Response to CEO Murder Shows Depth of Frustration with Health Insurers

By Simon Haeder

The U.S. health care system leaves much to be desired.

It is convoluted, fragmented, complex and confusing. Experts have also raised concerns about quality, and disparities are rampant. And, of course, it is excessively costly – far more so than in any other developed nation. Given these failings, it is not surprising that Americans are unhappy with their health care system.

As the public reaction to the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has made clear, however, many Americans are perhaps most unhappy with their health insurers. Indeed, just 31% of Americans have a favorable view of the health insurance industry, according to a 2024 survey.

Yet, given the recent tragic events, as a health policy scholar, I think it would be prudent to take a step back and reflect on the broader health care system and how the U.S. got to this point.

Patchwork Healthcare

Few with any personal experience or professional expertise would describe U.S. health care as the gold standard of health care systems.

For a number of historical and political reasons, it is barely a “system” but rather a complex patchwork with countless different approaches to covering the costs of health care that include splitting the costs between individuals, employers and governments.

Governments also extensively regulate health and health care and, although in a diminished role today, serve as the providers of care through state and county hospitals as well as the Veterans Health Administration.

The result is a regulatory amalgam made up of countless entities. The Affordable Care Act reforms only added additional layers of laws and regulations to an already complex framework.

Yet, even beyond this general structure, Americans face many challenges. Indeed, no other health care system in the world is pricier. This involves costs for medical services but also extremely high administrative costs. Pharmaceuticals are just one example of the excessive financial burden carried by Americans.

For many Americans, these costs are too high, with an estimated 530,000 medical bankruptcies annually.

And despite that high price, concerns persist about quality and access.

In addition, the system tends to be highly inequitable and subject to countless disparities that make it harder for many poorer, rural and nonwhite Americans to access care.

The Role of Insurers

In the United States, insurers play a crucial role in connecting – and at times disconnecting – patients with the care they require.

They are also at the forefront of many of the starkest frustrations that Americans experience – even the ones they are not directly responsible for. While medical providers and pharmaceutical companies charge the world’s highest prices, it is generally up to insurers to tell patients how much they still have to pay or that their care won’t be covered. Insurers are also the ones who determine whether a drug is not covered or a doctor is “out of network,” meaning patients can’t get the specific treatment or care they desire.

To be sure, insurers are not just the messenger – they also add to many of the frustrations patients experience every day. For example, a patient may have to travel very far or wait a long time for an appointment if their provider network is too narrow or simply does not have enough providers. Moreover, the directories and searches that insurers use to show what providers are “in network” may be inaccurate, as they rarely get updated.

For many individuals, this can mean delayed or forgone care, which has major implications for their health and finances. For some, it can even lead to preventable deaths.

Some of the practices insurers are most infamous for, such as rescinding coverage over minor clerical issues and refusing to cover preexisting conditions, ended under the ACA. But some of these issues could return if the incoming Trump administration seeks to undo some of the ACA’s protections.

Even today, so called short-term, limited-duration health plans promise good coverage for lower premiums, but even basic items may not be covered. Many plans, for example, do not cover prescription drugs or even hospital emergency rooms.

Blame the System, Not Just Insurers

Why do insurers act the way they do? For many, the answer may seem simple: to make money. This, of course, rings true – insurers in the U.S. rake in billions of dollar. However, while they tend to be profitable, their margins generally range only from 3% to 5%.

But the story is more complicated than that. With government power limited, insurers are perhaps the only force in the U.S. health care industry trying to rein in rising costs in a health care system where everyone seeks to maximize their profits.

That means insurers take on the role of bad cop, doing things such as limiting access to certain care or doctors. But there are several prudent reasons for doing so; for instance, it’s in the public’s best interest when insurers do not cover drugs that have been shown ineffective or of low quality. And ultimately this does keep premiums lower than they would otherwise be. Of course, insurers and their CEOs profit handsomely in the process. And at times, their methods are ethically and legally questionable.

Ultimately, many if not most of the frustrations Americans experience with health care have their origins in a poorly designed system that is highly inefficient and offers countless opportunities for profit. Yet insurers are only one – perhaps the most visible – part of that broken system.

Simon F. Haeder, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Public Health in the Department of Health Policy & Management in the School of Public Health at Texas A&M University. His most recent work has focused on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, provider networks, and regulatory policymaking at the Office of Management and Budget.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission.

What Will Trump’s White House Return Mean for Healthcare?

By Stephanie Armour, KFF Health News

Former President Donald Trump’s election victory and looming return to the White House will likely bring changes that scale back the nation’s public health insurance programs — increasing the uninsured rate, while imposing new barriers to abortion and other reproductive care.

The reverberations will be felt far beyond Washington, DC, and could include an erosion of the Affordable Care Act’s consumer protections, the imposition of work requirements in Medicaid and funding cuts to the safety net insurance, and challenges to federal agencies that safeguard public health. Abortion restrictions may tighten nationwide with a possible effort to restrict the mailing of abortion medications.

And with the elevation of vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Trump’s inner circle of advisers, public health interventions with rigorous scientific backing — whether fluoridating public water supplies or inoculating children — could come under fire.

Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris with 277 Electoral College votes, The Associated Press declared at 5:34 a.m. ET on Wednesday. He won 51% of the vote nationally to Harris’ 47.5%, the AP projected.

Trump’s victory will give a far broader platform to skeptics and critics of federal health programs and actions. Worst case, public health authorities worry, the U.S. could see increases in preventable illnesses; a weakening of public confidence in established science; and debunked notions — such as a link between vaccines and autism — adopted as policy.

Trump said in an NBC News interview on Nov. 3 that he would “make a decision” about banning some vaccines, saying he would consult with Kennedy and calling him “a very talented guy.”

‘Concepts of a Plan’

While Trump has said he will not try again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, his administration will face an immediate decision next year on whether to back an extension of enhanced premium subsidies for Obamacare insurance plans. Without the enhanced subsidies, steep premium increases causing lower enrollment are projected. The current uninsured rate, about 8%, would almost certainly rise.

Policy specifics have not moved far beyond the “concepts of a plan” Trump said he had during his debate with Harris, though Vice President-elect JD Vance later said the administration would seek to inject more competition into ACA marketplaces.

Republicans were projected to claim a Senate majority, in addition to the White House, while control of the House was not yet resolved early Wednesday.

Polls show the ACA has gained support among the public, including provisions such as preexisting condition protections and allowing young people to stay on family health plans until they are 26.

Trump supporters and others who have worked in his administration say the former president wants to improve the law in ways that will lower costs. They say he has already shown he will be forceful when it comes to lowering high health care prices, pointing to efforts during his presidency to pioneer price transparency in medical costs.

“On affordability, I’d see him building on the first term,” said Brian Blase, who served as a Trump health adviser from 2017 to 2019. Relative to a Democratic administration, he said, there will be “much more focus” on “minimizing fraud and waste.”

Efforts to weaken the ACA could include slashing funds for enrollment outreach, enabling consumers to purchase more health plans that don’t comply with ACA consumer protections, and allowing insurers to charge sicker people higher premiums.

Democrats say they expect the worst.

“We know what their agenda is,” said Leslie Dach, executive chair of Protect Our Care, a health care policy and advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. He worked in the Obama administration helping to implement the ACA. “They’re going to raise costs for millions of Americans and rip coverage away from millions and, meanwhile, they will give tax breaks to rich people.”

Theo Merkel, director of the Private Health Reform Initiative at the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute, which Blase leads, said the enhanced ACA subsidies extended by the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 do nothing to improve plans or lower premiums. He said they paper over the plans’ low value with larger government subsidies.

Other Trump supporters say the president-elect may support preserving Medicare’s authority to negotiate drug prices, another provision of the IRA. Trump has championed reducing drug prices, and in 2020 advanced a test model that would have tied the prices of some drugs in Medicare to lower costs overseas, said Merkel, who worked in Trump’s first White House. The drug industry successfully sued to block the program.

Within Trump’s circles, some names have already been floated as possible leaders for the Department of Health and Human Services. They include former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Seema Verma, who ran the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during the Trump administration.

Kennedy, who suspended his independent presidential run and endorsed Trump, has told his supporters that Trump promised him control of HHS. Trump said publicly before Election Day that he would give Kennedy a big role in his administration, but he may have difficulty winning Senate confirmation for a Cabinet position.

While Trump has vowed to protect Medicare and said he supports funding home care benefits, he’s been less specific about his intentions for Medicaid, which provides coverage to lower-income and disabled people. Some health analysts expect the program will be especially vulnerable to spending cuts, which could help finance the extension of tax breaks that expire at the end of next year.

Possible changes include the imposition of work requirements on beneficiaries in some states. The administration and Republicans in Congress could also try to revamp the way Medicaid is funded. Now, the federal government pays states a variable percentage of program costs. Conservatives have long sought to cap the federal allotments to states, which critics say would lead to draconian cuts.

“Medicaid will be a big target in a Trump administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Less clear is the potential future of reproductive health rights.

Trump has said decisions about abortion restrictions should be left to the states. Thirteen states ban abortion with few exceptions, while 28 others restrict the procedure based on gestational duration, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on advancing reproductive rights. Trump said before the election that he would not sign a national abortion ban.

State ballot measures to protect abortion rights were adopted in four states, including Missouri, which Trump won by about 18 points, according to preliminary AP reports. Abortion rights measures were rejected by voters in Florida and South Dakota.

Trump could move to restrict access to abortion medications, used in more than half of abortions, either by withdrawing the FDA’s authorization for the drugs or by enforcing a 19th-century law, the Comstock Act, that abortion opponents say bans their shipment. Trump has said he generally would not use the law to ban mail delivery of the drugs.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

How Insurers Take Advantage of Copay Assistance Programs

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist 

With the prices of many medications soaring, copay assistance programs are gaining in popularity. Drug manufacturers create copay programs to help insured patients afford expensive medications by covering all or part of their deductible, copays and other out-of-pocket expenses. That can save patients hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a single prescription.

But when insurers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and employers no longer count the copay assistance toward a deductible, it can lead to unexpectedly high bills for patients, including many who are chronically or terminally ill. The patient is often shocked when they receive a bill for a medication that is significantly higher than usual.  

“When insurers and PBMs do not count the value of copay assistance toward cost-sharing requirements, patients often experience a ‘copay surprise’ at the pharmacy counter and may be forced to walk away without their needed medication because they cannot afford it,” says California Assemblymember Akilah Weber, MD, (D-La Mesa).

Weber recently introduced AB 2180 to ban these copay “accumulator” programs by requiring PBMs and insurers to apply copay assistance towards a patient’s deductible and other out-of-pocket expenses. The goal is to ensure that copay assistance helps the people it is intended for – patients -- rather than lower an insurer’s costs. 

Accumulator programs, also known as "accumulator adjustments" or "copay maximizers,” have already been banned in 19 states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

Over 80 national and California advocacy organizations that make up the All Copays Count in California Coalition have endorsed AB 2180, saying it would protect the most vulnerable patients from “harmful and deceptive insurance schemes.” According to one study, up to 70% of patients abandon their prescriptions when their out-of-pocket costs reach $250 or more.

“Chronic and terminal illnesses create tremendous financial challenges for patients and their families. When insurers utilize copay accumulator policies which do not count third-party payment towards the deductible or out-of-pocket maximum, patients often cannot afford their medications, which has serious health implications,” Siri Vaeth, Executive Director of the Cystic Fibrosis Research Institute, said in a statement.

But PBM’s and insurers say the criticism is unfair. They say copay assistance programs are often little more than marketing ploys by the drug industry to discourage patients from switching to lower cost medications. Insurers say capturing that copay money – by not applying it towards deductibles -- helps them slow the rising cost of premiums. Some are working with third-party companies like PrudentRX and SaveOnSP to identify and implement more of these costs savings.  

There has been bipartisan legislation introduced in Congress at the federal level, which will require financial assistance to count toward deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs. The Help Ensure Lower Patient Copays Act would apply to plans not already subject to state rules. The bill was introduced last year, but has yet to get past the committee stage. 

As the healthcare industry continues to evolve, it is likely that insurers will create more of these “maximizer” programs. If you are paying for more out of pocket expenses due to insurance policies, I encourage you to share your story here and on social media.  

Barby Ingle is a reality TV personality living with multiple rare and chronic diseases. She is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, motivational speaker, and the founder and former President of the International Pain Foundation. You can follow Barby at www.barbyingle.com. 

Older Americans Feel Trapped in Medicare Advantage Plans

By Sarah Jane Tribble, KFF Health News  

In 2016, Richard Timmins went to a free informational seminar to learn more about Medicare coverage.

“I listened to the insurance agent and, basically, he really promoted Medicare Advantage,” Timmins said. The agent described less expensive and broader coverage offered by the plans, which are funded largely by the government but administered by private insurance companies.

For Timmins, who is now 76, it made economic sense then to sign up. And his decision was great, for a while.

Then, three years ago, he noticed a lesion on his right earlobe.

“I have a family history of melanoma. And so, I was kind of tuned in to that and thinking about that,” Timmins said of the growth, which doctors later diagnosed as malignant melanoma. “It started to grow and started to become rather painful.”

Timmins, though, discovered that his enrollment in a Premera Blue Cross Medicare Advantage plan would mean a limited network of doctors and the potential need for preapproval, or prior authorization, from the insurer before getting care. The experience, he said, made getting care more difficult, and now he wants to switch back to traditional, government-administered Medicare.

But he can’t. And he’s not alone.

RICHARD TIMMINS

“I have very little control over my actual medical care,” he said, adding that he now advises friends not to sign up for the private plans. “I think that people are not understanding what Medicare Advantage is all about.”

Low Premiums and Extra Benefits

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans has grown substantially in the past few decades, enticing more than half of all eligible people, primarily those 65 or older, with low premium costs and perks like dental and vision insurance. And as the private plans’ share of the Medicare patient pie has ballooned to 30.8 million people, so too have concerns about the insurers’ aggressive sales tactics and misleading coverage claims.

Enrollees, like Timmins, who sign on when they are healthy can find themselves trapped as they grow older and sicker.

“It’s one of those things that people might like them on the front end because of their low to zero premiums and if they are getting a couple of these extra benefits — the vision, dental, that kind of thing,” said Christine Huberty, a lead benefit specialist supervising attorney for the Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources.

“But it’s when they actually need to use it for these bigger issues,” Huberty said, “that’s when people realize, ‘Oh no, this isn’t going to help me at all.’”

Medicare pays private insurers a fixed amount per Medicare Advantage enrollee and in many cases also pays out bonuses, which the insurers can use to provide supplemental benefits. Huberty said those extra benefits work as an incentive to “get people to join the plan” but that the plans then “restrict the access to so many services and coverage for the bigger stuff.”

Switching Plans

David Meyers, assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at the Brown University School of Public Health, analyzed a decade of Medicare Advantage enrollment and found that about 50% of beneficiaries — rural and urban — left their contract by the end of five years. Most of those enrollees switched to another Medicare Advantage plan rather than traditional Medicare.

In the study, Meyers and his co-authors muse that switching plans could be a positive sign of a free marketplace but that it could also signal “unmeasured discontent” with Medicare Advantage.

“The problem is that once you get into Medicare Advantage, if you have a couple of chronic conditions and you want to leave Medicare Advantage, even if Medicare Advantage isn’t meeting your needs, you might not have any ability to switch back to traditional Medicare,” Meyers said.

Traditional Medicare can be too expensive for beneficiaries switching back from Medicare Advantage, he said. In traditional Medicare, enrollees pay a monthly premium and, after reaching a deductible, in most cases are expected to pay 20% of the cost of each nonhospital service or item they use. And there is no limit on how much an enrollee may have to pay as part of that 20% coinsurance if they end up using a lot of care, Meyers said.

To limit what they spend out-of-pocket, traditional Medicare enrollees typically sign up for supplemental insurance, such as employer coverage or a private Medigap policy. If they are low-income, Medicaid may provide that supplemental coverage.

But, Meyers said, there’s a catch: While beneficiaries who enrolled first in traditional Medicare are guaranteed to qualify for a Medigap policy without pricing based on their medical history, Medigap insurers can deny coverage to beneficiaries transferring from Medicare Advantage plans or base their prices on medical underwriting.

Only four states — Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York — prohibit insurers from denying a Medigap policy if the enrollee has preexisting conditions such as diabetes or heart disease.

Paul Ginsburg is a former commissioner on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also known as MedPAC. It’s a legislative branch agency that advises Congress on the Medicare program. He said the inability of enrollees to easily switch between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare during open enrollment periods is “a real concern in our system; it shouldn’t be that way.”

The federal government offers specific enrollment periods every year for switching plans. During Medicare’s open enrollment period, from Oct. 15 to Dec. 7, enrollees can switch out of their private plans to traditional, government-administered Medicare.

Medicare Advantage enrollees can also switch plans or transfer to traditional Medicare during another open enrollment period, from Jan. 1 to March 31.

“There are a lot of people that say, ‘Hey, I’d love to come back, but I can’t get Medigap anymore, or I’ll have to just pay a lot more,’” said Ginsburg, who is now a professor of health policy at the University of Southern California.

Timmins is one of those people. The retired veterinarian lives in a rural community on Whidbey Island just north of Seattle. It’s a rugged, idyllic landscape and a popular place for second homes, hiking, and the arts. But it’s also a bit remote.

While it’s typically harder to find doctors in rural areas, Timmins said he believes his Premera Blue Cross plan made it more challenging to get care for a variety of reasons, including the difficulty of finding and getting in to see specialists.

Nearly half of Medicare Advantage plan directories contained inaccurate information on what providers were available, according to the most recent federal review. Beginning in 2024, new or expanding Medicare Advantage plans must demonstrate compliance with federal network expectations or their applications could be denied.

Amanda Lansford, a Premera Blue Cross spokesperson, declined to comment on Timmins’ case. She said the plan meets federal network adequacy requirements as well as travel time and distance standards “to ensure members are not experiencing undue burdens when seeking care.”

Traditional Medicare allows beneficiaries to go to nearly any doctor or hospital in the U.S., and in most cases enrollees do not need approval to get services.

Timmins, who recently finished immunotherapy, said he doesn’t think he would be approved for a Medigap policy, “because of my health issue.” And if he were to get into one, Timmins said, it would likely be too expensive. For now, Timmins said, he is staying with his Medicare Advantage plan.

“I’m getting older. More stuff is going to happen.”

There is also a chance, Timmins said, that his cancer could resurface: “I’m very aware of my mortality.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Doctors and Patients Shame Insurers to Reverse Treatment Denials

By Lauren Sausser, KFF Health News

Sally Nix was furious when her health insurance company refused to pay for the infusions she needs to ease her chronic pain and fatigue.

Nix has struggled with a combination of autoimmune diseases since 2011. Brain and spinal surgeries didn’t ease her symptoms. Nothing worked, she said, until she started intravenous immunoglobulin infusions late last year. Commonly called IVIG, the treatment bolsters her compromised immune system with healthy antibodies from other people’s blood plasma.

“IVIG turned out to be my great hope,” she said.

That’s why, when Nix’s health insurer started denying payment for the treatment, she turned to Facebook and Instagram to vent her outrage.

“I was raising Cain about it,” said Nix, 53, of Statesville, North Carolina, who said she was forced to pause treatment because she couldn’t afford to pay more than $13,000 out of pocket every four weeks.

“There are times when you simply must call out wrongdoings,” she wrote on Instagram. “This is one of those times.”

Prior authorization is a common cost-cutting tool used by health insurers that requires patients and doctors to secure approval before moving forward with many tests, procedures, and prescription medications.

SALLY NIX

Insurers say the process helps them control costs by preventing medically unnecessary care. But patients say the often time-consuming and frustrating rules create hurdles that delay or deny access to the treatments they need. In some cases, delays and denials equal death, doctors say.

That’s why desperate patients like Nix — and even some physicians — say they have turned to publicly shaming insurance companies on social media to get tests, drugs, and treatments approved.

“Unfortunately, this has become a routine practice for us to resort to if we don’t get any headway,” said Shehzad Saeed, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Dayton’s Children’s Hospital in Ohio. In March, he tweeted a photo of an oozing skin rash, blaming Anthem for denying the biologic treatment his patient needed to ease her Crohn’s disease symptoms.

In July, Eunice Stallman, a psychiatrist based in Idaho, joined X, formerly known as Twitter, for the first time to share how her 9-month-old daughter, Zoey, had been denied prior authorization for a $225 pill she needs to take twice a day to shrink a large brain tumor. “This should not be how it’s done,” Stallman said.

Prior Authorization Reform

The federal government has proposed ways to reform prior authorization that would require insurance companies to provide more transparency about denials and to speed up their response times. If finalized, those federal changes would be implemented in 2026.

But even then, the rules would apply only to some categories of health insurance, including Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid plans, but not employer-sponsored health plans. That means roughly half of all Americans wouldn’t benefit from the changes.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prohibits health insurance plans from denying or canceling coverage to patients due to their preexisting conditions.

AHIP, an industry trade group formerly called America’s Health Insurance Plans, did not respond to a request for comment.

“They just delay and delay and delay until you die. And you’re absolutely helpless as a patient.”

— Linda Peeno, Healthcare Consultant

But some patient advocates and health policy experts question whether insurers are using prior authorization as “a possible loophole” to this prohibition, as a way of denying care to patients with the highest health care costs, explained Kaye Pestaina, a KFF vice president and the co-director of its Program on Patient and Consumer Protections.

“They take in premiums and don’t pay claims. That’s how they make money,” said Linda Peeno, a health care consultant and retired Kentucky physician who was employed as a medical reviewer by Humana in the 1980s and later became a whistleblower. “They just delay and delay and delay until you die. And you’re absolutely helpless as a patient.”

But there’s reason to hope things may get marginally better. Some major insurers are voluntarily revamping their prior authorization rules to ease preapproval mandates for doctors and patients. And many states are passing laws to rein in the use of prior authorization.

“Nobody is saying we should get rid of it entirely,” said Todd Askew, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Medical Association, in advance of the group’s annual meeting in June. “But it needs to be right-sized, it needs to be simplified, it needs to be less friction between the patient and accessing their benefits.”

Online Venting

Customers are increasingly using social media to air their complaints across all industries, and companies are paying attention. Nearly two-thirds of complainants reported receiving some sort of response to their online post, according to the 2023 “National Consumer Rage Survey,” conducted by Customer Care Measurement & Consulting in collaboration with Arizona State University.

Some research suggests companies are better off engaging with unhappy customers offline, rather than responding to public social media posts. But many patients and doctors believe venting online is an effective strategy, though it remains unclear how often this tactic works in reversing prior authorization denials.

“It’s not even a joke. The fact that that’s how we’re trying to get these medications is just sad,” said Brad Constant, an inflammatory bowel disease specialist who has published research on prior authorization. His work found that prior authorizations are associated with an increased likelihood that children with inflammatory bowel disease will be hospitalized.

Saeed said the day after he posted the picture of the skin rash, the case was marked for a peer-to-peer review, meaning the prior authorization denial would get a closer look by someone at the insurance company with a medical background. Eventually, the biologic medicine Saeed’s patient needed was approved.

Stallman, who is insured through her employer, said she and her husband were prepared to pay out of pocket if Blue Cross of Idaho didn’t reverse the denial for the drug Zoey needed.

Bret Rumbeck, a spokesperson for the insurer, said Zoey’s medication was approved on July 14 after the company consulted an outside specialist and obtained more information from Zoey’s doctor.

Stallman posted details about the ordeal online only after the insurer approved the drug, in part, she said, to prevent them from denying the treatment again when it comes up for a 90-day insurance review in October. “The power of the social media has been huge,” she said.

Nix had been insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois through her husband’s employer for almost two decades. Dave Van de Walle, a spokesperson for the company, did not specifically address Nix’s case. But in a prepared statement, the company said it provides administrative services for many large employers who design and fund their own health insurance plans.

Nix said an “escalation specialist” from the insurance company reached out after she posted her complaints on social media, but the specialist couldn’t help.

Then, in July, after KFF Health News contacted Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, Nix logged in to the insurer’s online portal and found that $36,000 of her outstanding claims had been marked “paid.” No one from the company had contacted her to explain why or what had changed. She also said she was informed by her hospital that the insurer will no longer require her to obtain prior authorization before her infusions, which she restarted in late July.

“I’m thrilled,” she said. But “it just should never have happened this way.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.  

Patients Squeezed in Fight Over Costly Infusion Drugs

By Samantha Liss, KFF Health News

Health insurers and medical providers are battling over who should supply high-cost infusion drugs for patients, with the tussle over profits now spilling into statehouses across the country.

The issue is that some insurers are bypassing hospital pharmacies and physician offices and instead sending more complex drugs through third-party pharmacies. Those pharmacies then send the medications directly to the medical provider or facility for outpatient infusing, which is called “white bagging,” or, more rarely, to patients, in what is called “brown bagging.” That shifts who gets to buy and bill for these complex medications, including pricey chemotherapy drugs.

Insurers say the policies are needed because hospital markups are too high. But hospitals argue that adding an intermediary results in unnecessary risks and delays, and they say some insurers have their own or affiliated pharmacy companies, creating financial motives for controlling the source of the medications. The patients, meanwhile, are left to deal with the red tape.

Paula Bruton Shepard in Bolivar, Missouri, is among those caught in the middle. Flares of lupus, an autoimmune disease, rob Shepard of her mobility by attacking her joints. She relies on monthly infusions to treat her symptoms.

PAULA SHEPARD

But at times, she said, her treatments were delayed due to UnitedHealthcare’s white bagging infusion policy. And interruptions to her treatments exacerbated her symptoms.

“I once had to use a toilet lift and it was kind of demoralizing to say, ‘I’m a 50-year-old woman and I have to use a toilet lift,’” Shepard said of the medication delays.

This is a tug of war over profits between insurers and medical providers, said Ge Bai, a professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University. While insurers claim the arrangement reduces costs, she said, that doesn’t mean insurers pass along savings to patients.

“I don’t think we should have more sympathy toward one party or the other,” Bai said. “Nobody is better than the other. They’re all trying to make money.”

The savings from white bagging can be significant for expensive infusion drugs, according to a report from the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission. For example, Remicade, used to treat a variety of inflammatory diseases, including Crohn’s, cost on average $1,106 per unit in 2015 under hospitals’ traditional buy-and-bill system, the commission found in its review of state claims data. That same drug cost an average of $975 per unit under white bagging, a 12% savings.

But the report also found patients, on average, faced higher cost sharing — what they are responsible for paying — for Remicade and other drugs when white bagging was used. While some patients had only modest increases to their costs under the policy, such as $12 more for a medication, the review found it could mean much greater cost sharing for some patients, such as those on Medicare.

Delays in Care

At Citizens Memorial Hospital in rural Bolivar, more than 1 in 4 patients who receive regular infusions are being forced to use an outside pharmacy, said Mariah Hollabaugh, the hospital’s pharmacy director. Shepard was among them.

Even if the hospital has the exact drug on the shelf, patients must wait for a separate shipment, Hollabaugh said, potentially interrupting care. Their shipped drugs may sometimes be unusable when the doctor needs to change the dosage. Or the medicine comes in a nondescript package that doesn’t get immediately flagged for the pharmacy, potentially subjecting the drugs to damaging temperature fluctuations. For patients, that can mean delays in care.

“They’re in pain, they’re uncomfortable,” Hollabaugh said. “They may be having symptoms that don’t allow them to go to work.”

Siteman Cancer Center, led by physicians from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, has confronted the same issue. But the cancer center’s size has helped it largely avoid such insurer policies.

John DiPersio, a Siteman oncologist and researcher who led the university’s oncology division for more than two decades, said Siteman reluctantly allows white bagging for simple injectables but refuses to accept it for complicated chemotherapies. It does not accept brown bagging. Occasionally, he said, that means turning patients away.

“You’re talking about cancer patients that are getting life-threatening treatments,” DiPersio said, referring to the dangers of chemo drugs, which he said can be fatal if used improperly. “It doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s all stupid. It’s all lunacy.”

At least 21 states, including Missouri, introduced some form of white or brown bagging legislation during the most recent legislative session, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. And in the past two years, the trade group said, at least 13 states have already enacted restrictions on white bagging, including Arkansas, Louisiana, and Virginia.

ASHP has created model legislation to limit insurers from requiring the practices as a condition of coverage.

“This is a major issue,” said Tom Kraus, a vice president at the trade group. “We see this as central to our ability to coordinate patient care.”

At the heart of the tension is an often-litigated federal program that allows certain hospitals and the clinics they own to purchase drugs at deep discounts. The 340B program, named for a section of the law that created it, allows hospitals to buy certain drugs for much less — sometimes for a total cost of a single penny — than what they are later paid for those drugs. Hospitals are not required to pass along 340B savings to patients.

The program was intended to help hospitals spread scarce resources further to treat patients in poor and vulnerable communities, but it has morphed into a means of enriching hospitals and their affiliated clinics, researchers said in a 2014 Health Affairs report. Hollabaugh said many rural facilities such as Citizens rely on the revenue generated from the 340B drugs to subsidize infusions that have no profit margin.

The number of participating hospitals and their affiliated outpatient clinics has increased significantly since the 340B program was created in 1992. More than 2,600 of the nation’s roughly 6,100 hospitals were participating in the 340B program as of January 2023. That gives them access to discounts that can knock off as much as 50% of a drug’s cost, according to the Health Resources & Services Administration, which oversees the program.

‘People Got Greedy’

The insurance industry argues that hospital markups, especially when made on top of those discounts, have gotten out of control.

“The fact is, people got greedy,” Shannon Cooper, a lobbyist for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, said during a Missouri state Senate hearing in March.

Markups are not unique to 340B hospitals, said Sean Dickson, who helps lead pharmaceutical policy for AHIP, a trade group formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans. The markups thrusted on commercial plans are “widely out of line” with what Medicare will pay, he said, and that is driving up costs without providing additional value.

Legislation that targets white bagging hinders an insurer’s ability to rein in such costs, Dickson said, especially when an area lacks competition.

“What we're really trying to focus on here is putting pressure on those markups that are not related to cost or safety,” Dickson said.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield lobbyist David Smith testified during the March hearing in Missouri that even the idea of white bagging elicited a quick response and that almost every major hospital system in the state said they would drop their prices and come back to the negotiation table.

For now, Citizens Memorial Hospital and other Missouri medical facilities will have to continue to tango with the insurers: Legislation to limit white and brown bagging did not pass during the Missouri General Assembly’s recent session.

Shepard, though, won’t need such legislation.

UnitedHealthcare had been sending her lupus infusion through other pharmacies on and off since 2021, unwilling to cover the drugs if they came from Citizens’ in-house pharmacy. Shepard had to authorize each shipment before it was sent. If she missed the monthly call, she said, it was a “bureaucratic mess” trying to get the medication shipped.

“We are driving unnecessary costs out of the health care system to help make care more affordable, while also maintaining drug safety, effectiveness and quality of care,” UnitedHealthcare spokesperson Tony Marusic wrote.

But after KFF Health News inquired about Shepard’s case, Marusic said UnitedHealthcare stopped white bagging Shepard’s medication to “prevent potential delays in shipping.” And during her latest infusion in June, her hospital was again able to supply Shepard’s medication directly.

“I'm just so relieved,” Shepard said. “I don't have to take phone calls. I don't have to reply to emails. I just show up.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues.

Insurers Can Cause Pain Too

By Victoria Reed, PNN Columnist

Having chronic pain or illness means that you likely take multiple medications and go to the doctor often. That means dealing with your insurance carrier to get claims filed and paid.

One of the medications that I use for my rheumatoid arthritis is quite expensive. In fact, many of the biologics commonly prescribed for RA and other autoimmune conditions are very pricey, costing thousands of dollars a month depending on insurance. Before starting a biologic, it usually needs to be pre-approved by your insurance company.

This pre-approval process can delay or even stall treatment altogether.  With RA, insurers usually require that you to try a particular biologic or disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) before you are approved for a more expensive one. This red tape can and does cause harm to patients as they wait for the insurance review, which can take up to three or four weeks.

During that time, doctors can treat patients with steroids or pain medications, which can help keep symptoms at bay. However, the biologics are primarily what keeps the disease from causing destructive and permanent damage.

Insurance companies are businesses, like any other, and their goal is to make money. But as they look for cheaper medication options and create red tape, the delay can literally leave you in more pain while you wait for a decision. Unfortunately, insurers control the purse strings and sometimes they seem to have more say in a patient’s care than doctors themselves.

Recently, I tried to complete a refill of my biologic medication, Actemra, through the specialty pharmacy that I use. I ordered it online and waited for the email confirmation of shipping, but after a few days I noticed that it didn’t arrive. I contacted the pharmacy’s customer service department to inquire about its status and was told that the required pre-approval had not been done by my doctor’s office: No medication would be shipped until that paperwork was completed.

I then contacted my doctor’s office to advise them of the delay and requested that they complete the required paperwork. Then I patiently waited. After nearly two weeks of being without my medication, the shipment finally arrived. Two weeks can seem like a lifetime if you’re in severe pain!

This pre-approval requirement makes no sense to me, as I’ve been taking Actemra for many years. RA is a lifelong condition that does not go away or get better on its own. Medications to control the condition are usually taken for the duration of your life. So why would my doctor need to submit pre-approval paperwork every six months?                   

Money! It’s as simple as that. Insurers look for ways to delay or avoid paying for an expensive medication..  

I’m sure I’m not the only one experiencing this. Cancer patients also must deal with their insurance company’s control over what drugs they can take to save their lives or improve their quality of life. My father lived with cancer for many years before he passed. Even towards the end of his life, the issue of what meds he was allowed to have was front and center, controlled and dictated by his insurer.

Patients can die because an insurance company refused to pay for a drug that they deemed too expensive. They prioritize profit over people’s lives and have far too much control over patient care.

If you find yourself in a battle with your insurance company over a medication that your doctor prescribed, you do have some options.  You don’t have to just accept a denial. Most insurers allow you to appeal an adverse decision, and sometimes they will change their minds after an appeal or receipt of additional supporting documentation.

You can also request that your doctor send a letter of medical necessity, which would document your need for the drug. In addition, you can request that the insurer do a physician level peer-to-peer review. This is a review that is used by insurance professionals to determine whether to uphold the denial of coverage for a particular medication or claim.

Sometimes utilizing these additional avenues will result in your medication being allowed. Still, any delay in treatment could be detrimental to your health or cause you additional pain while you wait through the appeal process. Some people may find it easier to just take a cheaper drug recommended by the insurer.

Chronic pain sufferers have enough to deal with on a daily basis and we don’t need the additional stress of engaging in a battle with our insurance carriers. Nor do we need unnecessary red tape delays, which are solely designed to save the insurer money.

Patients may not have the energy, time or knowledge to navigate the tricky tactics insurers use to pad their bottom line – which is where a patient advocate could help. Advocates can negotiate with the insurer on your behalf, and can also help you communicate with your medical providers and set up appointments. They can be close friends, family members, spouses or even someone from an organization, such as the Patient Advocate Foundation.

They say it takes a village to raise a child. We also need a village of resources to deal with chronic illness and all of the hassles that come with it.

Victoria Reed lives in northeast Ohio. She suffers from endometriosis, fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease and rheumatoid arthritis. 

Advocacy Group Seeks to Expand Insurance Coverage of Ketamine

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A coalition of patients and healthcare providers is launching an effort to expand insurance coverage for ketamine, a non-opioid anesthetic increasingly used to treat chronic pain, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Ketamine is typically administered by infusion under strict medical supervision, a process that that can take up to an hour and cost thousands of dollars. The first goal of the Ketamine Taskforce is to get ketamine infusions fully covered by Medicare.

“Medicare doesn’t officially pay for ketamine infusions. What they will pay for is a generic infusion code similar to if someone was getting an antibiotic infused. The level of reimbursement is very low,” says Kimberley Juroviesky, a retired nurse practitioner and task force co-chair who receives ketamine infusions for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). 

“Since these reimbursement rates are so low, the majority of small ketamine clinics don’t accept insurance. This leaves the majority of pain patients without the pain relief they could otherwise be benefiting from.”

Ketamine is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a surgical anesthetic, but a growing number of ketamine clinics provide off-label infusions for depression, PTSD and difficult chronic pain conditions such as CRPS. The infusions put patients into a hypnotic, dream-like state — leaving them with less physical and emotional pain once the ketamine wears off. Many insurers consider this off-label use experimental.

“If we could get Medicare to officially put ketamine on their schedule as a treatment for chronic pain, this would hopefully raise reimbursement rates to a level where all providers could afford it. Also, this would force private insurers to pay for ketamine infusions as well and no longer refuse to pay saying it’s experimental,” Juroviesky said in an email. 

PNN columnists Barby Ingle and Madora Pennington have both had ketamine infusions, Barby for CRPS and Madora while recovering from foot surgery.

“The swelling in my foot dramatically improved. Chronic, low-grade discomfort along my spine also disappeared. I felt emotional relief from past trauma, from pain and other life experiences,” Madora explained.

“I went into the hospital in a wheelchair, but walked out on my own a week later,” said Barby, after seven days of ketamine infusions. She now gets “booster” infusions four times a year and no longer takes daily pain medication.

Some ketamine users report lingering side effects, such as hallucinations and visual disturbances. Guidelines from the American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, and the American Academy of Pain Medicine only support ketamine infusions for CRPS and short-term acute pain.

“Excluding CRPS, there was no evidence supporting ketamine infusions for intermediate or long-term improvements in pain," the guidelines warn.

The Ketamine Taskforce is working with a consortium of ketamine clinics, collecting data on the safety and efficacy of infusions. That research will be shared with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in an effort to expand Medicare coverage of ketamine for pain and mental health conditions.

How to Appeal a Denied Health Insurance Claim

By Barby Ingle, PNN columnist

Most pain patients rely on their healthcare providers to appeal insurance company denial of care decisions for them. Some providers are now charging fees to do the appeal paperwork for a patient.

I have found that when I handled the appeal myself, I am often able to get coverage for what I needed and in a timelier manner. I get that this is a daunting process. Many insurers seem to deny coverage and then wait for the appeal. Only about 20% of us follow through on the appeals for a variety of reasons. But it can be done.

At the end of this article is a sample of the letter I send to my insurance company when I run into a situation where the prior authorization has either taken too long (more than a few days) or has been denied.

I start by including copies of my medical records that pertain to why I need a procedure, durable medical equipment or medication. I have kept all of my medical records going back to 2002 in 3-inch binders. I now have 10 binders full, and have them organized by provider and date of service. Keeping good medical records is key to filing an appeal, so you don’t have to start from scratch.  

It can be very helpful if you also attach 3-5 clinical studies that show the effectiveness of what you are requesting working for others with your condition. Try to use studies completed within the past 5 years and with an N of at least 500 (number of participants). Two places where you can look up studies are ClinicalTrials.gov and MediFind.

I know that finding a study can be quite tough for those with ultra-rare and rare medical conditions. If you fall into that category, mention in your letter that the treatment may still be worth a shot and save you from future medical bills and procedures – and help the insurance company as well.

Here’s a sample letter to use when appealing:

Date

Name

Insurance Company Name

Address

City, State ZIP

Re: Patient's Name, Type of Coverage, Group number/Policy number

Dear (contact person at insurance company),

Please accept this letter as my appeal to (insurer’s name) decision to deny coverage for (state the name of the specific procedure denied). It is my understanding based on your letter of denial dated (insert date) that this procedure has been denied because:

(Quote the specific reason for the denial stated in denial letter)

I was diagnosed with (disease) on (date). Currently Dr. (name) believes that I will significantly benefit from (state procedure name). Please see the enclosed letter from Dr. (name) that discusses my medical history in more detail.

I believe that I am attaching additional information that you did not have at the time of your initial review. I have also included with this letter, a letter from Dr. (name) from (name of treating facility). Dr. (name) is a specialist in (name of specialty). (His/her) letter discusses the procedure in more detail. Also included are additional medical records and several journal articles explaining the procedure and the expected results.

Based on this information, I am asking that you reconsider your previous decision and allow coverage for the procedure Dr. (name) outlines in his letter. The treatment is scheduled to begin on (date). Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (phone number). I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Sincerely,

Your name

I want you to have more concrete chances to get the care you need covered. I know that it will take work and won’t always be easy. It will take energy, which most of us already have challenges with.

I like to think about my future when I am in the middle of the appeal process. What would getting this insurance coverage mean to me? More life? A better life? Then it is worth it for me.  

Barby Ingle lives with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), migralepsy and endometriosis. Barby is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, and president of the International Pain Foundation. She is also a motivational speaker and best-selling author on pain topics. More information about Barby can be found at her website.  

Does Transparency in Pricing Really Lower Healthcare Costs?

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist

Each year I get asked to support multiple legislative bills that could impact the chronic pain community. I look through them, think them through, and have written, called, testified and shared many over the years.

But sometimes a bill I supported comes back to haunt me as a patient. The intended consequences are not what I thought they would be.

Such is the case in Arizona, where I live. A state law was passed in 2013 calling for transparency in healthcare pricing (HB 2045). The law requires most healthcare providers to tell patients the “direct pay price” for a service or procedure. I always thought it was a good thing to have transparency in pricing and for patients to know what their responsibility is, so I supported the bill.

In 2019, Arizona passed another law (HB 2166) that authorized providers to collect “advance payments” from patients before a service is performed and without waiting for insurers to pay. The new law was quick to be adopted and providers have already started using it more than expected. This is causing an issue in getting the healthcare we need in a proper and timely manner.

The law really didn't affect me until this year, when I went through all the testing and multiple office visits with a new provider. Then I was called to the office of the “scheduling manager.” This was right after the doctor told me that I need a procedure on my bladder. I have an issue known as neurogenic bladder, where I lose control of my bladder nerves and muscles.

In the office, the woman wrote on a piece of paper the cost of the procedure ($30,000) based on my insurance (Medicare) and how much I would have to pay in advance, which was $6,000.

Before the law went into effect, I could pay the bill over time and get the procedure done when I needed it. But now, she says, I had to pay the entire $6,000 before even scheduling the procedure. I do not have $6,000 to pay upfront, so I am unable to schedule it.

New Hospital Rules

Arizona is not the only state that has passed healthcare price transparency laws; California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont have similar laws.

Federal rules are slated to go into effect in January, 2021 that will require hospitals to disclose their price information, including their negotiated prices with insurers. It is part of an effort by the Trump administration to increase price transparency in hopes of lowering healthcare costs on everything from hospital services to prescription medicines.

The federal efforts are controversial and have already faced court challenges. For good reason, seeing how transparency is being implemented in Arizona.  

Both HB 2045 and HB 2166 are good examples of bills I advocated for that are now being used against me and others in the chronic pain community who are low income or under-insured. It’s just a new way to stop healthcare or slow it down. Instead of having insurance companies delay care with prior authorizations and step therapy -- which I have been through as well -- they stop you at the doctor's office now.  

The same thing happened when I came down with Valley Fever pneumonia this past November. My provider ordered chest x-rays, but before I could get them, I had to pay my portion of the bill. I had to borrow money to get the x-rays done.  

Turns out I was way sicker than my provider thought and he apologized afterwards. Once I was diagnosed, follow up x-rays were covered, except when one lady was at the desk. She always charges me and says she has to because of the price transparency rules.  

I am hearing more and more stories about HB 2166 being used against the chronic and rare disease communities. As I said, it is odd to not want full transparency, but I would rather have access to healthcare when it is needed and then work on paying the bill afterward. Otherwise, like me, many of you may not receive the care you need, making our health worse and more expensive. 

Barby Ingle lives with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), migralepsy and endometriosis. Barby is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, and president of the International Pain Foundation. She is also a motivational speaker and best-selling author on pain topics. More information about Barby can be found at her website. 

Insurer’s ‘Internal Policy’ Prevents Patients from Getting Needed Healthcare

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist

Patients, caregivers and providers have been fighting with insurance companies for years over step therapy practices, prior authorization delays and changes in specialty tier medications. If a claim is turned down by a payer, there is usually a way to appeal – such as a peer-to-peer review between a provider and a physician at the insurance company.

An insurance policy has come to my attention which ends peer-to-peer reviews and ultimately is a way to limit access to healthcare and avoid paying for certain treatments. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas no longer allows physicians to speak directly to their medical director.

A peer-to-peer review occurs after receiving an authorization denial. Often the first denial is by a claims adjuster, who is usually not a medical professional. When that happens, the treating provider may request to speak with the insurer’s medical director to discuss the rationale for the denial. This process is sometimes referred to as a “doctor to doctor" appeal.  

Providers typically have a time frame where a peer-to-peer request must be made. For inpatient and pre-service requests, it is typically 5 business days. They have 60 days to complete the appeal from the date of denial.

Peer-to-peer requests are often not granted because they were made too late or there is insufficient clinical documentation. But they’re worth trying.

A Kansas provider recently requested a peer-to-peer meeting and received this email response from a representative of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Kansas:

“We used to have in our policy that we allowed requests for peer-to-peer reviews with our Medical Directors. We took that out a few years back and no longer give our providers that option. That is our internal policy.”

The email suggests this “internal policy” is not a known public policy or practice by BCBS of Kansas.

How are patients and providers able to get proper and timely care after an authorization denial if they are not able to request a peer-to-peer review?  I can see how this “internal policy” does save the insurer money over the short-term. But long term, not allowing physicians to speak directly to the medical director leads to delays and denials of care.

“Physicians are frustrated. Now this policy from BCBS of Kansas.  It is much easier to deny a piece of paper than a real human being.” says Gayle Taylor-Ford, a Kansas pain patient, provider and board member of iPain.

Step therapy and prior authorization policies are limiting access to healthcare for patients around the country. A recent study found that about 66% of prescriptions that get rejected at the pharmacy require prior authorization. Further complicating the situation is when a prior authorization is imposed, only 29% of patients end up with the originally prescribed treatment — and 40% end up abandoning therapy altogether!

This causes frustration, delay in care, depression, and poor adherence to treatment plans. The health of patients who don’t get the medication that could best treat their condition -- or who don’t get any therapy at all -- often gets worse. That leads to an increase in doctor and emergency room visits — and higher healthcare costs.

I wish we knew why BCBS of Kansas made this policy change. BCBS companies in other states still allow peer-to-peer reviews. Why is this a non-consistent policy and why is it even allowed in Kansas?

(Editor’s note: PNN asked for a comment from BCBS of Kansas and received this reply from a spokesperson: “While we appreciate you reaching out for comment, we respectfully decline to offer a response to the story.”)

There are already challenges in the peer-to-peer appeal process, as oncologist Rick Boulay, MD, described in KevinMD.com. Boulay wrote about his frustration getting cancer treatments approved when talking to the ‘insurance doctor’ who was supposed to be his peer.

“Most patients are unaware of this, but your physician is likely your biggest advocate when it comes to getting your care covered,” Boulay wrote. “At least weekly, and occasionally daily, insurance companies deny payment for some cancer treatment that I prescribe. In my career, I cannot think of a single aspect of the cancer care continuum that hasn’t been denied.”

At least Dr. Boulay was able to get peer-to-peer reviews and have some of those denials reversed. 

To deny our providers the ability to appeal is wrong. It’s just a new way to deny proper and timely access to healthcare. The fact that BCBS of Kansas is hiding its “internal policy” is also a sign that they know they are delaying and denying care that patients need.

It also raises a question. How many other insurance providers are doing the same thing?

Barby Ingle lives with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), migralepsy and endometriosis. Barby is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, and president of the International Pain Foundation. She is also a motivational speaker and best-selling author on pain topics. More information about Barby can be found at her website. 

This column is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Always Check Your Medical Bills and Insurance Statements

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist

Recently I received a medical bill and noticed my insurance did not cover any of the costs of my treatment for an emergency care visit. This particular visit happened when I woke up in pain and feeling like I couldn’t take a full breath. I thought it might be a partial lung collapse, something that I have experienced before.

About a month after the emergency care visit, I receive a bill from the provider. The first thing that I checked on the bill was my vital information: name, address, phone and insurance card ID. They had the wrong first and last name and my social security number instead of my plan number.

No wonder the insurance company denied it! It looked like someone else was trying to be me and got the details wrong.

I have done many interviews and articles over the years about medical billing. If I didn’t know how to catch these mistakes, I would have gotten stuck paying the entire bill.

Studies show that 8 in 10 medical bills have at least one minor mistake. These mistakes add up and cost society more than $68 billion in unnecessary healthcare spending, according to Medliminal Healthcare Solutions, a company that helps patients find and fix medical billing errors.

When I checked into the emergency care center that day, I was not able to speak very well and my husband handled the check-in process. He presented my drivers license and insurance card.

When the nurse called me back, she said my name incorrectly, close but incorrect. I corrected her and told her to make sure it is correct in the system because if data such as my name is not correct, the insurance won’t pay. She confirmed my name and the spelling and updated her system. The billing still got it wrong.

When I went back to the emergency care center with the medical bill, the front desk lady said the information was in their system correctly, but billing is done by another group and sometimes data gets mixed up. She gave me the info to contact the billing company.

After returning home, I called the billing company. Their representative said they had my name correct but corrected my insurance information. They are going to re-bill my insurance. My co-pay portion should only be 20% of the bill.

It literally came down to multiple people making little mistakes that led to me receiving a bill that was incorrect. If I didn’t check and see the errors, I would have gotten stuck paying the full amount.

Over the years this has happened quite a number of times to me and I am sure it happens to others. If you don’t compare your explanation of benefits (EOB’s) and provider bills against each other, you could pay more than you should for medical services. This can also happen if you don’t check your medical records. If a medical record is incorrect, you may not care at the time, especially if you received the appropriate care.

But what if you’re in an emergency situation where you can’t check and verify what is in the system? You may end up being given medications that you no longer take due to out-of-date prescription and medical records. You may even be denied coverage because of misinformation in your records.

What billing data should you check? Start with your name, date of birth, date of service, services provided and insurance information. For your medical records, check your name and date of service. Make sure to view your lab results, radiology reports, surgical reports, follow-up care suggestions, and daily notes from nurses and providers.

Also check your insurance EOB’s to see if the co-pays and deductibles you’ve paid matches up with their data, and you get the maximum coverage under your plan. Always check and correct medical information and bills. If you are doing it by phone, record the call if you are in a state where that is allowed. If not, then take good notes. Be sure to keep a copy of every provider bill, EOB, email and letter for your records.

Over a lifetime of chronic illness, you’ll save yourself thousands of dollars and get access to better care.

Barby Ingle lives with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), migralepsy and endometriosis. Barby is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, and president of the International Pain Foundation. She is also a motivational speaker and best-selling author on pain topics. More information about Barby can be found at her website.  

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Employers Adding Stem Cell Options to Insurance Plans

By Liz Szabo, Kaiser Health News

A Midwestern grocery chain, Hy-Vee, is taking an unusual approach to reducing health care costs. Before employees in certain cities can undergo knee replacement, they first must visit a stem cell provider.

Hy-Vee has contracted with one of the United States’ leading stem cell companies — Regenexx, based in Des Moines, Iowa — that claims injections of concentrated bone marrow or platelets can help patients avoid expensive joint surgery.

Regenexx has persuaded over 100 employers to include its services in their health insurance plans. In a marketing booklet, Regenexx, whose injections range in price from $1,500 to $9,000, notes that its treatments cost a fraction of major surgery.

A single knee replacement ranges from $19,000 to $30,000 in the U.S.

Health insurance typically doesn’t cover stem cell injections, with the exception of certain accepted treatments, such as bone-marrow transplants for cancer and aplastic anemia.

Aetna, the United States’ third-largest health insurer, dismisses stem cells and platelet injections as experimental; Anthem, the country’s second-biggest health insurance provider, classifies the injections as “not medically necessary.” Without insurance coverage, patients are forced to pay out-of-pocket or forgo treatment.

So instead of dealing with disapproving insurance executives, Regenexx appeals directly to employers large enough to fund their own health plans. These businesses have the freedom to customize their plans, covering services that aren’t part of a standard insurance package.

In a statement, Regenexx said its goal is to “replace more invasive surgical orthopedics” with nonsurgical options, noting that recent research has found many joint operations are ineffective. On its website, Regenexx claims its procedures “repair and regenerate damaged or degenerated bone, cartilage, muscle, tendons, and ligaments.”

In a bone marrow stem cell procedure, for example, a doctor withdraws bone marrow cells from a patient’s hip, concentrates them, then reinjects them into a problem area, such as an arthritic knee. Doctors target the exact location in the joint using ultrasound. For a “platelet-rich plasma” treatment, doctors draw blood, concentrate the platelets, then inject them into the target area.

Regenexx, previously known as Regenerative Sciences, is one of the oldest stem cell companies in the U.S. When it opened its doors in 2005, it had only a handful of competitors.

Today, there are more than 1,000 stem clinics in the U.S., said Leigh Turner, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics, who has published a series of articles describing the stem cell market.

At times, Regenexx has clashed with the Food and Drug Administration. In 2010, for example, Regenexx sued the FDA, claiming the agency lacked the authority to regulate its procedures, which involved culturing stem cells before reinjecting them into patients. Regenexx lost its case and was countersued by the FDA, which charged that Regenexx was marketing an unapproved drug. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington sided with the FDA, forcing Regenexx to stop performing the controversial procedures.

Today, Regenexx performs this procedure only in the Cayman Islands, where the government allows it. The Cayman Islands, where there is less government regulation of health care, has become known as a medical tourism destination, Turner said.

Regenexx says that the treatments offered at its U.S. clinics comply with FDA regulations, which require that cells injected into patients undergo no more than “minimal manipulation.”

On its website, Regenexx lists more than two dozen studies led by its doctors. For example, its chief medical officer, Dr. Chris Centeno, published a small study last year that found patients with knee arthritis who received bone marrow and platelets fared better than those randomly assigned to exercise therapy.

Other research suggests stem cells and platelets may work no better than placebos. In a recent analysis, over 80% of patients with knee arthritis experienced a noticeable improvement in pain after receiving simple saltwater injections.

There’s also no definitive evidence stem cells and platelets can regrow lost cartilage. A 2018 review concluded platelets have “marginal effectiveness,” and experts note that most published studies are so small or poorly designed that their results aren’t reliable.

Corporate Boosters

Corporate executives have become some of Regenexx’s biggest boosters. Hy-Vee’s former chairman and CEO, Ric Jurgens, appears in a Regenexx marketing brochure and says that he turned to Regenexx because of heel pain. The brochure, which was removed from a Regenexx website after Kaiser Health News began reporting this story, quotes Jurgens as saying, “I knew that giving our employees the chance to explore options besides surgery was in their best interest.”

Hy-Vee did not make Jurgens or other employees available to interview.

Perhaps Regenexx’s best-known corporate client is Des Moines-based Meredith Corp., which owns multiple TV and radio stations, as well as magazines such as Better Homes & Gardens.

Steve Lacy, Meredith’s former CEO and current board chairman, said he underwent a Regenexx procedure two years after his company began covering stem cell treatments. He had been facing knee surgery and thought stem cells were worth a try.

The procedure got him back to doing everything he wants to do, Lacy said, even running several days a week. He also has done daily physical therapy for over two years. “The rehab and recovery is far less onerous” with the Regenexx procedure than with surgery, Lacy said. “If the procedure doesn’t work for an individual, there’s no harm.”

Meredith has spent about $400,000 in four years on 85 employees who have had Regenexx treatments, or about $4,700 a patient, said Meredith spokesman Art Slusark. That’s a small share of the roughly $75 million a year that Meredith spends on its medical plan, he said.

At its headquarters, Meredith has promoted Regenexx procedures through email, posters and “lunch-and-learn” sessions in the office, said Jenny McCoy, Meredith’s corporate communications director.

McCoy herself has become a poster child for Regenexx’s benefits. She and two other Meredith employees appear with Lacy in a marketing video on the Regenexx site:

Although McCoy had begun to experience knee and hip pain during exercise, she said in an interview that her pain was not severe enough to need surgery. McCoy underwent platelet injections two years ago and is pain-free today, she said.

“I thought, ‘If Meredith is covering it, I might as well have it done early before [the pain] causes me too many problems,’” said McCoy, 52. Given the price tag, she said, “I would not have done it otherwise. I wouldn’t have even known about it.”

‘Very Pushy’ Marketing

Some employers are, in fact, skeptical. The Des Moines Public Schools has opted not to add Regenexx to its employee health plan, said Catherine McKay, director of employee services for the school system. She said a salesman for a local stem cell clinic, which has since merged with Regenexx, told her the treatments could save the school system lots of money. McKay wasn’t sold.

“My experience with them has not been great, in terms of marketing and sales. They’re very, very pushy,” McKay said. “They claim they can get people back to work earlier” than surgery. “But if I still need knee surgery a year down the road, that doesn’t cut my costs.”

The Des Moines school system has agreed to consider covering Regenexx procedures as part of its workers’ compensation program on a case-by-case basis, McKay said. The school system has not signed a contract with Regenexx, however, and hasn’t included Regenexx in its health plan.

McKay said she knows of two school employees who have tried Regenexx. While one employee was satisfied with the results, McKay said, another “went through a couple procedures and ended up needing surgery anyway.” 

In response, Regenexx noted that many patients who undergo knee surgery are also unhappy with the results. Research suggests that up to one-third of those who have knees replaced continue to experience chronic pain, while one-fifth report that they are dissatisfied with the results of their surgery.

Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom whose stories appear in news outlets nationwide, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

A Pained Life: Who Benefits From the Opioid Crisis?

By Carol Levy, PNN Columnist

For the first time in almost 40 years, I have to fight to get my codeine prescription filled.

I understand intellectually what so many pain patients have said about the frustration, upset and upheaval they experience when a pharmacist refuses to fill their prescription or insurance refuses to pay for it. Or harder still, what they go through having their opioid medications cut down or stopped completely.

But I did not understand the emotional side of it until it happened to me.

The insurance company refused to pay for my codeine prescription. They had no problem filling it for the last many, many years but suddenly they need "authorization" from the doctor. How does that make sense? Writing the prescription was authorizing. Why do they need to add a second permission?

It is now over three weeks. The pharmacist tells me they have contacted the doctor's office three times: "You need to call them and find out why they haven't responded."

When I call the office, they tell me the pharmacy never sent over the forms they need.

So I call the pharmacy back. They recite a fax number for the doctor’s office. It is not the right number. I give them the number the doctor's office just gave me. “We'll try it again right now,” she says.

I keep my fingers crossed and hope I don't run out of pills before it is resolved — if it is resolved.

The pharmacy clerk and I talked the day the prescription was refused by the insurance company. I was venting my frustration over not being able to get the prescription filled, especially because it is the same prescription I have had for years, one that was always covered by my insurance.

To my surprise she says: "It is not just narcotics. Many insurance companies are refusing to cover or making unwarranted demands, requiring many more hoops to jump through. They have refused to cover certain creams and hormones, other prescriptions, non-narcotics that are routinely given and, until now, paid for by the insurance companies."

This is appalling. And makes no sense.  

But then I start thinking about it and was struck by a thought: Yes, there is an opioid crisis. And we’ve all heard the reasons they blamed patients for the “crisis.”  But I think there may be another factor at play: the profit margin.

After all, if we pay insurance premiums but they refuse to pay for our medication -- forcing some folks to pay cash rather than wait for all the rigamarole to be completed -- then the insurance company comes out way ahead. They get our monthly fees and work to make sure we get as little as possible in return. 

I hope I am merely being paranoid. But somehow, I doubt it.

Carol Jay Levy has lived with trigeminal neuralgia, a chronic facial pain disorder, for over 30 years. She is the author of “A Pained Life, A Chronic Pain Journey.” 

Carol is the moderator of the Facebook support group “Women in Pain Awareness.” Her blog “The Pained Life” can be found here.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Many Alternative Therapies for Back Pain Not Covered

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A new study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has confirmed what many back pain sufferers already know: Public and private health insurance plans often do not cover non-drug alternative pain therapies.

Bloomberg researchers looked at dozens of Medicaid, Medicare and commercial insurance coverage policies for chronic lower back pain and found that while most plans covered physical therapy and chiropractic care, there was little or no coverage for acupuncture, massage or counseling.

"This study reveals an important opportunity for insurers to broaden and standardize their coverage of non-drug pain treatments to encourage their use as safer alternatives to opioids," says senior author Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology at the Bloomberg School.  

Alexander and his colleagues examined 15 Medicaid, 15 Medicare Advantage and 15 major commercial insurer plans that were available in 16 states in 2017.

Most payers covered physical therapy (98%), occupational therapy (96%), and chiropractic care (89%), but coverage was inconsistent for many of the other therapies.

Acupuncture was covered by only five of the 45 insurance plans and only one plan covered therapeutic massage.

Nine of the Medicaid plans covered steroid injections, but only three covered psychological counseling.

"We were perplexed by the absence of coverage language on psychological interventions," Alexander says. "It's hard to imagine that insurers wouldn't cover that."  

Even for physical therapy, a well-established method for relieving lower back pain, insurance coverage was inconsistent.

"Some plans covered two visits, some six, some 12; some allowed you to refer yourself for treatment, while others required referral by a doctor," Alexander says. "That variation indicates a lack of consensus among insurers regarding what model coverage should be, or a lack of willingness to pay for it.”  

The Bloomberg study is being published online in the journal JAMA Network Open.  It was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  

Lower back pain is the world’s leading cause of disability, but there is surprisingly little consensus on the best way to treat it. A recent series of reviews by an international team of experts in The Lancet medical journal found that low back pain is usually treated with bad advice, inappropriate tests, risky surgeries and painkillers.

“The majority of cases of low back pain respond to simple physical and psychological therapies that keep people active and enable them to stay at work,” said lead author Rachelle Buchbinder, PhD, a professor at Monash University in Australia. “Often, however, it is more aggressive treatments of dubious benefit that are promoted and reimbursed.”

The authors recommend counseling, exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy as first-line treatments for short-term low back pain, followed by spinal manipulation, massage, acupuncture, meditation and yoga as second line treatments. They found limited evidence to support the use of opioids for low back pain, and epidural steroid injections and acetaminophen (paracetamol) are not recommended at all.