions, many wanted to place limits on further medical interventions.

About a third would want to lower the level of aggressive care. Of those, about a quarter would want “do not resuscitate” and “do not intubate” orders, and almost 7% said they never wanted to return to an ICU.

Masterson is working hard to further his recovery. “I haven’t been out and about much,” he said. “I’ve been kind of homebound.” He hopes to get strong enough to resume running — he used to log 3 to 4 miles several times a week.

The future for patients contending with post-ICU syndrome often depends on their physical, mental, and cognitive health before their admission. Masterson’s previous fitness and cognitively demanding work bode well for his further progress, Butcher said.

His family remains alternatively hopeful and worried. “Down the road, what’s it going to be like?” Dedes, his brother-in-law, wondered. “We just take it day by day.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with .

This <a target="_blank" href="/aging/post-icu-patients-pics-physical-cognitive-mental-health-aftereffects/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

“I call it the unaffordable care act,” he said. He reprised the line in his address, blaming “the crushing cost of health care” on Obamacare.

Trump’s words also play off an ongoing congressional debate that began late last year with the expiration of the enhanced tax subsidies that had lowered the cost of ACA insurance for millions of Americans — and thrust the issue of ACA-related costs back to center stage.

Without those enhanced subsidies, the amount people pay toward monthly Obamacare premiums doubled, on average. The number of people enrolled in ACA coverage for this year has dropped by more than a million, and experts say more people could abandon coverage once premiums come due. Democrats are using this development to crank up the heat on Republicans ahead of the November elections and steer the conversation on the affordability issue.

Republicans fault the law itself for driving up these costs. For instance, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) that premiums “skyrocketed across the country since it took effect.”

Critics routinely point to several provisions within the ACA as the culprits — among them, essential health benefits, or EHBs. Under the law, Obamacare plans must cover certain essential services, including emergency care, hospitalization, maternity, and prescription drugs, without annual or lifetime dollar limits. But connecting EHBs to the premium increases felt by consumers is not straightforward.

Here’s a primer on key issues involved.

Checking the Numbers

It’s clear that Obamacare premiums have increased.

An analysis by the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute shows that the average premium for a 50-year-old with Obamacare since 2014. The average premium for employer-based plans grew 68% during that same time.

Paragon’s president, , told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News that this shows the ACA has made health care on the individual market more expensive.

Still, the comparison overlooks a couple of points. Pre-ACA, employer plans generally offered more generous coverage than individual market plans, so work-based coverage cost more. And individual plans were cheaper in part because they could bar applicants with health problems. Beginning in 2014, the ACA forced individual policies to look more like employer plans, covering a broader range of benefits and accepting both healthy and unhealthy applicants. As a result, premiums rose that first year. In the years that followed, ACA plans often experienced faster growth in premiums than job-based plans. Some policy analysts say this isn’t surprising because ACA plans started at a lower dollar base and had more room to rise.

States that saw less dramatic post-ACA premium increases, such as Massachusetts and New York, already mandated that individual-market plans provide EHB-like coverage, noted , a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. These states also had higher premiums due to that and other provisions, such as not allowing plans to exclude people with preexisting conditions.

“It was a combination of things,” he said.

Blase acknowledges that the two types of insurance started at different price points. But he said the percentage change over time shows that the ACA faces “underlying inflationary pressures” — including the now-expired, more generous, covid pandemic-era subsidies — that affect its policyholders more so than employer plans.

Aside from that point, however, were on the rise even before the ACA took effect.

An analysis by Jonathan Gruber at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that between 2008 and 2010, premiums grew by at least 10% a year and were highly variable across states and insurers.

Consumers’ Other Costs

Over time, ACA deductibles — the amounts policyholders must satisfy in a given year before insurance kicks in — have seen large increases, with “bronze” plans now averaging $7,476 annually, up from $5,113 in 2014, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News. Bronze plans tend to have lower premiums than the other metal-level categories — “silver,” “gold,” and “platinum” — in part because of their higher deductibles.

The Trump administration is doubling down on high-deductible plans as part of its emphasis on affordability, making it easier this year for people age 30 and up to qualify for what are called “catastrophic plans.” These come with even larger deductibles than bronze plans.

The administration to cement those changes, saying it was designed to lower premiums and expand choices. It would raise next year’s deductibles for catastrophic plans to $15,600 a year for an individual or around $30,000 for a family. It isn’t clear how popular such plans would be. Detailed enrollment figures for this year are not yet available, but estimates indicate chose catastrophic plans in 2025, and consumers can’t use federal subsidies to purchase them.

Before this Trump proposal, though, recent data showed that the rising rate of ACA plan deductibles had not outpaced deductibles for employer plans.

The weighted average — a calculation that gives more weight to ACA plans with the most people enrolled — shows in annual deductible amounts since 2014, from $1,881 to $2,912. During that same period, deductibles in plans offered by 59%, from $1,186 to $1,886, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ’s annual employer survey.

Essential What?

To be clear, the ACA’s catastrophic and bronze plans must cover essential health benefits, as do all Obamacare plans. These EHBs fall into 10 categories of medical services and were included in the ACA to ensure individual policies meet a minimum standard of coverage and are comparable to employer-based health insurance.

Preventive services, such as annual checkups, vaccines, and certain cancer screenings, must be covered at no additional cost to patients. All plans must completely cover the cost of specific vaccines, including the annual flu shot. And insurers cannot refuse to pay for emergency care provided at an out-of-network hospital. Other EHBs are subject to out-of-pocket costs, such as copays at the doctor’s office or pharmacy counter.

In some ways, EHBs save money because they’ve increased access to preventive care, said , a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Services such as cancer screenings and lab tests can lead to earlier detection of serious conditions, when treatment is less costly, and positive outcomes are more likely.

“If you look down the list of essential health benefits, I think most people would reach the judgment that those are health care services that people should have access to,” said Larry Levitt, Â鶹ŮÓÅ’s executive vice president for health policy.

Joseph Antos, a senior fellow emeritus at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said ACA requirements — such as requiring insurers to accept anyone, regardless of their health status, and limiting insurers’ ability to charge older people more for coverage — also have played roles in boosting premiums.

“Really, it’s practically impossible to tease any one thing out,” Antos said.

States do have latitude to add benefits that fall under the EHB umbrella. For example, bariatric surgery is covered as an EHB in , but not in . Pennsylvania’s EHBs also don’t include hearing aids, but do.

But the Trump administration’s 2027 regulatory proposal : When “states enact benefit mandates, plan premiums must generally increase to account for the additional coverage,” it reads. It also signals that added benefits can raise consumer costs and proposes that states be required to use their own funds to offset some of those costs.

Paragon’s Blase echoed this take in his bottom line. Mandating that plans cover EHBs without annual or lifetime caps, as required under the ACA law, encourages clinicians to overbill and overprescribe, he said. That drives up premiums and means a bigger check for insurers and medical providers at the expense of taxpayers. “You just turn patients into money factories,” he said.

, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, disagrees, saying that whatever EHBs’ role, they aren’t to blame for the year-over-year premium hikes.

People aren’t consuming medical care at exponential rates just because certain services are now covered: “Me not paying anything for that colonoscopy doesn’t make me want to get more of them,” she said.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage?  to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/obamacare-essential-health-benefits-premium-costs-debate/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Miller, a neuroscientist, said she saw several psychiatrists and got prescriptions for drug after drug. Over two years, she tried four antidepressants and two antipsychotics. None of that helped — until her primary care doctor noticed high levels of an autoimmune marker in her blood.

A specialist then ran “every test in the book,” Miller said. Eventually, she was diagnosed with the autoimmune disease lupus and prescribed an inflammation-lowering steroid. Some of her symptoms let up within hours. Her depression subsided not long after.

“I was convinced it was a placebo effect,” Miller said, “but then it kept working.”

Had inflammation been contributing to her mental health problems all along? Miller thinks so, although she can’t know for sure. Her psychiatrists never raised that possibility, she said.

In most medical specialties, doctors can confirm whether to pursue a type of treatment through tests, such as blood work, imaging, and biopsies. Mental illnesses, however, have historically been diagnosed and treated based on outward symptoms. That could change.

The American Psychiatric Association included ideas for how it might incorporate biomarkers — biological indicators of mental illness that could show up on diagnostic tests — into future versions of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

The DSM, sometimes because of its influence in the field, provides criteria for diagnoses. It’s used by clinicians assessing patients and by insurance companies deciding whether to cover care.

‘Coordinated’ Research Needed

Psychiatric biomarkers are not ready for widespread use yet, the paper emphasized. Scientists have researched the topic for decades, with little to show for it. More research is needed to prove these metrics are valid and reliable enough to be used in patient care, the APA’s paper said, and other researchers have raised questions about how their use could affect health care costs, insurance coverage, and patient privacy.

Adding biomarkers to the DSM would be “a very big deal,” said Jonathan Alpert, an author of the January paper and vice chair of the APA’s Future DSM Strategic Committee.

Access to test results, along with symptoms, could streamline insurance coverage decisions and help clinicians make faster and more accurate diagnoses and treatment recommendations, he said. If patients’ biology suggested they’d respond better to one treatment than another, their doctor could waste no time in starting there.

Currently, prescribing psychiatric medications can be “a bit of a crapshoot,” with clinicians unable to predict whether they will work for a particular patient, said Matthew Eisenberg, director of the Center for Mental Health and Addiction Policy at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In a funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, about 30% of the study’s participants with depression saw symptoms disappear with their first antidepressant treatment. That study is still one of the most robust antidepressant trials conducted — although researchers have that fewer people are cured by these medications than its results suggest.

Such a trial-and-error approach can lead to ineffective and unnecessary prescriptions, a topic of attack by proponents of the Make America Healthy Again movement, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy has been especially , having linked them to violence after a without evidence and blaming doctors for overprescribing medications for children.

HHS is analyzing psychiatric diagnosis and prescription trends and evaluating alternative mental health treatment approaches, with a particular focus on children, spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement. Hilliard did not respond to a question about Kennedy’s previous comments.

Biomarkers are already used to guide treatment in other medical disciplines, such as oncology. Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, and require insurers to cover such testing. Blood and imaging tests are now used to help diagnose Alzheimer’s disease as well.

The APA included in its article a variety of ways psychiatric biomarkers could be used in the future — such as testing for brain activity, genetic profiles, or immune markers associated with certain psychiatric conditions, including schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

In depression, for example, about a quarter of patients have elevated levels of an inflammatory protein, called C-reactive protein, that can be found through a blood test. that people with high levels of this protein seem to respond better when given drugs that alter dopamine levels in the brain, rather than using only selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, a common type of antidepressant. C-reactive protein still needs to be “robustly validated” as a biomarker, according to the APA’s paper, but it’s among the most promising currently under investigation.

A “coordinated, well-funded” research effort is needed to achieve such validation, the APA wrote — a tenuous prospect since the Trump administration slashed funding for research.

The National Institute of Mental Health alone had at least 128 grants, worth almost $173 million, canceled in 2025, according to a . Though some grants have since been restored, researchers relying on federal money still fear their work is vulnerable to cuts.

“There’s a great need for continued, active funding of research related to mental health,” Alpert said, but scientists will have to grapple with “uncertainties of the funding landscape.”

Ripple Effects on Coverage, Costs

Health care costs among patients with poorly controlled mental illnesses, like hospital visits, outpatient appointments, and prescriptions. Some research suggests biomarker testing could save money by landing on the right treatments faster and avoiding some of these costs.

estimated that testing to look for genetic components that may influence a drug’s effectiveness could save the Canadian health system $956 million over 20 years if used among adults with major depression in British Columbia. , by Spanish researchers, found that such testing reduced costs for most of the 188 participants with serious mental illness.

Whether the same would be true in the U.S. health care system is unknown. In the short term, Johns Hopkins’ Eisenberg said, an approach that uses biomarkers could raise health care spending due to the costs of testing.

Insurers may decline to cover pricey biomarker tests, he added. “It takes a while for new science to be proven safe and effective,” Eisenberg said. “And once it is, insurance companies don’t cover it immediately.”

Some researchers have raised concerns that insurers or employers could discriminate against people whose biological profiles of developing serious neuropsychiatric conditions.

It’s a “critical moment” to consider legislative approaches to protect patients and train clinicians about how to appropriately use these tools, said Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, a member of Harvard Medical School’s Center for Bioethics.

“I do not think that the field of psychiatry is currently ready to manage this,” he said.

The mental health system isn’t ready to “jump in with both feet,” said Andrew Miller, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Emory University School of Medicine, who studies inflammation-related depression. But the APA’s embrace of biomarkers signals “the beginning of a revolution,” he said.

“This is a recognition … that what we’ve done up to this point has not been good enough,” Miller said. “And we can do better.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/psychiatry-biomarkers-mental-health-diagnoses-dsm/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “,” Newsom to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington, and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the , a regional public health agency, whose guidance would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Donald Trump officially from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and HHS declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the covid era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public Health Guided by Science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request. Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and . The White House last year proposed cutting HHS spending , including . Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing, and education, .

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, and a judge the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Association of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3 billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding Cuts Hurt All

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the the closure of that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had , the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at , , and .

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust Vaccine Schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, and covid-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and several other East Coast states banding together to create the .

HHS’ Hilliard said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing Red States

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A Â鶹ŮÓÅ analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/gavin-newsom-california-public-health-fight-west-coast-alliance-trump-hhs-rfk/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Jamie Estrada of Albuquerque, New Mexico, twice received injections of lidocaine in his upper spine to test if a permanent nerve ablation would treat his chronic neck pain. His pain vanished — until the numbing agent wore off about six hours later. The real zinger: His insurer was billed $28,000 for each 10-minute procedure.

Mark McCullick of Longmont, Colorado, was sent for a whole-body PET scan to find out whether his prostate cancer was back. The two-hour scan showed no evidence of cancer, but the $77,000 bill sent to the company that administered his insurance alarmed him.

Medical inflation has general inflation for years, with bills for many brief, routine procedures reaching tens of thousands of dollars.

These cases highlight the questions that haunt the American health system and the patients caught in its grip: What is a reasonable price for any health care visit or procedure, and how is it determined? How hard do insurers, the purported stewards of the patient’s hard-earned health dollars, fight to lower charges, and how closely do they scrutinize bills for accuracy?

Smith, Estrada, and McCullick’s cases are all “chargemaster” bills, calculated from the master price list that health providers place on services. Patients who have insurance don’t generally pay them. But they matter because they are often the starting point for the negotiated price the insurer agrees is reasonable to pay for the services. Patients are typically responsible for 10% to 20% of the negotiated price, their coinsurance — and when prices are this high, that can be a big number. What’s more, those negotiated rates are difficult for patients to access (until they get the bill) and seemingly arbitrary.

Also, because health insurers can offset high outlays one year by raising premiums and deductibles the next, they have little incentive to bargain hard for good deals for the patients they cover. So patients all pay unknowingly, indirectly.

In the cases of Smith and Estrada, their insurers paid the majority without questions. Penn State’s Hershey Medical Center, which treated Smith, received $61,000, or 62% of what it charged. New Mexico Surgery Center Orthopaedics, which treated Estrada, received $46,000, or 82%.

McCullick’s insurer, on the other hand, said it would pay Intermountain Health just 28% of his $77,000 bill. Then came another curveball: The hospital, which said it had gotten preauthorization, discovered after the fact that his scan was not covered. So it billed McCullick the full chargemaster rate of $77,000 — or, it offered, he could pay the cash rate of $14,259.

In an emailed statement, Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP, the leading trade group for health insurers, blamed hospitals for the trouble, saying that plans are “focused on making benefits and coverage as affordable as possible for their members,” and that: “As the largest single category per premium dollar spent, increases in the cost of hospital-based care have an outsized impact on premiums.”

In a health system in which prices can vary exponentially with little transparency, how can patients afford to get sick?

‘It Makes No Sense’

Americans as a top priority for government in 2026, according to an Associated Press-NORC poll, expressing particular concern about cost, access, and insurance coverage.

The first Trump administration required insurers and hospitals to publish files containing cash, gross, and negotiated prices for various items and services. These raw, machine-readable price lists — often hundreds of pages filled with medical billing codes — to patient-customers.

Five years later, they’ve been ingested, parsed, and enriched by academics and startups, shedding light on the often-shocking disparities in prices and how they’ve come to exist.

“When we look at the data, whether it’s from a chargemaster or what insurers paid, it’s all over the map — it makes no sense,” said Marcus Dorstel, senior vice president of operations at Turquoise Health, a price transparency startup with payers and providers as clients. “The variation is huge, even in a specific area.”

When researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health looked at the data, they discovered that the price different insurers pay for the same billed charges “can be three or more times different at the same hospital,” said Ge Bai, a professor of health care accounting who was among the researchers.

The prices insurers pay are determined by numerous factors, including what’s in their contracts with health systems. Some health plans, such as Smith’s, automatically pay a percentage of the hospital’s billed charges, incentivizing hospitals to increase their rates. Hershey Medical Center increased its prices for 11 common hospital billing codes by an average of about 30% from 2023 to 2025, Dan Snow, a data scientist at Turquoise Health, calculated for this article. But those prices were not much different than those of other hospitals in Pennsylvania.

In other cases, an insurer might agree to pay a health system a case rate — a standard rate for a type of care, say a colonoscopy or an inpatient stay for pneumonia.

But there’s a lucrative catch, called a “carve-out,” which refers to a particular benefit that’s negotiated and paid separately. If the hospital used expensive drugs or devices, for instance, they can be billed in addition to the bundled case rate, with no limits on hospital markups. That was the case with McCullick’s PET scan; about 80% of the charge was not for the scan, but for a new kind of drug injected before the scan to detect cancer.

Most often the final prices depend on the relative negotiating power of the insurer and the health system: Which side has enough market sway to walk away if the other doesn’t meet its demands?

Such factors “can explain the price variations and patterns that we see,” Dorstel said. “In some markets insurers are price-makers, and in others they are price-takers.”

For Insurers, Paying More Is Profitable

Insurers aren’t incentivized to lower prices, because high prices mean they “get a slice of a bigger pie,” Bai said.

By law, insurers must spend 80% or 85% of premiums on patient care. But when prices rise, they can pass on the increase to customers in the form of higher premium costs and still meet their legal obligation. So higher premiums mean less money for the patient and more profit for the insurer.

For each spinal injection Estrada received, his insurance company’s contracted rate was $23,237.50. Estrada’s coinsurance was $5,166.20. With a high-deductible plan, he was asked to pay all of that more than $5,000 bill.

When he called to challenge the big bill, he said, the surgery center’s administrator told him the charges were the result of a “legacy contract” with the insurer that is “advantageous” and “favorable” to the center.

New Mexico Surgery Center Orthopaedics’ charges are many times those of the hospital where the center’s doctors admit patients, for example; there, Estrada’s insurance company’s contracted rate for the same spinal injection is just $2,058.67. And compared with the roughly $20,000 the insurer paid for each of Estrada’s injections, other insurers pay the center about $700 for the same procedure, Snow found.

The surgery center is part of a national group that owns more than 535 surgical facilities, United Surgical Partners International, which in turn is owned by Tenet Healthcare, a for-profit health conglomerate. That kind of market dominance can lend companies the negotiating power to charge — and get paid — what they want, Bai said.

The surgery center, United Surgical Partners International, and Tenet Healthcare did not reply to multiple requests for comment from Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

With charges prenegotiated, insurers have little incentive to scrutinize questionable bills. When Smith asked for an itemized bill for her surgery, she discovered that she had been billed for two surgeries: one for the ectopic pregnancy removal and another because the surgeon noticed signs of endometriosis and performed a biopsy. Both were billed at the contracted rate of $37,923.

She was livid at the charges, which to her seemed like double-dipping. “That was one surgery,” she said. “There was one incision.”

A Yale University-trained lawyer, Smith consulted the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ , which note the two billing codes used for her surgery generally can’t be “billed together for the same patient encounter” because one more or less is bundled with the other.

Smith said she reached out to the Penn State hospital, the insurer, and even the state attorney general without resolution. So she expects she will, reluctantly, have to pay the $5,250 coinsurance that the hospital and insurer say she owes.

In response to questions from Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News, Scott Gilbert, a spokesperson for the health system, did not respond to the specifics of this case, but wrote: “Penn State Health recognizes that health care billing can be confusing and often overwhelming for patients. The process involves many factors, including the type of care provided, where it’s delivered and the details of a patient’s insurance coverage.”

A ‘Reasonable’ Price?

After a reporter sent multiple inquiries to Intermountain Health, McCullick said an agent asked him what would be “a reasonable amount to resolve the situation.”

Sara Quale, a spokesperson for Good Samaritan Hospital, the Intermountain affiliate where he got the PET scan, wrote: “We sincerely regret the frustration this situation has caused Mr. McCullick,” noting that “we have been in consistent contact with him and will continue to follow up as needed.”

McCullick said he wants to pay his fair share but is still trying to figure out what that is — certainly less than the different self-pay prices he’s been offered, which all top $10,000. “The fluid nature of these numbers is mind blowing,” he wrote in an email.

As for Estrada, he was so angry that he decided not to go ahead with the nerve ablation. While he was being prepped for the procedure, Estrada recalled, the physician said he had “heard he might sue” and chastised him for being a troublemaker. The hospital did not respond to a request for comment on the allegations, and Estrada said he had never threatened legal action.

Estrada got off the table and put his shirt back on. “I’m not going to let this person put a big needle into my back.”

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/insurers-pay-high-prices-premiums-coinsurance-cost-control-inflation-patients/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

It’s all part of a drama that roiled the ACA’s 2026 open enrollment period. Congressional debate over whether to extend more generous subsidies made available under the Biden administration led to and focused public attention on rising health care costs and the affordability issue.

The enhanced subsidies, which expanded eligibility both by lowering the percentage of household income people had to pay toward their care and removing an income cap, expired at the end of last year. As a result, just about everyone buying ACA coverage saw their costs increase. For some, what they paid toward premiums doubled or more, even though less generous subsidies remain in place.

Many experts expected ACA enrollment, which hit a record 24 million in 2025, to fall this time around.

“If you raise the price of something a whole lot, economics tell us that a lot of people will buy less of it or not buy at all,” said Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy officer with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Here are things to watch now:

Initial Numbers Aren’t Final

The in December 2024 that not extending the enhanced subsidies would cause 2.2 million people to lose insurance in 2026, with further increases in following years. Analysts with the Wakely Consulting Group would opt out of insurance for this year.

Data released Jan. 28 by federal officials showed a year-over-year enrollments across the federal healthcare.gov marketplace and those run by states. Overall, there were 23 million enrollees, including 3.4 million new to ACA coverage.

At about the same time last year, there were , with 3.9 million new to the marketplaces.

But there’s more to it than those initial numbers.

For one thing, both years’ data was pegged to Jan. 15 for the federal marketplace, which closed its open enrollment period that day. But, the data for the states that run their own marketplaces included sign-ups in most cases only through Jan. 10 or 11, even though some held open enrollment until the . Thus, the numbers don’t reflect what might have happened in those last days. Was there a surge in state sign-ups? Or, conversely, did the marketplaces see more enrollees cancel their coverage?

Additionally, those initial numbers are a mix of newly minted ACA enrollees and existing customers, many of whom were auto-reenrolled for 2026 — which raises other issues.

For existing, reenrolled policyholders, the real figures won’t be known for weeks or months, when it becomes clear how many actually pay their premiums. Some consumers may not have focused on their reenrollment costs or may have hoped Congress would extend the subsidies.

That’s an important factor to keep in mind because the CBO and Wakely estimates of millions losing insurance were based on projections for full-year coverage, not initial sign-ups.

In the coming weeks, “consumers may find they really can’t afford the premiums and cancel their plans, while carriers may also cancel coverage for nonpayment,” said Pat Kelly, executive director of Your Health Idaho, a state-based ACA marketplace, during a Jan. 22 call with reporters.

Sharp Differences in State Enrollment Patterns

Changes are also afoot in the 19 other states (and the District of Columbia) that , some of which have issued more detailed data about enrollment than the federal marketplace.

Most states saw lower enrollment for 2026 than the prior year, with the biggest drop in North Carolina, where sign-ups fell by nearly 22%, federal data shows.

In a few states — including New Mexico, Texas, California, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia — the number of people selecting ACA plans increased.

The jump was largest in New Mexico, with its initial number of people selecting plans up by nearly 14%. Increases were in the single digits in the other states and Washington, D.C.

New Mexico — uniquely — used its own tax dollars to fully offset the loss of the more generous federal tax subsidies for all consumers. , including California, Colorado, Maryland, and Washington, used state money to help some enrollees.

The , a collective of 22 state marketplaces supported by the National Academy for State Health Policy, said initial enrollment figures . Compared with the same time last year, outright plan cancellations are up 83% in Colorado, disenrollments are four times what they were in Idaho, and Virginia has seen cancellations double.

New enrollments are from the same period last year, according to data from the state. In Pennsylvania, people ages 55 to 64, the group with the highest premiums, and young people 26 to 34 in higher numbers than other age groups, state data shows.

“We have drastically higher rates of people dropping their coverage,” said Devon Trolley, executive director of the Pennsylvania Health Insurance Exchange Authority. “We had 70,000 drop in the last two months, from early retirees to small-business owners to farmers not knowing how to make ends meet.”

On Feb. 9, Pennsylvania released , showing enrollment dropped by about 2% from last year, although that figure masks some of the effects. The state says nearly 18% of enrollees dropped coverage altogether, with older and rural residents being the most likely to fall out.

Some Republicans credited Trump-administration-backed anti-fraud measures, which included a range of , for tightening the system. Although some of those actions were paused by a federal court and have not taken effect, those ACA critics, some of whom have produced that millions may have been improperly enrolled, say that’s behind the decline. They have previously for unauthorized enrollments or ACA plan-switching by commission-seeking brokers.

States that run their own ACA marketplaces, however, reported little or no such unauthorized switching. Relative to the federal marketplace, the state-based ACA platforms employ additional safeguards to prevent brokers from accessing consumers’ coverage without authorization.

Among consumers not returning to the marketplace, the main reason is cost, said Mila Kofman, executive director of the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority, which runs the district’s ACA marketplace.

“When we looked at who these folks are, half are small-business owners,” Kofman said. “They are not folks committing fraud.”

Lower Premiums, Higher Deductibles

Rather than sticking with automatic reenrollment, existing customers in many states shifted sharply into lower-priced “bronze” plans that come with higher deductibles than silver, gold, and platinum plans.

California saw 73% of renewing members who switched plans move to a bronze plan, up from 27% at the same time last year, the State Marketplace Network reported. In Maine, bronze enrollment now represents almost 60% of all plans purchased.

People are “looking at what works in their monthly budget, looking for that lower premium,” said Stacey Pogue, a senior research fellow at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “Some might be crossing their fingers that they won’t need to meet their deductible.”

On average, bronze plans have an . All ACA plans are required to cover certain preventive services — such as some vaccinations, cancer screenings, and other tests — without a copayment or deductible, but most everything else is covered only after an annual deductible is met.

High deductibles can lead some patients to avoid seeking medical care, Hempstead said.

“People are terrified to use their care,” she said. “They may delay something until it’s more serious.”

She added that medical providers, including hospitals and doctors, are bracing for an increase in the number of insured patients who can’t afford to pay their deductibles.

“Everyone is anticipating that hospitals will have to give out more charity care, which will hurt their bottom lines and might lead them to have to lay off people or close or reduce services,” she said.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/affordable-care-act-aca-obamacare-sign-ups-subsidies-higher-premiums/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

During procedures, he seemed “hesitant, not sure of how to go on to the next step without being prompted” by assistants, said Mark Katlic, director of the Aging Surgeon Program at Sinai Hospital in Baltimore.

The chief of surgery, concerned about the doctor’s cognition, “would not sign off on his credentials to practice surgery unless he went through an evaluation,” Katlic said.

Since 2015, when Sinai inaugurated a screening program for surgeons 75 and older, about 30 from around the country have undergone its comprehensive two-day physical and cognitive assessment. This surgeon “did not come of his own accord,” Katlic recalled.

But he came. The tests revealed mild cognitive impairment, often but not necessarily a precursor to dementia. The neuropsychologist’s report advised that the surgeon’s difficulties were “likely to impact his ability to practice medicine as he is doing presently, e.g. conducting complex surgical procedures.”

That didn’t mean the surgeon had to retire; a variety of accommodations would allow him to continue in other roles. “He retained a lifetime of knowledge that had not been impacted by cognitive changes,” Katlic said. The hospital “took him out of the OR, but he continued to see patients in the clinic.”

Such incidents are likely to become more common as America’s physician workforce ages rapidly. In 2005, more than 11% of doctors who were seeing patients were 65 or older, the American Medical Association said. Last year, the proportion reached 22.4%, with nearly 203,000 older practitioners.

Given physician shortages, especially in rural areas and key specialties like primary care, nobody wants to drive out veteran doctors with skills and experience.

Yet researchers have documented “a starting in their mid-60s,” said Thomas Gallagher, an internist and bioethicist at the University of Washington who has studied late-career trajectories.

At older ages, reaction times slow; knowledge can become outdated. Cognitive scores vary greatly, however. “Some practitioners continue to do as well as they did in their 40s and 50s, and others really start to struggle,” Gallagher said.

A few health organizations have responded by establishing mandating that older doctors be screened for cognitive and physical deficits.

UVA Health at the University of Virginia began its program in 2011 and has screened about 200 older practitioners. Only in four cases did the results significantly change a doctor’s practice or privileges.

Stanford Health Care launched its late-career program the following year. Penn Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania also put in place a testing program.

Nobody has tracked how many exist; Gallagher guesstimated as many as 200. But given that the United States has more than 6,000 hospitals, those with late-career programs constitute “a vast minority,” he said.

The number may actually have shrunk. A federal lawsuit, along with the profession’s lingering reluctance, appears to have put the effort to regularly assess older doctors’ abilities in limbo.

Late-career programs typically require those 70 and older to be evaluated before their privileges and credentials are renewed, with confirmatory testing for those whose initial results indicate problems. Thereafter, older doctors undergo regular rescreening, usually every year or two.

It’s fair to say such efforts proved unpopular among their intended targets. Doctors frequently insist that “‘I’ll know when it’s time to stand down,’” said Rocco Orlando, senior strategic adviser to Hartford HealthCare, which operates eight Connecticut hospitals and began its late-career practitioner program in 2018. “It turns out not to be true.”

When Hartford HealthCare published data from the first two years of its late-career program, it reported that of the 160 practitioners 70 and older who were screened, .

That mirrored results from Yale New Haven Hospital, which instituted mandatory cognitive screening for medical staff members starting at age 70. Among the first 141 Yale clinicians who underwent testing, that were likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently,” a study reported.

Proponents of late-career screening argued that such programs could prevent harm to patients while steering impaired doctors to less demanding assignments or, in some cases, toward retirement.

“I thought as we got the word out nationally, this would be something we could encourage across the country,” Orlando said, noting that Hartford’s program cost only $50,000 to $60,000 a year.

Instead, he has seen “zero progress” in recent years. “Probably we’ve gone backward,” he said.

A key reason: In 2020, the federal over its testing efforts, charging age and disability discrimination. The legal action continues (the EEOC declined to comment on its status), as does the hospital’s late-career program.

But the suit led several other organizations to pause or shut down their programs, including those at Hartford HealthCare and at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas, while few new ones have emerged.

“It made lots of organizations uncomfortable about sticking their necks out,” Gallagher said.

Instituting later-career programs has always been an uphill effort. “Doctors don’t like to be regulated,” Katlic acknowledged. Late-career programs have “in some cases been very controversial, and they’ve been blocked by influential physicians,” he said.

As health systems wait to see what happens in federal court, most national medical organizations have recommended only voluntary screening and peer reporting.

“Neither works very well at all,” Gallagher said. “Physicians are hesitant to share their concerns about their colleagues,” which can involve “challenging power dynamics.”

As for voluntary evaluation, since cognitive decline can affect doctors’ (or anyone’s) self-awareness, “they’re the last to know that they’re not themselves,” he added.

In a recent , Gallagher and his co-authors recommended procedural policies to promote fairness in late-career screening, based on an analysis of such programs and interviews with their leaders.

“How can we design these programs in a way that’s fair and that therefore physicians are more apt to participate in?” he said. The authors emphasized the need for confidentiality and safeguards, such as an appeals process.

“There are all sorts of accommodations” for doctors whose assessments indicate the need for different roles, Gallagher noted. They could adopt less onerous schedules or handle routine procedures while leaving complex six-hour surgeries to their colleagues. They might transition to teaching, mentoring, and consulting.

Yet a substantial number of older doctors head for the exits and retire rather than face a mandated evaluation, he said.

The future, therefore, might involve programs that regularly screen every practitioner. That would be inefficient (few doctors in their 40s will flunk a cognitive test) and, with current tests, time-consuming and consequently expensive. But it would avoid charges of age discrimination.

Faster reliable cognitive tests, reportedly in the research pipeline, may be one way to proceed. In the meantime, Orlando said, changing the culture of health care organizations requires encouraging peer reporting and commending “the people who have the courage to speak up.”

“If you see something, say something,” he continued, referring to health care professionals who witness doctors (of any age) faltering. “We are overly protective of our own. We need to step back and say, ‘No, we’re about protecting our patients.’”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with .

This <a target="_blank" href="/aging/doctor-cognitive-decline-assessment-ageism/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Instead of typing on her computer keyboard during the exam, Urban’s primary care physician at the practice in Media, Pennsylvania, had an ambient artificial intelligence scribe take notes. At the end of the 30-minute visit, Urban’s doctor showed her the AI summary of the appointment, neatly organized into sections for her medical history, the physical exam findings, and an assessment and treatment plan for her rheumatoid arthritis and hot flashes, among other details.

The clinical note, which Urban could also review on the patient portal at home, was incredibly thorough, she said. It summarized all of her questions and concerns and the doctor’s responses. The scribe “made sure we didn’t miss anything,” Urban said.

Ambient AI scribes are being hailed by physicians as a game changer that helps free them to focus on their patients rather than their computer keyboard. By releasing doctors from the onerous and time-consuming task of documenting what happens during every patient encounter, , AI scribes may help reduce physician burnout and after-hours “pajama time” catching up on work in the evening.

The potential of AI to transform every aspect of the health care system — from patient care to clinical efficiency to medical innovation — is an area of intense focus, including by the Trump administration.

Last January, President Donald Trump issued an to remove barriers to American leadership in AI. Later in the year, a from the federal Department of Health and Human Services invited stakeholders to weigh in on how the department can accelerate the adoption of AI in health care.

Several startup vendors in recent years have introduced ambient AI scribe products that can be integrated into electronic health records. EHR market leader Epic is technology, which it expects to release widely early this year, according to , a family medicine physician who is chief medical officer and vice president of clinical informatics at Epic.

Health tech experts estimate that a third of providers have access to ambient AI scribe technology. As adoption looks likely to grow rapidly over the next few years, many expect it to become more of a recruiting tool, a minimum requirement for incoming clinicians, who are increasingly prioritizing work-life balance.

“It’s part of keeping doctors happy,” said , a professor and the chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, whose forthcoming book, , explores how AI is transforming health care. “Health systems that initially might have done a hard-nosed return-on-investment calculation — many are softening on that and realizing that the cost of recruiting and retaining doctors is pretty high.”

But many questions remain. Does the use of ambient AI scribes improve patient care and health outcomes? Will doctors use time they gain by employing an AI scribe to improve the quality of the time they spend with their patients or just boost the number of patients they see? To what extent will expanding the amount of detail available from a patient visit lead to bigger bills if the AI scribe is integrated with a coding app that optimizes provider charges?

For now, these questions remain mostly unanswered.

Urban said that the AI scribe didn’t change her experience as a patient very much. Typically, after a patient gives verbal permission, the AI scribe records the visit on a phone and organizes the conversation into the structure of a clinical note, filtering out small talk that isn’t pertinent to the medical visit but incorporating relevant details about a family member’s recent cancer diagnosis, for example. The scribe’s note is often then integrated into the provider’s EHR. The doctor later reviews the note and signs off on it.

Even though the visit may not feel very different to patients, some clinicians report that ambient AI scribes are changing patient encounters in unanticipated ways.

“Now, when I’m doing a physical exam, I have to say what I’m doing and what I’m finding out loud in order for the AI scribe to document it,” said , Urban’s primary care doctor. “People find that very interesting,” she said.

When Capalongo places her stethoscope over the carotid artery under a patient’s jaw, for example, she might say that she doesn’t hear a “bruit,” or vascular murmur, whose presence could indicate atherosclerosis. Patients have told her, “I never knew why a doctor would listen there,” she said.

Saying things out loud for the AI scribe that would typically appear only in a clinical note can create its own set of challenges, particularly during sensitive physical exams. Doctors may feel it’s important to adjust their conversation accordingly.

“Sometimes patients are anxious and scared and my saying things that they don’t understand or they may worry about during an uncomfortable examination does not help the situation and honestly is insensitive to what the patient is going through,” said , a professor in the Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery at the University of Minnesota, who is also chief health informatics and AI officer at Fairview Health Services in Minneapolis. “I’ll keep that top of mind and make sure I record it” after the visit.

“How we have conversations with patients about these tools is really important, in particular for maintaining trust and ensuring accurate information,” Melton-Meaux said.

Studies have found that, across a range of measures such as completeness, timeliness, and coherence, the notes created by ambient AI scribes are generally at least as good as, and sometimes better than, traditional documentation, said , a pediatrician who is vice president for applied informatics at the University of Pennsylvania Health System.

An ongoing concern is around AI “hallucinations,” in which false, sometimes fabricated information appears in an AI output.

Kaiser Permanente, an of ambient AI scribe technology, provides it to more than 25,000 doctors, advanced practice providers, and pharmacists systemwide. It has found hallucinations to be “quite rare,” said , an internist who is vice president of AI and emerging technologies at KP.

But they happen. An AI-scribe-generated note, for instance, might say that the doctor planned to refer someone to a neurologist or to follow up in two weeks. The problem? The doctor might not have said that.

“The technology is not perfect, and that’s why physicians are reviewing it,” Yang said. It’s learning from regular physician visits as it goes, he said. That’s why having a person check the work product is critical.

Still, even such a “human-in-the loop” system is fraught, Wachter said. “Humans stink at maintaining vigilance over time,” he said.

As the use of ambient AI scribes becomes routine, some clinicians worry that the technology will widen the divide between health care haves and have-nots.

Large health systems are able to move forward with the technology, Melton-Meaux said. But what about critical access hospitals or small private practices? “There need to be more resources,” she said.

Physicians’ enthusiasm for ambient AI scribes stands in sharp contrast to their negative reaction to electronic health record systems that have become widely adopted in recent years to replace paper charts.

“During the last 10 years, when EHRs became a thing, we all became very grumpy, overworked data scribes,” Wachter said.

The introduction of AI scribes makes physicians feel like technology is working for them rather than the other way around, health care AI experts said.

And AI scribes are “training wheels” for more consequential adoption of AI in health care, Wachter said.

To improve health care value and save costs, Wachter said, we need a system that makes it more likely that physicians will practice evidence-based medicine to order the right tests and prescribe the right medications.

“It’s a few years away, but it’s all AI-dependent,” he said.

Epic has introduced roughly 60 AI use cases for patients, clinicians, and administration, with over 100 more in the works.

“It’s so much bigger than a scribe,” said Epic’s Gerhart. “It’s literally listening and acting in a way that tees things up for me so that I can take action.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/ambient-ai-scribes-doctor-appointments-note-taking-ehr-epic/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

But two years ago, he heard about Peak Health, a new Advantage plan started by the West Virginia University Health System, where his doctors practice. It was cheaper and offered more personal attention, plus extras such as an allowance for over-the-counter pharmacy items. Those benefits are more important than ever, he said, as he’s treated for cancer.

“I decided to give it a shot,” said Wilkewitz, 79. “If I didn’t like it, I could go back to Humana or whatever after a year.”

He’s sticking with Peak Health. Members of Medicare Advantage plans, a privately run alternative to the government’s Medicare program, can change plans through the end of March.

Now entering its third year, Peak Health has tripled its enrollment since last year, to “north of 10,000,” said Amos Ross, its president. It expanded from 20 counties to 49, he said, and moved into parts of western Pennsylvania for the first time.

Although hospital-owned plans are only a sliver of the Medicare Advantage market, their enrollment continues to grow, reflecting the overall increase in Advantage members. Of the 62.8 million Medicare beneficiaries eligible to join Advantage plans, , according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ, the health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News. While the number of Advantage plans owned by hospital systems is relatively stable, Mass General Brigham in Boston and others are expanding their service areas and types of plan offerings.

Health systems have dabbled in the insurance business for years, but it’s not for everyone. MedStar Health, serving the greater Washington, D.C., area, said it closed its Medicare Advantage plan at the end of 2018, citing financial losses.

“It’s a ton of work,” said Ross, who spent more than a decade in the commercial health insurance industry.

Like any other health insurer, hospitals entering the business need a back-office infrastructure to enroll patients, sign up providers, fill prescriptions, process claims, hire staff, and — most importantly — assure state regulators they have a reserve of money to pay claims. Once they get a state insurance license, they need approval from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to sell Medicare Advantage policies. Some systems affiliate with or create an insurance subsidiary, and others do most of the job themselves.

Kaiser Permanente, the nation’s largest nonprofit health system by revenue, started an experimental Medicare plan in 1981 and now has nearly 2 million people enrolled in dozens of Advantage plans in eight states and the District of Columbia. The Justice Department announced Jan. 14 that KP had to settle accusations that its Advantage plans fraudulently billed the government for about $1 billion over a nine-year period.

Last year, UCLA Health introduced two Medicare Advantage plans in Los Angeles County, the most populous county in the United States. Other new hospital-owned plans have cropped up in less profitable rural areas.

“These are communities that have been very hard for insurers to move into,” said Molly Smith, group vice president for public policy at the American Hospital Association.

But Advantage plans offered by hospitals have a familiar, trusted name. They don’t have to move into town, because their owners — the hospitals — never left.

Bad Breakups

Medicare Advantage plans usually restrict their members to a network of doctors, hospitals, and other clinicians that have contracts with the plans to serve them. But if hospitals and plans can’t agree to renew those contracts, or when disputes flare up — often spurred by payment delays, denials, or burdensome prior authorization rules — the health care providers can drop out.

These breakups, plus planned terminations and service area cuts, forced more than 3.7 million Medicare Advantage enrollees to make a tough choice last year: find new insurance for 2026 that their doctors accept or, if possible, keep their plan but find new doctors.

About 1 million of these stranded patients had coverage from UnitedHealthcare, the country’s largest health insurer. In a July earnings update for financial analysts, chief financial officer John Rex blamed the company’s retreat on hospitals, where “most encounters are intensifying in services and costing more.”

The turbulence in the commercial insurance market has upset patients as well as their providers. Sometimes contract disputes have been fought out in the open, with anxious patients in the middle receiving warnings from each side blaming the other for the imminent end to coverage.

When Fred Neary, 88, learned his doctors in the Baylor Scott & White Health system in central and northern Texas would be leaving his Medicare Advantage plan, he was afraid the same thing could happen again if he joined a plan from another commercial insurer. Then he discovered that the 53-hospital system had its own Medicare Advantage plan. He enrolled in 2025 and is keeping the plan this year.

“It was very important to me that I would never have to worry about switching over to another plan because they would not accept my Baylor Scott & White doctors,” he said.

Eugene Rich, a senior fellow at Mathematica, a health policy research group, said hospital systems’ Medicare Advantage plans offer “a lot of stability for patients.”

“You’re not suddenly going to discover that your primary care physician or your cardiologist are no longer in the plan,” he said.

A that Rich co-authored in July found that enrollment in Advantage plans owned by hospital systems grew faster than traditional Medicare enrollment for the first time in 2023, though not as rapidly as the overall rise in sign-ups for all Advantage plans.

The massive UCLA Health system introduced its two Medicare Advantage plans in Los Angeles County in January 2025, even though patients already had a list of more than 70 Advantage plans to choose from. Before rolling out the plan, the University of California Board of Regents discussed its merits at a November 2024 meeting. The offer rare insight into a conversation that private hospital systems would usually hold behind closed doors.

“As increasing numbers of Medicare-enrolled patients turn to new Medicare Advantage plans, UC Health’s experience with these new plans has not been good, either for patients or providers,” the minutes read, summarizing comments by David Rubin, executive vice president of UC Health.

The minutes also describe comments from Jonathon Arrington, CFO of UCLA Health. “Over the years, in order to care for Medicare Advantage patients, UCLA has entered numerous contracts with other payers, and these contracts have generally not worked out well,” the minutes read. “Every two or three years, UCLA has found itself terminating a contract and signing a new one. Patients have remained loyal to UCLA, some going through three iterations of cancelled contracts in order to remain with UCLA Health.”

Costs to Taxpayers

CMS pays Advantage plans a monthly fixed amount to care for each enrollee based on the member’s health condition and location. In 2024, the federal government paid Advantage plans an estimated $494 billion to care for patients, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which monitors the program for Congress.

The commission said this month that it projects insurers in 2026 will be paid 14%, or about $76 billion, more than it would have cost government-run Medicare to care for similar patients.

Many Democratic lawmakers have criticized overpayments to Medicare Advantage insurers, though the program has bipartisan congressional support because of its increasing popularity with Medicare beneficiaries, who are often attracted by dental care and other coverage unavailable through traditional Medicare.

Whenever Congress threatens cuts, insurers claim these generous federal payments are essential to keep Medicare Advantage plans afloat. UCLA Health’s Advantage plans will need at least 15,000 members to be financially sustainable, according to the meeting minutes. CMS data indicates that 7,337 patients signed up in 2025.

A study in August compared patients in commercial Medicare Advantage who had major surgery with those covered by Medicare Advantage plans owned by their hospital. The latter group had fewer complications, said co-author Thomas Tsai, an associate professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Smith, of the American Hospital Association, isn’t surprised. When insurers and hospitals are not on opposite sides, she said, care delivery can be smoother. “There’s more flexibility to manage premium dollars to cover services that maybe wouldn’t otherwise be covered,” Smith said.

But Tsai warns seniors that hospital-owned Medicare Advantage plans operate under the same rules as those run by commercial health insurance companies. He said patients should consider whether the extra benefits of Advantage plans “are worth the trade-off of potentially narrow provider networks and more utilization management than they would get from traditional Medicare.”

In Texas, Neary hopes the closer relationship between his doctors and his insurance plan means there’s less of a chance that bills for his medical care will be kicked back.

“I don’t think I would run into a situation where they would not provide coverage if one of their own doctors recommended something,” he said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicare/health-insurance-medicare-advantage-plans-hospitals/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Researchers say the children at about a mile away pay the price. They discovered the students there and at other elementary schools near major pollution sites in Pennsylvania had than other children in the state.

Residents and environmental advocates saw reason for hope and relief in the form of a designed to tamp down on coke oven plant pollution. But even before it took effect, President Donald Trump granted in the U.S. — including the one in Clairton — a from the standards.

Trump and Republicans have sought to align themselves with the Make America Healthy Again movement’s populist ideals, such as improving Americans’ food choices and reducing corporate harm to the environment. But the administration is ratcheting up its attacks on the very environmental protections that MAHA followers hold dear.

Taken together, these anti-environmental initiatives will lead to more pollution-related illnesses and higher health care spending, health researchers say. They could also have political ramifications, eroding MAHA’s support for GOP candidates in the November midterm elections if followers believe the party is more beholden to industry than to the movement’s agenda.

, including about a quarter of Republicans, support rolling back environmental regulations, according to a poll by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Some MAHA supporters believe voters will support Republicans because the Trump administration is delivering on other goals important to the movement.

“MAHA has a pretty diverse set of policy goals, ranging from medical freedom to food and the environment,” said David Mansdoerfer, who served in Health and Human Services leadership during Trump’s first term. “In totality, the Trump administration has strongly delivered on much of the MAHA agenda.”

While MAHA voters have been upset at some of the administration’s actions that promote industry, it’s hard to know how that may play out in the midterms, said Christopher Bosso, a professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University. Many were disillusioned by a Trump they viewed as promoting glyphosate, which HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has .

“The glyphosate thing really ticks off a lot of them; they’re really upset,” Bosso said. “Kennedy said it was poison. If it is a poison, why aren’t we regulating it? That’s where the tension plays out.”

The situation with the Clairton coke plant and the others granted exemptions from regulations underscores the potential public health risks. Six of the 11 factories had “high priority” violations of the Clean Air Act as of last May, according to a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis. Five coke oven plants logged major violations every quarter for at least three years straight.

“Poisoning continues to some of the most vulnerable residents of Allegheny County,” , who had lived in nearby Glassport, Pennsylvania, said at a about the coke plant.

Environmental Protection Agency spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said the president gave companies extra time because the technology needed to meet a new standard isn’t ready yet.

“Forcing plants to comply before the tools exist doesn’t make the air cleaner, it just shuts down facilities and kills jobs with nothing to show for it,” Hirsch said.

But environmental groups disagree that the plants were unable to comply at a reasonable cost, and they say the exemption from the EPA requirements shows the Trump administration is prioritizing the coal industry at the expense of public health.

“The Trump administration’s relentless actions to dismantle lifesaving environmental protections are a gut punch to the administration’s own promise to Make America Healthy Again,” said Cathleen Kelly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Hard Times in Clairton

Sprawled across , the Clairton plant operates ovens in which coal is heated to as much as 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit to make up to 4.3 million tons annually of the carbon-rich fuel known as coke. The product is used in blast furnaces to produce iron.

It’s a dirty operation. The process leads to hazardous emissions of that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says can lead to anemia and leukemia, as well as , which can trigger severe asthma.

The Clairton operation has had repeated problems with its emissions and operations, including and of toxic chemicals. The plant has received more than from the Allegheny County Health Department since 2022, stemming largely from a fire in 2018 that led to high emissions, and violated the Clean Air Act in each of the last , with the last compliance monitoring in July 2025, according to the EPA.

Nippon Steel Corp. last year acquired U.S. Steel, which now operates as a subsidiary. The company didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. U.S. Steel said it spends $100 million annually on environmental compliance at Clairton.

“Environmental stewardship is a core value at U. S. Steel, and we remain committed to the safety of our communities,” spokesperson Andrew Fulton said in a written statement.

Clairton was once bustling with movie theaters, a mix of grocery stores, and riverside parks, with a dance pavilion and . But the decline of steel hit hard. The town’s population dwindled from more than in the mid-20th century to as of 2024. until they were razed and replaced with signs saying to keep out. The 1978 movie , which depicts a hardscrabble industrial town, is partly set there. Today, about 33% of residents live in poverty.

While the plant brings jobs and revenue, residents of the town and the surrounding areas have long complained about health problems they attribute to its emissions.

“My parents are gone. My mom had cancer, my dad,” , a Clairton resident, said at a 2025 County Council meeting. “I lost a lot of loved ones and seen other ones pass because of this mill.”

Pediatric allergist looked into asthma rates among 1,200 children who attended school near major pollution sites in the area — including students at Clairton Elementary School. They had nearly triple the national rate of asthma, with the highest rate among African American youth, according to she led.

“We were shocked,” she said. “It was double or triple what we expected. The people are proud of their industrial background. We need steel, but they’re not running a good enough operation.”

A found children with asthma living near the coke plant had an 80% higher chance of missing school when sulfur dioxide pollution was elevated.

Allegheny County, which includes Clairton and Pittsburgh, is home to a number of industrial plants, and to increased deaths, chronic heart disease, and adverse birth outcomes. It was ranked in the top 1% of counties in the nation for cancer risk from stationary industrial air pollutants in a 2018 .

Clairton has an age-adjusted cancer death rate of 170 per 100,000 people, higher than the broader county’s rate of 150 deaths per 100,000 people, based on a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News analysis of .

The American Lung Association in 2025 gave the county an F rating for its particle pollution levels. PennEnvironment, an environmental group that was party to a settlement with U.S. Steel involving the Clairton plant, says the coke operation caused of toxic releases in 2021, which amounted to 60% of all such releases in the county that year.

From 2020 through 2025, the Clairton plant racked up more in fines from Clean Air Act penalties than any other coke oven facility nationwide, costing U.S. Steel over $10 million, according to EPA facility reports.

“We are deeply concerned with exemptions, which allow air toxics to affect public health,” Allegheny County Health Department spokesperson Ronnie Das said in a statement.

The Clairton plant provides and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to the area. The jobs help generate nearly $3 billion in annual economic output, according to estimates from the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association.

Some community members and advocacy groups hoped air quality would improve after the coke plant was sold. has pledged to upgrade facilities in the Monongahela River Valley.

Politics, Waivers, and Environmental Concerns

Under the Biden-era rule, coke plants were supposed to start meeting from the lids and doors of ovens that heat coal. They would also have had to monitor for benzene at their property lines and take steps to lower emissions of the carcinogen if they exceeded certain levels. Compliance deadlines were set for July 2025.

The Trump administration, which has sought to revive the coal industry, intervened. Last year, it , including coke plants such as Clairton’s, to seek from issued in 2024 by the EPA.

Then Trump in November went further, granting all coke plants a two-year compliance break.

The reprieve was necessary, the EPA spokesperson Hirsch said, because the requirements would have meant extra costs for the industry when standards already in effect work “extremely well” at reducing pollution.

Hirsch also said the agency under Trump is protecting the environment, pointing to action the administration has taken to called PFAS, prevent lead poisoning, strengthen chemical safety, and protect Americans’ food and water supply.

“We are building a future where the next generation of Americans is the healthiest in our nation’s history, and they inherit the cleanest air, land and water in the world,” Hirsch said.

However, the administration has taken several steps that environmental advocates say weaken health protections.

The president’s executive order on glyphosate, an herbicide the World Health Organization has linked to cancer, which touched off a who said they felt betrayed. The EPA has decided to stop considering the of reducing pollution when making policy decisions, instead focusing on the cost to industry of complying with rules. The agency also rescinded the legal and scientific basis that had long established as dangerous to public health.

The actions have rankled some MAHA enthusiasts who counted on the administration to tackle chronic disease, especially among children. A petition to Trump on with more than 15,000 signatures called for the removal of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, it said supported corporations over MAHA goals.

Some MAHA enthusiasts have sounded off on social media.

“No one should believe that MAHA is being upheld at the EPA at this point,” , a leader of American Regeneration, which focuses on a conservation approach to farming, said Feb. 8 on X.

, host of a , also aired her concerns on X, saying “there is something really freaking spooky going on at the EPA and I refuse to let the American people be gaslit into thinking they’re upholding the MAHA agenda.”

“A significant number of people who supported Trump are worried these rollbacks are going to hurt their health,” said , a Democratic strategist and the founder of the communications firm Third Degree Strategies. “The MAHA voters, especially women, are very sensitive to this. Republicans have put themselves in a bind.”

MAHA supporters shouldn’t be surprised by a Trump administration that doesn’t prioritize environmental protections over industry, because the president has always championed fossil fuels, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a nonpartisan election forecasting newsletter published by the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

The coke plant exemptions have disappointed some community members, environmental groups, and regulators concerned about public health and emissions.

Nearly 300,000 people live within 3 miles of the 11 active coke plants across the U.S., according to EPA data compiled by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Weakening environmental rules has helped boost Trump with the U.S. coal industry. In February, mining industry executives and lobbyists gathered at the White House, .

Coal miners, including some in white hard hats bedecked with American flags, with a bronze-colored trophy emblazoned “The Undisputed Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal.”

At the event, Trump praised their work. “We love clean, beautiful coal,” he said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/clairton-pennsylvania-us-steel-make-america-healthy-again-maha-coal-coke/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Other drivers stopped, broke the car window, and pulled him to safety. A passing volunteer firefighter performed CPR until an ambulance arrived to take Masterson to UPMC Mercy hospital.

He spent 18 days in the medical intensive care unit there, 14 of them on a ventilator. He developed delirium, a common ICU condition, and needed antipsychotic drugs. Despite a feeding tube, he lost weight. “We honestly weren’t confident that he would pull through,” said Ron Dedes, his brother-in-law.

But he did. Masterson was discharged Feb. 1 and returned home with near-constant family support. Working diligently with several kinds of therapists, he has regained his ability to walk, despite lingering weakness, and to manage his personal care. His once-garbled speech has markedly improved. He can make himself a sandwich.

Now, “our biggest concern is his memory,” Dedes said. Masterson, who so recently handled complex legal matters, forgets conversations and events that happened a few hours earlier, said Patti Dedes, his sister. He can’t yet operate a microwave or place a phone call.

In an interview, he described himself, accurately, as “much, much better than I was” — but misstated his age. Screening tests after his discharge indicated cognitive impairment and depression.

Among critical-care doctors, prolonged symptoms like his are known as “post-intensive care syndrome,” or PICS. The fallout can be physical or psychological, as well as cognitive, and can persist for months or years.

More than are admitted to intensive care across about 5,000 American hospitals, and research shows that . Older age increases the odds.

Patients and families are often startled by these continuing difficulties. “The belief is that they’ll be discharged from the hospital and in two or three weeks, they’ll be back to normal,” said Brad Butcher, who was Masterson’s doctor and in the medical journal JAMA. “That doesn’t comport with reality.”

In fact, with greater ICU use and improved treatments — the Society of Critical Care Medicine estimates that their stays — the population likely to encounter the syndrome is growing.

“Everyone is grateful that the patient has survived,” said Lauren Ferrante, a pulmonary critical-care doctor and researcher at the Yale School of Medicine. “But that’s just the start of a long road to recovery.” In a study of patients 70 and older that she co-authored, within six months after discharge only about half had .

Intensive care patients face a . PICS symptoms — weakness, pain, neuropathy (tingling in arms and legs), and malnutrition — to , primarily anxiety and depression. like Masterson’s are commonplace, including problems with memory, attention and concentration, and language.

“For many people, surviving a critical illness is a life-altering experience,” Butcher said. Patients in intensive care after emergency or elective surgery also of new physical, mental, and cognitive problems a year later.

The same aggressive treatments that save lives contribute to the syndrome. Intensive care patients “have some sort of dramatic organ failure that requires immediate attention” and constant monitoring, explained Carla Sevin, a pulmonary critical-care doctor who directs the ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

That could mean a breathing tube attached to a ventilator, which in turn often requires sedating drugs. Sedation “can precipitate delirium, and delirium is the key factor in cognitive symptoms,” Butcher said.

It doesn’t help that constant beeps and alarms from monitors and round-the-clock bright lighting disrupt sleep, and that restrictive family visiting hours deprive patients of reassuring faces and voices.

Gregory Matthews, a retired accountant in St. Petersburg, Florida, spent nearly a month in an ICU after a lung transplant in 2014. He still vividly remembers his hallucinations, including mice running across the wall and someone trying to frame him for drug running.

“One day, I thought a doctor was an assassin — I could see the rifle,” said Matthews, now 80. “So I jumped out of bed,” he said, and yanked out his IVs. The staff put his arms in restraints for days.

But immobilization exacts its own toll as patients quickly lose muscle mass and strength. “Our bodies were not meant to lie in bed all day,” Ferrante said.

Psychologically, “PTSD is pretty common, similar to what’s seen in combat veterans or sexual assault survivors,” Sevin said, referring to post-traumatic stress disorder. Families can suffer anxiety and depression along with the patients.

Alarmed by such discoveries, doctors and administrators at about 35 U.S. hospitals have established , where teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists (physical, occupational, cognitive, speech), and social workers screen for a host of conditions and help guide patients through them.

Vanderbilt’s clinic saw its first patient in 2012. The Critical Illness Recovery Center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which Butcher founded in 2018, works with about 100 patients a year, including Masterson. Yale opened its clinic in 2022.

They rely on six practices recommended by the Society of Critical Care Medicine that are shown to . The measures call for changes such as using lighter sedation, getting patients up and moving earlier, testing their breathing daily to wean them from ventilators sooner, and removing restrictions on family visiting.

Clinics often offer support groups for patients and families. There’s evidence that keeping an ICU diary, in which patients and caregivers record their experiences, and engaging in exercise and physical rehabilitation after discharge.

Also on the clinics’ agenda: discussions of what other options patients might prefer if they face another critical illness, as many do. Would they agree to undergo intensive care and risk its aftereffects again? Or choose palliative care, which emphasizes comfort rather than cure? Some post-ICU patients remain permanently impaired.

Butcher, although he said that the use of the new practices needed to expand dramatically, sounded optimistic about the future of critical care. “We’re going to find better diagnostic tools, better preventive strategies, and better therapies,” he said.

For now, though, the ICU experience remains disorienting and sometimes traumatic. When Butcher asked 117 patients in his post-ICU clinic those next-time questions, many wanted to place limits on further medical interventions.

About a third would want to lower the level of aggressive care. Of those, about a quarter would want “do not resuscitate” and “do not intubate” orders, and almost 7% said they never wanted to return to an ICU.

Masterson is working hard to further his recovery. “I haven’t been out and about much,” he said. “I’ve been kind of homebound.” He hopes to get strong enough to resume running — he used to log 3 to 4 miles several times a week.

The future for patients contending with post-ICU syndrome often depends on their physical, mental, and cognitive health before their admission. Masterson’s previous fitness and cognitively demanding work bode well for his further progress, Butcher said.

His family remains alternatively hopeful and worried. “Down the road, what’s it going to be like?” Dedes, his brother-in-law, wondered. “We just take it day by day.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with .

This <a target="_blank" href="/aging/post-icu-patients-pics-physical-cognitive-mental-health-aftereffects/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

“I call it the unaffordable care act,” he said. He reprised the line in his address, blaming “the crushing cost of health care” on Obamacare.

Trump’s words also play off an ongoing congressional debate that began late last year with the expiration of the enhanced tax subsidies that had lowered the cost of ACA insurance for millions of Americans — and thrust the issue of ACA-related costs back to center stage.

Without those enhanced subsidies, the amount people pay toward monthly Obamacare premiums doubled, on average. The number of people enrolled in ACA coverage for this year has dropped by more than a million, and experts say more people could abandon coverage once premiums come due. Democrats are using this development to crank up the heat on Republicans ahead of the November elections and steer the conversation on the affordability issue.

Republicans fault the law itself for driving up these costs. For instance, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) that premiums “skyrocketed across the country since it took effect.”

Critics routinely point to several provisions within the ACA as the culprits — among them, essential health benefits, or EHBs. Under the law, Obamacare plans must cover certain essential services, including emergency care, hospitalization, maternity, and prescription drugs, without annual or lifetime dollar limits. But connecting EHBs to the premium increases felt by consumers is not straightforward.

Here’s a primer on key issues involved.

Checking the Numbers

It’s clear that Obamacare premiums have increased.

An analysis by the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute shows that the average premium for a 50-year-old with Obamacare since 2014. The average premium for employer-based plans grew 68% during that same time.

Paragon’s president, , told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News that this shows the ACA has made health care on the individual market more expensive.

Still, the comparison overlooks a couple of points. Pre-ACA, employer plans generally offered more generous coverage than individual market plans, so work-based coverage cost more. And individual plans were cheaper in part because they could bar applicants with health problems. Beginning in 2014, the ACA forced individual policies to look more like employer plans, covering a broader range of benefits and accepting both healthy and unhealthy applicants. As a result, premiums rose that first year. In the years that followed, ACA plans often experienced faster growth in premiums than job-based plans. Some policy analysts say this isn’t surprising because ACA plans started at a lower dollar base and had more room to rise.

States that saw less dramatic post-ACA premium increases, such as Massachusetts and New York, already mandated that individual-market plans provide EHB-like coverage, noted , a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. These states also had higher premiums due to that and other provisions, such as not allowing plans to exclude people with preexisting conditions.

“It was a combination of things,” he said.

Blase acknowledges that the two types of insurance started at different price points. But he said the percentage change over time shows that the ACA faces “underlying inflationary pressures” — including the now-expired, more generous, covid pandemic-era subsidies — that affect its policyholders more so than employer plans.

Aside from that point, however, were on the rise even before the ACA took effect.

An analysis by Jonathan Gruber at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that between 2008 and 2010, premiums grew by at least 10% a year and were highly variable across states and insurers.

Consumers’ Other Costs

Over time, ACA deductibles — the amounts policyholders must satisfy in a given year before insurance kicks in — have seen large increases, with “bronze” plans now averaging $7,476 annually, up from $5,113 in 2014, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News. Bronze plans tend to have lower premiums than the other metal-level categories — “silver,” “gold,” and “platinum” — in part because of their higher deductibles.

The Trump administration is doubling down on high-deductible plans as part of its emphasis on affordability, making it easier this year for people age 30 and up to qualify for what are called “catastrophic plans.” These come with even larger deductibles than bronze plans.

The administration to cement those changes, saying it was designed to lower premiums and expand choices. It would raise next year’s deductibles for catastrophic plans to $15,600 a year for an individual or around $30,000 for a family. It isn’t clear how popular such plans would be. Detailed enrollment figures for this year are not yet available, but estimates indicate chose catastrophic plans in 2025, and consumers can’t use federal subsidies to purchase them.

Before this Trump proposal, though, recent data showed that the rising rate of ACA plan deductibles had not outpaced deductibles for employer plans.

The weighted average — a calculation that gives more weight to ACA plans with the most people enrolled — shows in annual deductible amounts since 2014, from $1,881 to $2,912. During that same period, deductibles in plans offered by 59%, from $1,186 to $1,886, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ’s annual employer survey.

Essential What?

To be clear, the ACA’s catastrophic and bronze plans must cover essential health benefits, as do all Obamacare plans. These EHBs fall into 10 categories of medical services and were included in the ACA to ensure individual policies meet a minimum standard of coverage and are comparable to employer-based health insurance.

Preventive services, such as annual checkups, vaccines, and certain cancer screenings, must be covered at no additional cost to patients. All plans must completely cover the cost of specific vaccines, including the annual flu shot. And insurers cannot refuse to pay for emergency care provided at an out-of-network hospital. Other EHBs are subject to out-of-pocket costs, such as copays at the doctor’s office or pharmacy counter.

In some ways, EHBs save money because they’ve increased access to preventive care, said , a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Services such as cancer screenings and lab tests can lead to earlier detection of serious conditions, when treatment is less costly, and positive outcomes are more likely.

“If you look down the list of essential health benefits, I think most people would reach the judgment that those are health care services that people should have access to,” said Larry Levitt, Â鶹ŮÓÅ’s executive vice president for health policy.

Joseph Antos, a senior fellow emeritus at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said ACA requirements — such as requiring insurers to accept anyone, regardless of their health status, and limiting insurers’ ability to charge older people more for coverage — also have played roles in boosting premiums.

“Really, it’s practically impossible to tease any one thing out,” Antos said.

States do have latitude to add benefits that fall under the EHB umbrella. For example, bariatric surgery is covered as an EHB in , but not in . Pennsylvania’s EHBs also don’t include hearing aids, but do.

But the Trump administration’s 2027 regulatory proposal : When “states enact benefit mandates, plan premiums must generally increase to account for the additional coverage,” it reads. It also signals that added benefits can raise consumer costs and proposes that states be required to use their own funds to offset some of those costs.

Paragon’s Blase echoed this take in his bottom line. Mandating that plans cover EHBs without annual or lifetime caps, as required under the ACA law, encourages clinicians to overbill and overprescribe, he said. That drives up premiums and means a bigger check for insurers and medical providers at the expense of taxpayers. “You just turn patients into money factories,” he said.

, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, disagrees, saying that whatever EHBs’ role, they aren’t to blame for the year-over-year premium hikes.

People aren’t consuming medical care at exponential rates just because certain services are now covered: “Me not paying anything for that colonoscopy doesn’t make me want to get more of them,” she said.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage?  to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/obamacare-essential-health-benefits-premium-costs-debate/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Miller, a neuroscientist, said she saw several psychiatrists and got prescriptions for drug after drug. Over two years, she tried four antidepressants and two antipsychotics. None of that helped — until her primary care doctor noticed high levels of an autoimmune marker in her blood.

A specialist then ran “every test in the book,” Miller said. Eventually, she was diagnosed with the autoimmune disease lupus and prescribed an inflammation-lowering steroid. Some of her symptoms let up within hours. Her depression subsided not long after.

“I was convinced it was a placebo effect,” Miller said, “but then it kept working.”

Had inflammation been contributing to her mental health problems all along? Miller thinks so, although she can’t know for sure. Her psychiatrists never raised that possibility, she said.

In most medical specialties, doctors can confirm whether to pursue a type of treatment through tests, such as blood work, imaging, and biopsies. Mental illnesses, however, have historically been diagnosed and treated based on outward symptoms. That could change.

The American Psychiatric Association included ideas for how it might incorporate biomarkers — biological indicators of mental illness that could show up on diagnostic tests — into future versions of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

The DSM, sometimes because of its influence in the field, provides criteria for diagnoses. It’s used by clinicians assessing patients and by insurance companies deciding whether to cover care.

‘Coordinated’ Research Needed

Psychiatric biomarkers are not ready for widespread use yet, the paper emphasized. Scientists have researched the topic for decades, with little to show for it. More research is needed to prove these metrics are valid and reliable enough to be used in patient care, the APA’s paper said, and other researchers have raised questions about how their use could affect health care costs, insurance coverage, and patient privacy.

Adding biomarkers to the DSM would be “a very big deal,” said Jonathan Alpert, an author of the January paper and vice chair of the APA’s Future DSM Strategic Committee.

Access to test results, along with symptoms, could streamline insurance coverage decisions and help clinicians make faster and more accurate diagnoses and treatment recommendations, he said. If patients’ biology suggested they’d respond better to one treatment than another, their doctor could waste no time in starting there.

Currently, prescribing psychiatric medications can be “a bit of a crapshoot,” with clinicians unable to predict whether they will work for a particular patient, said Matthew Eisenberg, director of the Center for Mental Health and Addiction Policy at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In a funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, about 30% of the study’s participants with depression saw symptoms disappear with their first antidepressant treatment. That study is still one of the most robust antidepressant trials conducted — although researchers have that fewer people are cured by these medications than its results suggest.

Such a trial-and-error approach can lead to ineffective and unnecessary prescriptions, a topic of attack by proponents of the Make America Healthy Again movement, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy has been especially , having linked them to violence after a without evidence and blaming doctors for overprescribing medications for children.

HHS is analyzing psychiatric diagnosis and prescription trends and evaluating alternative mental health treatment approaches, with a particular focus on children, spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in a statement. Hilliard did not respond to a question about Kennedy’s previous comments.

Biomarkers are already used to guide treatment in other medical disciplines, such as oncology. Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, and require insurers to cover such testing. Blood and imaging tests are now used to help diagnose Alzheimer’s disease as well.

The APA included in its article a variety of ways psychiatric biomarkers could be used in the future — such as testing for brain activity, genetic profiles, or immune markers associated with certain psychiatric conditions, including schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

In depression, for example, about a quarter of patients have elevated levels of an inflammatory protein, called C-reactive protein, that can be found through a blood test. that people with high levels of this protein seem to respond better when given drugs that alter dopamine levels in the brain, rather than using only selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, a common type of antidepressant. C-reactive protein still needs to be “robustly validated” as a biomarker, according to the APA’s paper, but it’s among the most promising currently under investigation.

A “coordinated, well-funded” research effort is needed to achieve such validation, the APA wrote — a tenuous prospect since the Trump administration slashed funding for research.

The National Institute of Mental Health alone had at least 128 grants, worth almost $173 million, canceled in 2025, according to a . Though some grants have since been restored, researchers relying on federal money still fear their work is vulnerable to cuts.

“There’s a great need for continued, active funding of research related to mental health,” Alpert said, but scientists will have to grapple with “uncertainties of the funding landscape.”

Ripple Effects on Coverage, Costs

Health care costs among patients with poorly controlled mental illnesses, like hospital visits, outpatient appointments, and prescriptions. Some research suggests biomarker testing could save money by landing on the right treatments faster and avoiding some of these costs.

estimated that testing to look for genetic components that may influence a drug’s effectiveness could save the Canadian health system $956 million over 20 years if used among adults with major depression in British Columbia. , by Spanish researchers, found that such testing reduced costs for most of the 188 participants with serious mental illness.

Whether the same would be true in the U.S. health care system is unknown. In the short term, Johns Hopkins’ Eisenberg said, an approach that uses biomarkers could raise health care spending due to the costs of testing.

Insurers may decline to cover pricey biomarker tests, he added. “It takes a while for new science to be proven safe and effective,” Eisenberg said. “And once it is, insurance companies don’t cover it immediately.”

Some researchers have raised concerns that insurers or employers could discriminate against people whose biological profiles of developing serious neuropsychiatric conditions.

It’s a “critical moment” to consider legislative approaches to protect patients and train clinicians about how to appropriately use these tools, said Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, a member of Harvard Medical School’s Center for Bioethics.

“I do not think that the field of psychiatry is currently ready to manage this,” he said.

The mental health system isn’t ready to “jump in with both feet,” said Andrew Miller, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Emory University School of Medicine, who studies inflammation-related depression. But the APA’s embrace of biomarkers signals “the beginning of a revolution,” he said.

“This is a recognition … that what we’ve done up to this point has not been good enough,” Miller said. “And we can do better.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/psychiatry-biomarkers-mental-health-diagnoses-dsm/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “,” Newsom to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington, and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the , a regional public health agency, whose guidance would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Donald Trump officially from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and HHS declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the covid era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public Health Guided by Science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request. Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and . The White House last year proposed cutting HHS spending , including . Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing, and education, .

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, and a judge the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Association of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3 billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding Cuts Hurt All

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the the closure of that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had , the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at , , and .

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust Vaccine Schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, and covid-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and several other East Coast states banding together to create the .

HHS’ Hilliard said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing Red States

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A Â鶹ŮÓÅ analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/gavin-newsom-california-public-health-fight-west-coast-alliance-trump-hhs-rfk/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Jamie Estrada of Albuquerque, New Mexico, twice received injections of lidocaine in his upper spine to test if a permanent nerve ablation would treat his chronic neck pain. His pain vanished — until the numbing agent wore off about six hours later. The real zinger: His insurer was billed $28,000 for each 10-minute procedure.

Mark McCullick of Longmont, Colorado, was sent for a whole-body PET scan to find out whether his prostate cancer was back. The two-hour scan showed no evidence of cancer, but the $77,000 bill sent to the company that administered his insurance alarmed him.

Medical inflation has general inflation for years, with bills for many brief, routine procedures reaching tens of thousands of dollars.

These cases highlight the questions that haunt the American health system and the patients caught in its grip: What is a reasonable price for any health care visit or procedure, and how is it determined? How hard do insurers, the purported stewards of the patient’s hard-earned health dollars, fight to lower charges, and how closely do they scrutinize bills for accuracy?

Smith, Estrada, and McCullick’s cases are all “chargemaster” bills, calculated from the master price list that health providers place on services. Patients who have insurance don’t generally pay them. But they matter because they are often the starting point for the negotiated price the insurer agrees is reasonable to pay for the services. Patients are typically responsible for 10% to 20% of the negotiated price, their coinsurance — and when prices are this high, that can be a big number. What’s more, those negotiated rates are difficult for patients to access (until they get the bill) and seemingly arbitrary.

Also, because health insurers can offset high outlays one year by raising premiums and deductibles the next, they have little incentive to bargain hard for good deals for the patients they cover. So patients all pay unknowingly, indirectly.

In the cases of Smith and Estrada, their insurers paid the majority without questions. Penn State’s Hershey Medical Center, which treated Smith, received $61,000, or 62% of what it charged. New Mexico Surgery Center Orthopaedics, which treated Estrada, received $46,000, or 82%.

McCullick’s insurer, on the other hand, said it would pay Intermountain Health just 28% of his $77,000 bill. Then came another curveball: The hospital, which said it had gotten preauthorization, discovered after the fact that his scan was not covered. So it billed McCullick the full chargemaster rate of $77,000 — or, it offered, he could pay the cash rate of $14,259.

In an emailed statement, Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP, the leading trade group for health insurers, blamed hospitals for the trouble, saying that plans are “focused on making benefits and coverage as affordable as possible for their members,” and that: “As the largest single category per premium dollar spent, increases in the cost of hospital-based care have an outsized impact on premiums.”

In a health system in which prices can vary exponentially with little transparency, how can patients afford to get sick?

‘It Makes No Sense’

Americans as a top priority for government in 2026, according to an Associated Press-NORC poll, expressing particular concern about cost, access, and insurance coverage.

The first Trump administration required insurers and hospitals to publish files containing cash, gross, and negotiated prices for various items and services. These raw, machine-readable price lists — often hundreds of pages filled with medical billing codes — to patient-customers.

Five years later, they’ve been ingested, parsed, and enriched by academics and startups, shedding light on the often-shocking disparities in prices and how they’ve come to exist.

“When we look at the data, whether it’s from a chargemaster or what insurers paid, it’s all over the map — it makes no sense,” said Marcus Dorstel, senior vice president of operations at Turquoise Health, a price transparency startup with payers and providers as clients. “The variation is huge, even in a specific area.”

When researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health looked at the data, they discovered that the price different insurers pay for the same billed charges “can be three or more times different at the same hospital,” said Ge Bai, a professor of health care accounting who was among the researchers.

The prices insurers pay are determined by numerous factors, including what’s in their contracts with health systems. Some health plans, such as Smith’s, automatically pay a percentage of the hospital’s billed charges, incentivizing hospitals to increase their rates. Hershey Medical Center increased its prices for 11 common hospital billing codes by an average of about 30% from 2023 to 2025, Dan Snow, a data scientist at Turquoise Health, calculated for this article. But those prices were not much different than those of other hospitals in Pennsylvania.

In other cases, an insurer might agree to pay a health system a case rate — a standard rate for a type of care, say a colonoscopy or an inpatient stay for pneumonia.

But there’s a lucrative catch, called a “carve-out,” which refers to a particular benefit that’s negotiated and paid separately. If the hospital used expensive drugs or devices, for instance, they can be billed in addition to the bundled case rate, with no limits on hospital markups. That was the case with McCullick’s PET scan; about 80% of the charge was not for the scan, but for a new kind of drug injected before the scan to detect cancer.

Most often the final prices depend on the relative negotiating power of the insurer and the health system: Which side has enough market sway to walk away if the other doesn’t meet its demands?

Such factors “can explain the price variations and patterns that we see,” Dorstel said. “In some markets insurers are price-makers, and in others they are price-takers.”

For Insurers, Paying More Is Profitable

Insurers aren’t incentivized to lower prices, because high prices mean they “get a slice of a bigger pie,” Bai said.

By law, insurers must spend 80% or 85% of premiums on patient care. But when prices rise, they can pass on the increase to customers in the form of higher premium costs and still meet their legal obligation. So higher premiums mean less money for the patient and more profit for the insurer.

For each spinal injection Estrada received, his insurance company’s contracted rate was $23,237.50. Estrada’s coinsurance was $5,166.20. With a high-deductible plan, he was asked to pay all of that more than $5,000 bill.

When he called to challenge the big bill, he said, the surgery center’s administrator told him the charges were the result of a “legacy contract” with the insurer that is “advantageous” and “favorable” to the center.

New Mexico Surgery Center Orthopaedics’ charges are many times those of the hospital where the center’s doctors admit patients, for example; there, Estrada’s insurance company’s contracted rate for the same spinal injection is just $2,058.67. And compared with the roughly $20,000 the insurer paid for each of Estrada’s injections, other insurers pay the center about $700 for the same procedure, Snow found.

The surgery center is part of a national group that owns more than 535 surgical facilities, United Surgical Partners International, which in turn is owned by Tenet Healthcare, a for-profit health conglomerate. That kind of market dominance can lend companies the negotiating power to charge — and get paid — what they want, Bai said.

The surgery center, United Surgical Partners International, and Tenet Healthcare did not reply to multiple requests for comment from Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

With charges prenegotiated, insurers have little incentive to scrutinize questionable bills. When Smith asked for an itemized bill for her surgery, she discovered that she had been billed for two surgeries: one for the ectopic pregnancy removal and another because the surgeon noticed signs of endometriosis and performed a biopsy. Both were billed at the contracted rate of $37,923.

She was livid at the charges, which to her seemed like double-dipping. “That was one surgery,” she said. “There was one incision.”

A Yale University-trained lawyer, Smith consulted the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ , which note the two billing codes used for her surgery generally can’t be “billed together for the same patient encounter” because one more or less is bundled with the other.

Smith said she reached out to the Penn State hospital, the insurer, and even the state attorney general without resolution. So she expects she will, reluctantly, have to pay the $5,250 coinsurance that the hospital and insurer say she owes.

In response to questions from Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News, Scott Gilbert, a spokesperson for the health system, did not respond to the specifics of this case, but wrote: “Penn State Health recognizes that health care billing can be confusing and often overwhelming for patients. The process involves many factors, including the type of care provided, where it’s delivered and the details of a patient’s insurance coverage.”

A ‘Reasonable’ Price?

After a reporter sent multiple inquiries to Intermountain Health, McCullick said an agent asked him what would be “a reasonable amount to resolve the situation.”

Sara Quale, a spokesperson for Good Samaritan Hospital, the Intermountain affiliate where he got the PET scan, wrote: “We sincerely regret the frustration this situation has caused Mr. McCullick,” noting that “we have been in consistent contact with him and will continue to follow up as needed.”

McCullick said he wants to pay his fair share but is still trying to figure out what that is — certainly less than the different self-pay prices he’s been offered, which all top $10,000. “The fluid nature of these numbers is mind blowing,” he wrote in an email.

As for Estrada, he was so angry that he decided not to go ahead with the nerve ablation. While he was being prepped for the procedure, Estrada recalled, the physician said he had “heard he might sue” and chastised him for being a troublemaker. The hospital did not respond to a request for comment on the allegations, and Estrada said he had never threatened legal action.

Estrada got off the table and put his shirt back on. “I’m not going to let this person put a big needle into my back.”

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/insurers-pay-high-prices-premiums-coinsurance-cost-control-inflation-patients/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

It’s all part of a drama that roiled the ACA’s 2026 open enrollment period. Congressional debate over whether to extend more generous subsidies made available under the Biden administration led to and focused public attention on rising health care costs and the affordability issue.

The enhanced subsidies, which expanded eligibility both by lowering the percentage of household income people had to pay toward their care and removing an income cap, expired at the end of last year. As a result, just about everyone buying ACA coverage saw their costs increase. For some, what they paid toward premiums doubled or more, even though less generous subsidies remain in place.

Many experts expected ACA enrollment, which hit a record 24 million in 2025, to fall this time around.

“If you raise the price of something a whole lot, economics tell us that a lot of people will buy less of it or not buy at all,” said Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy officer with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Here are things to watch now:

Initial Numbers Aren’t Final

The in December 2024 that not extending the enhanced subsidies would cause 2.2 million people to lose insurance in 2026, with further increases in following years. Analysts with the Wakely Consulting Group would opt out of insurance for this year.

Data released Jan. 28 by federal officials showed a year-over-year enrollments across the federal healthcare.gov marketplace and those run by states. Overall, there were 23 million enrollees, including 3.4 million new to ACA coverage.

At about the same time last year, there were , with 3.9 million new to the marketplaces.

But there’s more to it than those initial numbers.

For one thing, both years’ data was pegged to Jan. 15 for the federal marketplace, which closed its open enrollment period that day. But, the data for the states that run their own marketplaces included sign-ups in most cases only through Jan. 10 or 11, even though some held open enrollment until the . Thus, the numbers don’t reflect what might have happened in those last days. Was there a surge in state sign-ups? Or, conversely, did the marketplaces see more enrollees cancel their coverage?

Additionally, those initial numbers are a mix of newly minted ACA enrollees and existing customers, many of whom were auto-reenrolled for 2026 — which raises other issues.

For existing, reenrolled policyholders, the real figures won’t be known for weeks or months, when it becomes clear how many actually pay their premiums. Some consumers may not have focused on their reenrollment costs or may have hoped Congress would extend the subsidies.

That’s an important factor to keep in mind because the CBO and Wakely estimates of millions losing insurance were based on projections for full-year coverage, not initial sign-ups.

In the coming weeks, “consumers may find they really can’t afford the premiums and cancel their plans, while carriers may also cancel coverage for nonpayment,” said Pat Kelly, executive director of Your Health Idaho, a state-based ACA marketplace, during a Jan. 22 call with reporters.

Sharp Differences in State Enrollment Patterns

Changes are also afoot in the 19 other states (and the District of Columbia) that , some of which have issued more detailed data about enrollment than the federal marketplace.

Most states saw lower enrollment for 2026 than the prior year, with the biggest drop in North Carolina, where sign-ups fell by nearly 22%, federal data shows.

In a few states — including New Mexico, Texas, California, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia — the number of people selecting ACA plans increased.

The jump was largest in New Mexico, with its initial number of people selecting plans up by nearly 14%. Increases were in the single digits in the other states and Washington, D.C.

New Mexico — uniquely — used its own tax dollars to fully offset the loss of the more generous federal tax subsidies for all consumers. , including California, Colorado, Maryland, and Washington, used state money to help some enrollees.

The , a collective of 22 state marketplaces supported by the National Academy for State Health Policy, said initial enrollment figures . Compared with the same time last year, outright plan cancellations are up 83% in Colorado, disenrollments are four times what they were in Idaho, and Virginia has seen cancellations double.

New enrollments are from the same period last year, according to data from the state. In Pennsylvania, people ages 55 to 64, the group with the highest premiums, and young people 26 to 34 in higher numbers than other age groups, state data shows.

“We have drastically higher rates of people dropping their coverage,” said Devon Trolley, executive director of the Pennsylvania Health Insurance Exchange Authority. “We had 70,000 drop in the last two months, from early retirees to small-business owners to farmers not knowing how to make ends meet.”

On Feb. 9, Pennsylvania released , showing enrollment dropped by about 2% from last year, although that figure masks some of the effects. The state says nearly 18% of enrollees dropped coverage altogether, with older and rural residents being the most likely to fall out.

Some Republicans credited Trump-administration-backed anti-fraud measures, which included a range of , for tightening the system. Although some of those actions were paused by a federal court and have not taken effect, those ACA critics, some of whom have produced that millions may have been improperly enrolled, say that’s behind the decline. They have previously for unauthorized enrollments or ACA plan-switching by commission-seeking brokers.

States that run their own ACA marketplaces, however, reported little or no such unauthorized switching. Relative to the federal marketplace, the state-based ACA platforms employ additional safeguards to prevent brokers from accessing consumers’ coverage without authorization.

Among consumers not returning to the marketplace, the main reason is cost, said Mila Kofman, executive director of the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority, which runs the district’s ACA marketplace.

“When we looked at who these folks are, half are small-business owners,” Kofman said. “They are not folks committing fraud.”

Lower Premiums, Higher Deductibles

Rather than sticking with automatic reenrollment, existing customers in many states shifted sharply into lower-priced “bronze” plans that come with higher deductibles than silver, gold, and platinum plans.

California saw 73% of renewing members who switched plans move to a bronze plan, up from 27% at the same time last year, the State Marketplace Network reported. In Maine, bronze enrollment now represents almost 60% of all plans purchased.

People are “looking at what works in their monthly budget, looking for that lower premium,” said Stacey Pogue, a senior research fellow at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “Some might be crossing their fingers that they won’t need to meet their deductible.”

On average, bronze plans have an . All ACA plans are required to cover certain preventive services — such as some vaccinations, cancer screenings, and other tests — without a copayment or deductible, but most everything else is covered only after an annual deductible is met.

High deductibles can lead some patients to avoid seeking medical care, Hempstead said.

“People are terrified to use their care,” she said. “They may delay something until it’s more serious.”

She added that medical providers, including hospitals and doctors, are bracing for an increase in the number of insured patients who can’t afford to pay their deductibles.

“Everyone is anticipating that hospitals will have to give out more charity care, which will hurt their bottom lines and might lead them to have to lay off people or close or reduce services,” she said.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/affordable-care-act-aca-obamacare-sign-ups-subsidies-higher-premiums/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

During procedures, he seemed “hesitant, not sure of how to go on to the next step without being prompted” by assistants, said Mark Katlic, director of the Aging Surgeon Program at Sinai Hospital in Baltimore.

The chief of surgery, concerned about the doctor’s cognition, “would not sign off on his credentials to practice surgery unless he went through an evaluation,” Katlic said.

Since 2015, when Sinai inaugurated a screening program for surgeons 75 and older, about 30 from around the country have undergone its comprehensive two-day physical and cognitive assessment. This surgeon “did not come of his own accord,” Katlic recalled.

But he came. The tests revealed mild cognitive impairment, often but not necessarily a precursor to dementia. The neuropsychologist’s report advised that the surgeon’s difficulties were “likely to impact his ability to practice medicine as he is doing presently, e.g. conducting complex surgical procedures.”

That didn’t mean the surgeon had to retire; a variety of accommodations would allow him to continue in other roles. “He retained a lifetime of knowledge that had not been impacted by cognitive changes,” Katlic said. The hospital “took him out of the OR, but he continued to see patients in the clinic.”

Such incidents are likely to become more common as America’s physician workforce ages rapidly. In 2005, more than 11% of doctors who were seeing patients were 65 or older, the American Medical Association said. Last year, the proportion reached 22.4%, with nearly 203,000 older practitioners.

Given physician shortages, especially in rural areas and key specialties like primary care, nobody wants to drive out veteran doctors with skills and experience.

Yet researchers have documented “a starting in their mid-60s,” said Thomas Gallagher, an internist and bioethicist at the University of Washington who has studied late-career trajectories.

At older ages, reaction times slow; knowledge can become outdated. Cognitive scores vary greatly, however. “Some practitioners continue to do as well as they did in their 40s and 50s, and others really start to struggle,” Gallagher said.

A few health organizations have responded by establishing mandating that older doctors be screened for cognitive and physical deficits.

UVA Health at the University of Virginia began its program in 2011 and has screened about 200 older practitioners. Only in four cases did the results significantly change a doctor’s practice or privileges.

Stanford Health Care launched its late-career program the following year. Penn Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania also put in place a testing program.

Nobody has tracked how many exist; Gallagher guesstimated as many as 200. But given that the United States has more than 6,000 hospitals, those with late-career programs constitute “a vast minority,” he said.

The number may actually have shrunk. A federal lawsuit, along with the profession’s lingering reluctance, appears to have put the effort to regularly assess older doctors’ abilities in limbo.

Late-career programs typically require those 70 and older to be evaluated before their privileges and credentials are renewed, with confirmatory testing for those whose initial results indicate problems. Thereafter, older doctors undergo regular rescreening, usually every year or two.

It’s fair to say such efforts proved unpopular among their intended targets. Doctors frequently insist that “‘I’ll know when it’s time to stand down,’” said Rocco Orlando, senior strategic adviser to Hartford HealthCare, which operates eight Connecticut hospitals and began its late-career practitioner program in 2018. “It turns out not to be true.”

When Hartford HealthCare published data from the first two years of its late-career program, it reported that of the 160 practitioners 70 and older who were screened, .

That mirrored results from Yale New Haven Hospital, which instituted mandatory cognitive screening for medical staff members starting at age 70. Among the first 141 Yale clinicians who underwent testing, that were likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently,” a study reported.

Proponents of late-career screening argued that such programs could prevent harm to patients while steering impaired doctors to less demanding assignments or, in some cases, toward retirement.

“I thought as we got the word out nationally, this would be something we could encourage across the country,” Orlando said, noting that Hartford’s program cost only $50,000 to $60,000 a year.

Instead, he has seen “zero progress” in recent years. “Probably we’ve gone backward,” he said.

A key reason: In 2020, the federal over its testing efforts, charging age and disability discrimination. The legal action continues (the EEOC declined to comment on its status), as does the hospital’s late-career program.

But the suit led several other organizations to pause or shut down their programs, including those at Hartford HealthCare and at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas, while few new ones have emerged.

“It made lots of organizations uncomfortable about sticking their necks out,” Gallagher said.

Instituting later-career programs has always been an uphill effort. “Doctors don’t like to be regulated,” Katlic acknowledged. Late-career programs have “in some cases been very controversial, and they’ve been blocked by influential physicians,” he said.

As health systems wait to see what happens in federal court, most national medical organizations have recommended only voluntary screening and peer reporting.

“Neither works very well at all,” Gallagher said. “Physicians are hesitant to share their concerns about their colleagues,” which can involve “challenging power dynamics.”

As for voluntary evaluation, since cognitive decline can affect doctors’ (or anyone’s) self-awareness, “they’re the last to know that they’re not themselves,” he added.

In a recent , Gallagher and his co-authors recommended procedural policies to promote fairness in late-career screening, based on an analysis of such programs and interviews with their leaders.

“How can we design these programs in a way that’s fair and that therefore physicians are more apt to participate in?” he said. The authors emphasized the need for confidentiality and safeguards, such as an appeals process.

“There are all sorts of accommodations” for doctors whose assessments indicate the need for different roles, Gallagher noted. They could adopt less onerous schedules or handle routine procedures while leaving complex six-hour surgeries to their colleagues. They might transition to teaching, mentoring, and consulting.

Yet a substantial number of older doctors head for the exits and retire rather than face a mandated evaluation, he said.

The future, therefore, might involve programs that regularly screen every practitioner. That would be inefficient (few doctors in their 40s will flunk a cognitive test) and, with current tests, time-consuming and consequently expensive. But it would avoid charges of age discrimination.

Faster reliable cognitive tests, reportedly in the research pipeline, may be one way to proceed. In the meantime, Orlando said, changing the culture of health care organizations requires encouraging peer reporting and commending “the people who have the courage to speak up.”

“If you see something, say something,” he continued, referring to health care professionals who witness doctors (of any age) faltering. “We are overly protective of our own. We need to step back and say, ‘No, we’re about protecting our patients.’”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with .

This <a target="_blank" href="/aging/doctor-cognitive-decline-assessment-ageism/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Instead of typing on her computer keyboard during the exam, Urban’s primary care physician at the practice in Media, Pennsylvania, had an ambient artificial intelligence scribe take notes. At the end of the 30-minute visit, Urban’s doctor showed her the AI summary of the appointment, neatly organized into sections for her medical history, the physical exam findings, and an assessment and treatment plan for her rheumatoid arthritis and hot flashes, among other details.

The clinical note, which Urban could also review on the patient portal at home, was incredibly thorough, she said. It summarized all of her questions and concerns and the doctor’s responses. The scribe “made sure we didn’t miss anything,” Urban said.

Ambient AI scribes are being hailed by physicians as a game changer that helps free them to focus on their patients rather than their computer keyboard. By releasing doctors from the onerous and time-consuming task of documenting what happens during every patient encounter, , AI scribes may help reduce physician burnout and after-hours “pajama time” catching up on work in the evening.

The potential of AI to transform every aspect of the health care system — from patient care to clinical efficiency to medical innovation — is an area of intense focus, including by the Trump administration.

Last January, President Donald Trump issued an to remove barriers to American leadership in AI. Later in the year, a from the federal Department of Health and Human Services invited stakeholders to weigh in on how the department can accelerate the adoption of AI in health care.

Several startup vendors in recent years have introduced ambient AI scribe products that can be integrated into electronic health records. EHR market leader Epic is technology, which it expects to release widely early this year, according to , a family medicine physician who is chief medical officer and vice president of clinical informatics at Epic.

Health tech experts estimate that a third of providers have access to ambient AI scribe technology. As adoption looks likely to grow rapidly over the next few years, many expect it to become more of a recruiting tool, a minimum requirement for incoming clinicians, who are increasingly prioritizing work-life balance.

“It’s part of keeping doctors happy,” said , a professor and the chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, whose forthcoming book, , explores how AI is transforming health care. “Health systems that initially might have done a hard-nosed return-on-investment calculation — many are softening on that and realizing that the cost of recruiting and retaining doctors is pretty high.”

But many questions remain. Does the use of ambient AI scribes improve patient care and health outcomes? Will doctors use time they gain by employing an AI scribe to improve the quality of the time they spend with their patients or just boost the number of patients they see? To what extent will expanding the amount of detail available from a patient visit lead to bigger bills if the AI scribe is integrated with a coding app that optimizes provider charges?

For now, these questions remain mostly unanswered.

Urban said that the AI scribe didn’t change her experience as a patient very much. Typically, after a patient gives verbal permission, the AI scribe records the visit on a phone and organizes the conversation into the structure of a clinical note, filtering out small talk that isn’t pertinent to the medical visit but incorporating relevant details about a family member’s recent cancer diagnosis, for example. The scribe’s note is often then integrated into the provider’s EHR. The doctor later reviews the note and signs off on it.

Even though the visit may not feel very different to patients, some clinicians report that ambient AI scribes are changing patient encounters in unanticipated ways.

“Now, when I’m doing a physical exam, I have to say what I’m doing and what I’m finding out loud in order for the AI scribe to document it,” said , Urban’s primary care doctor. “People find that very interesting,” she said.

When Capalongo places her stethoscope over the carotid artery under a patient’s jaw, for example, she might say that she doesn’t hear a “bruit,” or vascular murmur, whose presence could indicate atherosclerosis. Patients have told her, “I never knew why a doctor would listen there,” she said.

Saying things out loud for the AI scribe that would typically appear only in a clinical note can create its own set of challenges, particularly during sensitive physical exams. Doctors may feel it’s important to adjust their conversation accordingly.

“Sometimes patients are anxious and scared and my saying things that they don’t understand or they may worry about during an uncomfortable examination does not help the situation and honestly is insensitive to what the patient is going through,” said , a professor in the Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery at the University of Minnesota, who is also chief health informatics and AI officer at Fairview Health Services in Minneapolis. “I’ll keep that top of mind and make sure I record it” after the visit.

“How we have conversations with patients about these tools is really important, in particular for maintaining trust and ensuring accurate information,” Melton-Meaux said.

Studies have found that, across a range of measures such as completeness, timeliness, and coherence, the notes created by ambient AI scribes are generally at least as good as, and sometimes better than, traditional documentation, said , a pediatrician who is vice president for applied informatics at the University of Pennsylvania Health System.

An ongoing concern is around AI “hallucinations,” in which false, sometimes fabricated information appears in an AI output.

Kaiser Permanente, an of ambient AI scribe technology, provides it to more than 25,000 doctors, advanced practice providers, and pharmacists systemwide. It has found hallucinations to be “quite rare,” said , an internist who is vice president of AI and emerging technologies at KP.

But they happen. An AI-scribe-generated note, for instance, might say that the doctor planned to refer someone to a neurologist or to follow up in two weeks. The problem? The doctor might not have said that.

“The technology is not perfect, and that’s why physicians are reviewing it,” Yang said. It’s learning from regular physician visits as it goes, he said. That’s why having a person check the work product is critical.

Still, even such a “human-in-the loop” system is fraught, Wachter said. “Humans stink at maintaining vigilance over time,” he said.

As the use of ambient AI scribes becomes routine, some clinicians worry that the technology will widen the divide between health care haves and have-nots.

Large health systems are able to move forward with the technology, Melton-Meaux said. But what about critical access hospitals or small private practices? “There need to be more resources,” she said.

Physicians’ enthusiasm for ambient AI scribes stands in sharp contrast to their negative reaction to electronic health record systems that have become widely adopted in recent years to replace paper charts.

“During the last 10 years, when EHRs became a thing, we all became very grumpy, overworked data scribes,” Wachter said.

The introduction of AI scribes makes physicians feel like technology is working for them rather than the other way around, health care AI experts said.

And AI scribes are “training wheels” for more consequential adoption of AI in health care, Wachter said.

To improve health care value and save costs, Wachter said, we need a system that makes it more likely that physicians will practice evidence-based medicine to order the right tests and prescribe the right medications.

“It’s a few years away, but it’s all AI-dependent,” he said.

Epic has introduced roughly 60 AI use cases for patients, clinicians, and administration, with over 100 more in the works.

“It’s so much bigger than a scribe,” said Epic’s Gerhart. “It’s literally listening and acting in a way that tees things up for me so that I can take action.”

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/ambient-ai-scribes-doctor-appointments-note-taking-ehr-epic/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

But two years ago, he heard about Peak Health, a new Advantage plan started by the West Virginia University Health System, where his doctors practice. It was cheaper and offered more personal attention, plus extras such as an allowance for over-the-counter pharmacy items. Those benefits are more important than ever, he said, as he’s treated for cancer.

“I decided to give it a shot,” said Wilkewitz, 79. “If I didn’t like it, I could go back to Humana or whatever after a year.”

He’s sticking with Peak Health. Members of Medicare Advantage plans, a privately run alternative to the government’s Medicare program, can change plans through the end of March.

Now entering its third year, Peak Health has tripled its enrollment since last year, to “north of 10,000,” said Amos Ross, its president. It expanded from 20 counties to 49, he said, and moved into parts of western Pennsylvania for the first time.

Although hospital-owned plans are only a sliver of the Medicare Advantage market, their enrollment continues to grow, reflecting the overall increase in Advantage members. Of the 62.8 million Medicare beneficiaries eligible to join Advantage plans, , according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ, the health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News. While the number of Advantage plans owned by hospital systems is relatively stable, Mass General Brigham in Boston and others are expanding their service areas and types of plan offerings.

Health systems have dabbled in the insurance business for years, but it’s not for everyone. MedStar Health, serving the greater Washington, D.C., area, said it closed its Medicare Advantage plan at the end of 2018, citing financial losses.

“It’s a ton of work,” said Ross, who spent more than a decade in the commercial health insurance industry.

Like any other health insurer, hospitals entering the business need a back-office infrastructure to enroll patients, sign up providers, fill prescriptions, process claims, hire staff, and — most importantly — assure state regulators they have a reserve of money to pay claims. Once they get a state insurance license, they need approval from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to sell Medicare Advantage policies. Some systems affiliate with or create an insurance subsidiary, and others do most of the job themselves.

Kaiser Permanente, the nation’s largest nonprofit health system by revenue, started an experimental Medicare plan in 1981 and now has nearly 2 million people enrolled in dozens of Advantage plans in eight states and the District of Columbia. The Justice Department announced Jan. 14 that KP had to settle accusations that its Advantage plans fraudulently billed the government for about $1 billion over a nine-year period.

Last year, UCLA Health introduced two Medicare Advantage plans in Los Angeles County, the most populous county in the United States. Other new hospital-owned plans have cropped up in less profitable rural areas.

“These are communities that have been very hard for insurers to move into,” said Molly Smith, group vice president for public policy at the American Hospital Association.

But Advantage plans offered by hospitals have a familiar, trusted name. They don’t have to move into town, because their owners — the hospitals — never left.

Bad Breakups

Medicare Advantage plans usually restrict their members to a network of doctors, hospitals, and other clinicians that have contracts with the plans to serve them. But if hospitals and plans can’t agree to renew those contracts, or when disputes flare up — often spurred by payment delays, denials, or burdensome prior authorization rules — the health care providers can drop out.

These breakups, plus planned terminations and service area cuts, forced more than 3.7 million Medicare Advantage enrollees to make a tough choice last year: find new insurance for 2026 that their doctors accept or, if possible, keep their plan but find new doctors.

About 1 million of these stranded patients had coverage from UnitedHealthcare, the country’s largest health insurer. In a July earnings update for financial analysts, chief financial officer John Rex blamed the company’s retreat on hospitals, where “most encounters are intensifying in services and costing more.”

The turbulence in the commercial insurance market has upset patients as well as their providers. Sometimes contract disputes have been fought out in the open, with anxious patients in the middle receiving warnings from each side blaming the other for the imminent end to coverage.

When Fred Neary, 88, learned his doctors in the Baylor Scott & White Health system in central and northern Texas would be leaving his Medicare Advantage plan, he was afraid the same thing could happen again if he joined a plan from another commercial insurer. Then he discovered that the 53-hospital system had its own Medicare Advantage plan. He enrolled in 2025 and is keeping the plan this year.

“It was very important to me that I would never have to worry about switching over to another plan because they would not accept my Baylor Scott & White doctors,” he said.

Eugene Rich, a senior fellow at Mathematica, a health policy research group, said hospital systems’ Medicare Advantage plans offer “a lot of stability for patients.”

“You’re not suddenly going to discover that your primary care physician or your cardiologist are no longer in the plan,” he said.

A that Rich co-authored in July found that enrollment in Advantage plans owned by hospital systems grew faster than traditional Medicare enrollment for the first time in 2023, though not as rapidly as the overall rise in sign-ups for all Advantage plans.

The massive UCLA Health system introduced its two Medicare Advantage plans in Los Angeles County in January 2025, even though patients already had a list of more than 70 Advantage plans to choose from. Before rolling out the plan, the University of California Board of Regents discussed its merits at a November 2024 meeting. The offer rare insight into a conversation that private hospital systems would usually hold behind closed doors.

“As increasing numbers of Medicare-enrolled patients turn to new Medicare Advantage plans, UC Health’s experience with these new plans has not been good, either for patients or providers,” the minutes read, summarizing comments by David Rubin, executive vice president of UC Health.

The minutes also describe comments from Jonathon Arrington, CFO of UCLA Health. “Over the years, in order to care for Medicare Advantage patients, UCLA has entered numerous contracts with other payers, and these contracts have generally not worked out well,” the minutes read. “Every two or three years, UCLA has found itself terminating a contract and signing a new one. Patients have remained loyal to UCLA, some going through three iterations of cancelled contracts in order to remain with UCLA Health.”

Costs to Taxpayers

CMS pays Advantage plans a monthly fixed amount to care for each enrollee based on the member’s health condition and location. In 2024, the federal government paid Advantage plans an estimated $494 billion to care for patients, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which monitors the program for Congress.

The commission said this month that it projects insurers in 2026 will be paid 14%, or about $76 billion, more than it would have cost government-run Medicare to care for similar patients.

Many Democratic lawmakers have criticized overpayments to Medicare Advantage insurers, though the program has bipartisan congressional support because of its increasing popularity with Medicare beneficiaries, who are often attracted by dental care and other coverage unavailable through traditional Medicare.

Whenever Congress threatens cuts, insurers claim these generous federal payments are essential to keep Medicare Advantage plans afloat. UCLA Health’s Advantage plans will need at least 15,000 members to be financially sustainable, according to the meeting minutes. CMS data indicates that 7,337 patients signed up in 2025.

A study in August compared patients in commercial Medicare Advantage who had major surgery with those covered by Medicare Advantage plans owned by their hospital. The latter group had fewer complications, said co-author Thomas Tsai, an associate professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Smith, of the American Hospital Association, isn’t surprised. When insurers and hospitals are not on opposite sides, she said, care delivery can be smoother. “There’s more flexibility to manage premium dollars to cover services that maybe wouldn’t otherwise be covered,” Smith said.

But Tsai warns seniors that hospital-owned Medicare Advantage plans operate under the same rules as those run by commercial health insurance companies. He said patients should consider whether the extra benefits of Advantage plans “are worth the trade-off of potentially narrow provider networks and more utilization management than they would get from traditional Medicare.”

In Texas, Neary hopes the closer relationship between his doctors and his insurance plan means there’s less of a chance that bills for his medical care will be kicked back.

“I don’t think I would run into a situation where they would not provide coverage if one of their own doctors recommended something,” he said.

This <a target="_blank" href="/medicare/health-insurance-medicare-advantage-plans-hospitals/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">