Kaiser Health News

An Arm and a Leg: Meet the Middleman’s Middleman

Published

9 months ago

June 25, 2024

Dan Weissmann
Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Some people who expected their health insurance to cover some out-of-network care have been getting stuck with enormous bills.

One Kansas City, Kansas, couple paid thousands of dollars out-of-pocket and up-front for care. They expected to get a partial reimbursement from their insurer. So, they were shocked when instead they got a bill saying they owed even more than what they’d already paid.

It turns out, a little-known data firm called MultiPlan was working with their insurance company to suggest cuts to their coverage. MulitPlan says it’s helping control ballooning health care costs by keeping hospitals and providers from overbilling. But it’s often patients left paying the difference.In this episode of “An Arm and a Leg,” host Dan Weissmann breaks down this confusing world of out-of-network care with New York Times reporter Chris Hamby, who recently published an investigation into MultiPlan.

Dan Weissmann

@danweissmann

Host and producer of “An Arm and a Leg.” Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago’s WBEZ. His work also appears on All Things Considered, Marketplace, the BBC, 99 Percent Invisible, and Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Credits

Emily Pisacreta
Producer

Claire Davenport
Producer

Adam Raymonda
Audio wizard

Ellen Weiss
Editor

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: Meet the Middleman’s Middleman

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there! Paul and Kristin live in Kansas City with their two kids. Kristin and their daughter, the older kid– they have some complex medical issues, need to see some specialized folks. And some of those folks don’t take Kristin and Paul’s insurance. They’re “out of network,” so Kristin and Paul pay out of pocket– a lot. Maybe $20,000 a year. BUT their health insurance plan does reimburse some out-of-network care.

o, in January 2023, Kristin called a help line connected with the insurance plan to find out how that was gonna work.

Kristin H: They basically said, sure, easy peasy, you pay and then you get online and you click this form, you show what you paid, and then we send you a check and reimburse you.

Dan: Kristin was on it. She built a whole spreadsheet to track every bill she paid, every reimbursement form she’d submitted. And she waited for the checks. The insurance company gave itself months just to process the claims. And when they finally sent statements, the statements seemed … weird. They were like:

Kristin H: Here’s what you paid, and here’s your discounts, and here’s what you may owe.

Dan: And Kristin was like … what?

Kristin H: Because I was thinking, well, I don’t owe anything. We paid out of pocket, but then I was thinking, well, this must be the portion that they’re paying us back. But then the math didn’t add up.

Dan: Yeah. Not at all. Kristin was expecting to get 50 percent back, like her plan said she would. But this amount wasn’t anything like 50 percent. And what’s this “discount” business?

It took months– and a lot of digging from Paul, and ultimately a talk with a NewYork Times reporter– before Kristin and Paul understood what was going on, and why it was costing them thousands of dollars.

What they didn’t know until that New York Times story came out was: Someone was making a multi-billion dollar business out of experiences like theirs. As that story made clear, LOTS of people who expected their insurance to cover them for expensive out-of-network care ended up on the hook for a lot more than they’d expected.

That story introduced readers to a character who’s become kind of a TYPE on this show. Not a type of person, but a type of business: A middleman that works behind the scenes with insurance companies. So we’ve seen that dynamic with pharmacy benefit managers– the folks who decide what drugs you can get and for how much– and more recently, we looked at a company that uses an algorithm to justify kicking folks out of nursing homes. The middleman in this New York Times story was a company called MultiPlan.

Reporter Chris Hamby found MultiPlan and insurance companies they worked with were leaving patients on the hook for huge amounts that they absolutely had not expected to pay. MultiPlan was also, along with those insurance companies, pocketing big fees. That story got some folks’ attention. A U.S. Senator has called for action from antitrust regulators. Those regulators might get interested. And we may wanna egg them on– so we’re gonna need to understand the whole scheme. Whothis middleman is– MultiPlan– and how they got themselves in the middle of 60 million people’s health insurance, by their own estimate … and how they make a lot of money.

This is An Arm and a Leg, a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So, our job on this show is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life– and bring you a show that’s entertaining, empowering, and useful.

And this time, I’ve got help.

Chris Hamby: My name is Chris Hamby. I’m a reporter on the investigations desk at the New York Times.

Dan: Yeah, and of course, Chris is the one who spent months figuring out the story of this middleman company, MultiPlan.

Chris Hamby: I was poking around a number of areas related to health insurance, and this name just kept coming up.

Dan: Like in lawsuits.

Chris Hamby: And it wasn’t always terribly clear what they did exactly or how they were compensated.

Dan: Or how doctors and patients– regular people– were affected.

Chris Hamby: So that’s why I decided to try and figure this out, and it’s sort of an opaque space as so many areas of health care are these days.

Dan: Yeah. In fact, in order to understand this story at all– to understand who’s doing WELL in this scenario– we’ve gotta peel back a layer. It’s something we’ve talked about here before, but not for a while, and you know, not even my mom remembers everything I’ve ever said here.

This is about the mechanics of how most health insurance people get from their job actually works: about who actually pays medical bills when your insurance settles a claim. It’s not the insurance company. It’s actually the employer paying those bills.

Of course, employers don’t know how to actually RUN an insurance plan. [Unless the employer is Aetna, I guess]. So they hire insurance companies to administer them. You get a card that says Cigna or Blue Cross, but your employer’s funds actually pay the medical bills, so these are called “self-funded” plans. But this is all stuff most of us are just not aware of.

Here’s Chris Hamby:

Chris Hamby: I hadn’t, until about a year ago, even heard of a self-funded plan. And I like to think that I’m reasonably well informed on this stuff.

Dan: Yeah, that is putting it mildly. Chris made his name and won a Pulitzer Prize covering workplace health issues. So, just park that for a minute: self-funded plan, where the employer is the “self,” actually paying the bills, and paying the insurance company a fee. The insurance company is a middleman.

OK, now, next layer: The middleman’s middleman. In this case, the company MultiPlan that Chris wrote about. What’s their job? So in this story, the job they’re doing– their middleman job– is to address what is admittedly kind of a tough question: If you go see somebody– a doctor, a therapist– who doesn’t take your insurance, what happens?

Chris Hamby: How do you determine what a fair amount to pay the provider is? And by extension, how much is the patient potentially on the hook for the unpaid balance? And that has long been a contentious issue.

Dan: Because, if they don’t take your insurance, a provider could charge … absolutely anything. So is your insurer– and again, that’s often actually your employer– supposed to pay absolutely anything? How much are they supposed to pay? Figuring that out, it’s a job.

About 15 years ago, another middleman company doing that job got sued by the NewYork state attorney general. The state said this earlier middleman’s way of figuring out what to pay was screwing over both providers and patients. And the state’s lawsuit produced a solution.

Chris Hamby: The insurance companies agreed to fund the creation of a nonprofit entity that was going be sort of an independent, neutral arbiter of fair prices. It was going to collect data from all the insurers and just make it publicly available. Make sure it was transparent to everyone.

Dan: This nonprofit is called FAIR Health, and its data is actually public. It still exists. Like, you can use it yourself — you can look up the going rate for a knee replacement, a blood test, whatever.

Chris Hamby: You can plug in your zip code, plug in your medical procedure and see an estimate of what, you know, typical out-of-network charges and in-network charges would be for these.

Dan: It’s cool! Check it out yourself; it’s useful. And all the major insurance companies agreed to use it– to use FAIR Health’s benchmarks– to decide what to pay for out-of-network stuff. But, those agreements only committed insurance companies to using FAIR Health for … five years. They expired in 2014.

Enter middleman companies like MultiPlan, saying to insurance companies: Hey, you COULD use FAIR Health– or you could route out-of-network bills to us: Hire us to get you an even better deal– better prices.

Chris Hamby: And it’s important to note also that this is a time when private equity is investing in healthcare, and there are some legitimate concerns about driving up those list prices to ridiculously high levels in a lot of cases. So, there were real issues that insurers were saying that they were responding to at the time.

Dan: OK, so that’s the pitch. MultiPlan is saying to insurance companies: We’ll help you hold the line. We can save you more money than if you used FAIR Health. Well, kind of. Because here’s where we come back to the whole thing about self-funded insurance. MultiPlan isn’t saying, “We can save YOU, insurance company, more money than if you used FAIR Health.” They’re saying, “We can help you save your CLIENTS– employers who do self-funded health insurance– more money. And when you save them money, you’re gonna make money. Because you can charge them a percentage of what you’re saving them. And we’ll get a percentage too.” A percentage of the savings. On every single bill. That’s a very different deal than just using FAIR Health’s data.

Chris Hamby: FAIR Health is not taking a percentage of the savings that they obtain. They’re just selling you their data. And the insurers typically are not charging employers a fee for using FAIR Health’s data. But if they use MultiPlan’s data, both MultiPlan and the insurer typically charge a fee.

Dan: A percentage. In examples from Chris’s story, the insurance company gets 35 percent of those savings.

Chris Hamby: And this has become a significant amount of money for a lot of insurance companies. Overall, UnitedHealthcare, is up to, you know, around a billion dollars per year in recent years.

Dan: UnitedHealthcare collects like a billion dollars in fees for these services, basically, for using MultiPlan specifically?

Chris Hamby: And they couch that by saying some other out-of-network savings programs, but yes.

Dan: Whooh!

Chris Hamby: One thing that the insurers say is that the employers are aware of this; they’ve signed up for it.

Dan: That employers are hiring, say, Cigna, with MultiPlan to find savings. And employers are agreeing to the fees.

Chris Hamby: Where it gets a little bit dicier from the employer’s perspective is when you see claims where, for instance, you end up paying the insurance company more in fees than you paid the doctor for treating your employee.

Dan: yeah, one example from Chris’s story: An out-of-network provider wanted more than $150,000 on one bill. And after the insurance company and MultiPlan did their bit, the employer, a trucking company, ended up paying $58,000. Eight thousand for the provider, and $50,000 to the insurance company and MultiPlan. So, on the one hand, the employer maybe saved $90,000. But paying $50,000 for “cost containment?” Maybe doesn’t sound like such a bargain.

Some employers and a union that runs a health plan have filed lawsuits looking for some of that money back. And there’s also a big irony here because MultiPlan’s pitch is, you need us because sticker prices are super-wildly high. But MultiPlan isn’t doing anything to contain the sticker prices as a systemic problem. In fact, the higher providers crank up their sticker prices, the more money MultiPlan and the insurance companies they work with can make. But then there’s a big question too, which is, what happens to the rest of that bill for the sticker price? Who pays that? That’s next …

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of Public Road Productions and KFF Health News. The folks at KFF Health News are amazing journalists. Their work wins all kinds of awards, every year. We’re honored to work with them.

So, a provider sends a bill. MultiPlan and the insurance company say, “Woah, way too much.” And then what happens? Well, it depends. Sometimes, MultiPlan negotiates with the provider. They’ve got people who do this. And those negotiators drive hard bargains. According to Chris’s story, negotiators sometimes tell providers: Here’s my offer, you’ve got a few hours to take it or leave it, and my next offer might be lower.

Chris talked with a pediatric therapist who said an offer based on MultiPlan’s calculation was less than half of what Medicaid pays. Less than half. And Medicaid rates– they’re notoriously pretty low. Chris talked with some of MultiPlan’s negotiators too.

Chris Hamby: It was interesting because some of the negotiators felt that they were doing their part to hold down costs and really sort of stick it to providers and hospitals that were price gouging.

Dan: But …one told Chris she knew the offers she made– they weren’t fair. “It’s just a game,” another one said. “It’s sad.” And maybe the difference is that some of these negotiators were thinking of a big hospital charging $150,000 for something. And maybe some of them were thinking of someone like that therapist– the one who got offered less than half of Medicaid’s rate.

And I’m not gonna get into the question of who should be doing this kind of negotiating, or what’s fair. I mean, not today, anyway. Because: in a lot of cases with MultiPlan, there’s no negotiation at all. Negotiation only happens when the employer has told the insurance company, look, protect my people. Figure out SOMETHING with the provider so they don’t go after my workers for the rest.

But that doesn’t always happen. A lot of the time, what happens is: The provider sends a bill. The insurance company kicks in whatever it decides to … and that’s it.

So Chris’s story opens with a woman who had surgery. With MultiPlan’s help, her insurance company decided to pay about $5,400. And she got stuck with a bill for more than $100,000.

And then there’s Kristin and Paul in Kansas City. They paid their bills upfront and then looked to get reimbursed– kept a spreadsheet. But when their claims finally got processed, the numbers didn’t add up. Here’s what they saw: Like pretty much every insurance plan, Kristin and Paul’s had a “deductible”– an amount they had to pay out of pocket before insurance would reimburse anything.

Kristin H: Then I started watching the deductible and you know, when I calculated my spreadsheet of how much we had paid out of pocket, and when we saw what was on like our out-of-network spend, those two weren’t matching.

Dan: She really couldn’t figure this out.

Kristin H: I just kind of handed over all of my spreadsheets to Paul, and so that’s when he started digging into the “your discount.”

Dan: “Your discount…” That was this mysterious number on all the statements from the insurance company. In addition to the provider’s rate, and what insurance might pay, the statements listed, quote, “your discount.”

Paul H: And I’m like, what is this? I don’t understand why it’s talking about a discount. We are paying cash out of pocket to the provider at their billed rate, and our insurance is saying that there’s some sort of discount.

Dan: After a bunch of phone calls, he figured it out: The discount was … the difference between the amount on the bill and what the insurance company– with MultiPlan’s help– had decided was a “fair price.”

Paul H: For example, an occupational therapy bill that might be $125, this third party adjuster might come back and say, essentially what the market rate for that should be is $76. And so, your discount, quote, unquote, is $49.

Dan: Except of course, it wasn’t a discount for Kristin and Paul. They had already paid that $49, when they paid the provider upfront. Once Kristin and Paul learned what the “discount” actually meant, they started to understand who actually got the benefit– the insurer. Because …

Kristin H: That discounted rate is actually what will be applied to your deductible. So you’re not going to hit your deductible nearly as quickly as you think. Right? Because we’ve essentially ignored half of your payment.

Dan: This hits Kristin and Paul in two ways.

First, it means they’re actually spending a lot more before their insurance kicks in. It also means that when their insurance does start reimbursing them a percentage of what they’ve spent, the insurance is only paying a percentage of that lower amount. Overall, it means the reimbursements Kristin and Paul get are gonna be thousands of dollars less than they’d expected.

I mean, it took a LOT of work for Kristin and Paul to figure this out. At one point, Paul posted to Reddit asking for help– that’s where Chris Hamby found him. In Paul’s post, he noted how nobody ever even mentioned this third-party adjuster– not until he had already talked to his insurance company for what he said was “about 18 times.” Frequently on hold for 45 minutes or more.

Kristin says once they finally figured out what was going on, they could figure out how to budget for it. There were sacrifices. She stopped seeing one of her providers as often. But finally figuring out what was going on also allowed them to live with it.

Kristin H: The infuriating part was telling, like doing exactly what we were told to do, following the process, and then feeling like you are crazy. Like why, why doesn’t this make sense? You know? And so I think I’m fortunate that Paul just wouldn’t let it die and was gonna research until he figured it out.

Dan: You did all of the work, you tracked it down, you identified the problem, and you, as you say, kind of resigned yourself to it. You’re like, okay, this Goliath is not– we don’t have the slingshot for this. Goliath is stomping all over our town, and we have to live in that reality. Having the knowledge, having done that work, gives you, it sounds like, an ability to have some peace. Like having tracked it down means that this sucks, but it’s not the same as living in a situation where like, now what? Like anything could happen.

Kristin H: Yeah, you feel crazy or hopeless. You know? Like I’ve done everything and this doesn’t … So there’s just the sense of like, am I missing something? You know, is there anything left for me to do? I recognize that everyone is not like this, but for me, knowledge is a gift.

Dan: Chris Hamby says there’s rarely a way to get this kind of knowledge in advance. He says you’re unlikely to find these kinds of details in your insurance plan document.

Chris Hamby: It typically will not say when you go out of network, we’re going to send your claim to a third party that you’ve never heard of to price it. It will just give some sort of vague language about competitive rates in your geographic area. And if you call up in advance of seeking the care to try and get an estimate, most of the time you will not get much more specifics than that. They tell you you have to just go and they’ll process the claim and you’ll see when the explanation of benefits comes through.

Dan: Yeah, and look, I hate to get you even angrier, but Chris says the rules can change on you, without notice.

Chris Hamby: A lot of people that I talk with also have seen no change in their insurance plan, but they’ve seen their reimbursement rates decline over time.

Dan: Turns out, behind the scenes, their insurance made a switch from a service like FAIR Health, which looks at what’s getting paid in general, to a service like MultiPlan, which looks for the steepest possible price cuts.

Chris Hamby: And the difference between those two amounts can be vast. So you have people who in some cases stop seeing their doctors because their costs doubled almost overnight.

Dan: Oh god. And still. Better to know. Better that as many of us know as possible. That’s why Chris reviewed more than 50,000 pages of documents, and interviewed more than a hundred people for that story. And why lawyers for the New York Times helped get courts to agree to give him documents that had been under seal.

Kristin and Paul– who had figured most of this out for themselves– they definitely appreciated all that work.

Paul H: When Chris published the article that he did, it was very validating to know we’re not the only ones who are in this same boat. And there’s actually people who have had far worse experiences than ours. Like, ours kind of pale in comparison. And then immediately, like, within 24 hours to see 1,500 or 1,600 comments on the article talking about it. It’s like, okay, I might not have the stone that can slay the giant, but maybe The NewYork Times has the right sling and they might have the right stone to at least start the conversation.

Dan: A few weeks after Chris’s article came out, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar sent the top federal antitrust regulators a letter: She wanted them to take a hard look at MultiPlan.

Chris Hamby: She expressed concern about the potential for price fixing here.

Dan: Actually, Chris says some providers have already filed lawsuits against MultiPlan based on antitrust allegations.

Chris Hamby: The idea is that all the insurance companies outsource their pricing decisions to a common vendor. They’re essentially fixing prices via algorithm is the allegation.

Dan: As we noted here a few episodes ago, these antitrust regulators in the Biden administration have gotten pretty feisty. [That was the episode about the cyberattack on a company called Change Healthcare. It was called “The Hack,” if you missed it. Pretty fun!]

And I mean, those antitrust regulators have their work cut out for them. And a lot of targets. But I do want to egg them on here. I suspect you do too. Meanwhile, you’re egging US on.

Listener 1: The first thought that went through my head was I’m going to fight this because this is absolutely ridiculous. I’ve already paid for this.

Dan: A few weeks ago, we asked you for stories about your experiences with sneaky fees, often called facility fees.

Listener 2: When the facility fee is twice the office visit fee, it’s just crazy. I mean, it’s a 10-minute appointment for a prescription.

Dan: You came through, and now we’re making some calls, digging in for more details, and learning so much. We’re gonna have a sneak preview for you in a few weeks. Till then, take care of yourself.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta and Claire Davenport– our summer intern. Welcome aboard, Claire!– and edited by Ellen Weiss. Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and Blue Dot Sessions. Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. Gabe Bullard is our engagement editor. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. Sarah Ballama is our operations manager.

An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about healthcare in America and a core program at KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show.

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN.org. Finally, thanks to everybody who supports this show financially. You can join in any time at https://armandalegshow.com/support/

Thanks for pitching in if you can, and thanks for listening.

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to its newsletters. You can also follow the show on Facebook and the social platform X. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

——————————
By: Dan Weissmann
Title: An Arm and a Leg: Meet the Middleman’s Middleman
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/podcast/meet-the-middleman-for-middlemen/
Published Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Up Next

US Surgeon General Declares Gun Violence ‘a Public Health Crisis’

Don't Miss

Medicaid for Millions in America Hinges on Deloitte-Run Systems Plagued by Errors

Kaiser Health News

US Judge Names Receiver To Take Over California Prisons’ Mental Health Program

Published

2 weeks ago

March 20, 2025

Staff Editor

kffhealthnews.org – Don Thompson – 2025-03-20 12:46:00

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A judge has initiated a federal court takeover of California’s troubled prison mental health system by naming the former head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to serve as receiver, giving her four months to craft a plan to provide adequate care for tens of thousands of prisoners with serious mental illness.

Senior U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller issued her order March 19, identifying Colette Peters as the nominated receiver. Peters, who was Oregon’s first female corrections director and known as a reformer, ran the scandal-plagued federal prison system for 30 months until President Donald Trump took office in January. During her tenure, she closed a women’s prison in Dublin, east of Oakland, that had become known as the “rape club.”

Michael Bien, who represents prisoners with mental illness in the long-running prison lawsuit, said Peters is a good choice. Bien said Peters’ time in Oregon and Washington, D.C., showed that she “kind of buys into the fact that there are things we can do better in the American system.”

“We took strong objection to many things that happened under her tenure at the BOP, but I do think that this is a different job and she’s capable of doing it,” said Bien, whose firm also represents women who were housed at the shuttered federal women’s prison.

California corrections officials called Peters “highly qualified” in a statement, while Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office did not immediately comment. Mueller gave the parties until March 28 to show cause why Peters should not be appointed.

Peters is not talking to the media at this time, Bien said. The judge said Peters is to be paid $400,000 a year, prorated for the four-month period.

About 34,000 people incarcerated in California prisons have been diagnosed with serious mental illnesses, representing more than a third of California’s prison population, who face harm because of the state’s noncompliance, Mueller said.

Appointing a receiver is a rare step taken when federal judges feel they have exhausted other options. A receiver took control of Alabama’s correctional system in 1976, and they have otherwise been used to govern prisons and jails only about a dozen times, mostly to combat poor conditions caused by overcrowding. Attorneys representing inmates in Arizona have asked a judge to take over prison health care there.

Mueller’s appointment of a receiver comes nearly 20 years after a different federal judge seized control of California’s prison medical system and installed a receiver, currently J. Clark Kelso, with broad powers to hire, fire, and spend the state’s money.

California officials initially said in August that they would not oppose a receivership for the mental health program provided that the receiver was also Kelso, saying then that federal control “has successfully transformed medical care” in California prisons. But Kelso withdrew from consideration in September, as did two subsequent candidates. Kelso said he could not act “zealously and with fidelity as receiver in both cases.”

Both cases have been running for so long that they are now overseen by a second generation of judges. The original federal judges, in a legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, more than a decade ago forced California to significantly reduce prison crowding in a bid to improve medical and mental health care for incarcerated people.

State officials in court filings defended their improvements over the decades. Prisoners’ attorneys countered that treatment remains poor, as evidenced in part by the system’s record-high suicide rate, topping 31 suicides per 100,000 prisoners, nearly double that in federal prisons.

“More than a quarter of the 30 class-members who died by suicide in 2023 received inadequate care because of understaffing,” prisoners’ attorneys wrote in January, citing the prison system’s own analysis. One prisoner did not receive mental health appointments for seven months “before he hanged himself with a bedsheet.”

They argued that the November passage of a ballot measure increasing criminal penalties for some drug and theft crimes is likely to increase the prison population and worsen staffing shortages.

California officials argued in January that Mueller isn’t legally justified in appointing a receiver because “progress has been slow at times but it has not stalled.”

Mueller has countered that she had no choice but to appoint an outside professional to run the prisons’ mental health program, given officials’ intransigence even after she held top officials in contempt of court and levied fines topping $110 million in June. Those extreme actions, she said, only triggered more delays.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on March 19 upheld Mueller’s contempt ruling but said she didn’t sufficiently justify calculating the fines by doubling the state’s monthly salary savings from understaffing prisons. It upheld the fines to the extent that they reflect the state’s actual salary savings but sent the case back to Mueller to justify any higher penalty.

Mueller had been set to begin additional civil contempt proceedings against state officials for their failure to meet two other court requirements: adequately staffing the prison system’s psychiatric inpatient program and improving suicide prevention measures. Those could bring additional fines topping tens of millions of dollars.

But she said her initial contempt order has not had the intended effect of compelling compliance. Mueller wrote as far back as July that additional contempt rulings would also be likely to be ineffective as state officials continued to appeal and seek delays, leading “to even more unending litigation, litigation, litigation.”

She went on to foreshadow her latest order naming a receiver in a preliminary order: “There is one step the court has taken great pains to avoid. But at this point,” Mueller wrote, “the court concludes the only way to achieve full compliance in this action is for the court to appoint its own receiver.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing or texting “988.”

The post US Judge Names Receiver To Take Over California Prisons’ Mental Health Program appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Kaiser Health News

Amid Plummeting Diversity at Medical Schools, a Warning of DEI Crackdown’s ‘Chilling Effect’

Published

2 weeks ago

March 20, 2025

Staff Editor

kffhealthnews.org – Annie Sciacca – 2025-03-20 04:00:00

The Trump administration’s crackdown on DEI programs could exacerbate an unexpectedly steep drop in diversity among medical school students, even in states like California, where public universities have been navigating bans on affirmative action for decades. Education and health experts warn that, ultimately, this could harm patient care.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has issued a handful of executive orders aimed at terminating all diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives in federally funded programs. And in his March 4 address to Congress, he described the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning the consideration of race in college and university admissions as “brave and very powerful.”

Last month, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — which lost about 50% of its staff in mid-March — directed schools, including postsecondary institutions, to end race-based programs or risk losing federal funding. The “Dear Colleague” letter cited the Supreme Court’s decision.

Paulette Granberry Russell, president and CEO of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, said that “every utterance of ‘diversity’ is now being viewed as a violation or considered unlawful or illegal.” Her organization filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

While California and eight other states — Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington — had already implemented bans of varying degrees on race-based admissions policies well before the Supreme Court decision, schools bolstered diversity in their ranks with equity initiatives such as targeted scholarships, trainings, and recruitment programs.

But the court’s decision and the subsequent state-level backlash — 29 states have since introduced bills to curb diversity initiatives, according to data published by the Chronicle of Higher Education — have tamped down these efforts and led to the recent declines in diversity numbers, education experts said.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, the numbers of Black and Hispanic medical school enrollees fell by double-digit percentages in the 2024-25 school year compared with the previous year, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Black enrollees declined 11.6%, while the number of new students of Hispanic origin fell 10.8%. The decline in enrollment of American Indian or Alaska Native students was even more dramatic, at 22.1%. New Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander enrollment declined 4.3%.

“We knew this would happen,” said Norma Poll-Hunter, AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity. “But it was double digits — much larger than what we anticipated.”

The fear among educators is the numbers will decline even more under the new administration.

At the end of February, the Education Department launched an online portal encouraging people to “report illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning,” stating that students should have “learning free of divisive ideologies and indoctrination.” The agency later issued a “Frequently Asked Questions” document about its new policies, clarifying that it was acceptable to observe events like Black History Month but warning schools that they “must consider whether any school programming discourages members of all races from attending.”

“It definitely has a chilling effect,” Poll-Hunter said. “There is a lot of fear that could cause institutions to limit their efforts.”

Numerous requests for comment from medical schools about the impact of the anti-DEI actions went unreturned. University presidents are staying mum on the issue to protect their institutions, according to reporting from The New York Times.

Utibe Essien, a physician and UCLA assistant professor, said he has heard from some students who fear they won’t be considered for admission under the new policies. Essien, who co-authored a study on the effect of affirmative action bans on medical schools, also said students are worried medical schools will not be as supportive toward students of color as in the past.

“Both of these fears have the risk of limiting the options of schools folks apply to and potentially those who consider medicine as an option at all,” Essien said, adding that the “lawsuits around equity policies and just the climate of anti-diversity have brought institutions to this place where they feel uncomfortable.”

In early February, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit against the University of California-San Francisco’s Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland over an internship program designed to introduce “underrepresented minority high school students to health professions.”

Attorney Andrew Quinio filed the suit, which argues that its plaintiff, a white teenager, was not accepted to the program after disclosing in an interview that she identified as white.

“From a legal standpoint, the issue that comes about from all this is: How do you choose diversity without running afoul of the Constitution?” Quinio said. “For those who want diversity as a goal, it cannot be a goal that is achieved with discrimination.”

UC Health spokesperson Heather Harper declined to comment on the suit on behalf of the hospital system.

Another lawsuit filed in February accuses the University of California of favoring Black and Latino students over Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions. Specifically, the complaint states that UC officials pushed campuses to use a “holistic” approach to admissions and “move away from objective criteria towards more subjective assessments of the overall appeal of individual candidates.”

The scrutiny of that approach to admissions could threaten diversity at the UC-Davis School of Medicine, which for years has employed a “race-neutral, holistic admissions model” that reportedly tripled enrollment of Black, Latino, and Native American students.

“How do you define diversity? Does it now include the way we consider how someone’s lived experience may be influenced by how they grew up? The type of school, the income of their family? All of those are diversity,” said Granberry Russell, of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. “What might they view as an unlawful proxy for diversity equity and inclusion? That’s what we’re confronted with.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, recently joined other state attorneys general to issue guidance urging that schools continue their DEI programs despite the federal messaging, saying that legal precedent allows for the activities. California is also among several states suing the administration over its deep cuts to the Education Department.

If the recent decline in diversity among newly enrolled students holds or gets worse, it could have long-term consequences for patient care, academic experts said, pointing toward the vast racial disparities in health outcomes in the U.S., particularly for Black people.

A higher proportion of Black primary care doctors is associated with longer life expectancy and lower mortality rates among Black people, according to a 2023 study published by the JAMA Network.

Physicians of color are also more likely to build their careers in medically underserved communities, studies have shown, which is increasingly important as the AAMC projects a shortage of up to 40,400 primary care doctors by 2036.

“The physician shortage persists, and it’s dire in rural communities,” Poll-Hunter said. “We know that diversity efforts are really about improving access for everyone. More diversity leads to greater access to care — everyone is benefiting from it.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

The post Amid Plummeting Diversity at Medical Schools, a Warning of DEI Crackdown’s ‘Chilling Effect’ appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Kaiser Health News

Tribal Health Leaders Say Medicaid Cuts Would Decimate Health Programs

Published

2 weeks ago

March 19, 2025

Staff Editor

kffhealthnews.org – Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez – 2025-03-19 04:00:00

Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez

As Congress mulls potentially massive cuts to federal Medicaid funding, health centers that serve Native American communities, such as the Oneida Community Health Center near Green Bay, Wisconsin, are bracing for catastrophe.

That’s because more than 40% of the about 15,000 patients the center serves are enrolled in Medicaid. Cuts to the program would be detrimental to those patients and the facility, said Debra Danforth, the director of the Oneida Comprehensive Health Division and a citizen of the Oneida Nation.

“It would be a tremendous hit,” she said.

The facility provides a range of services to most of the Oneida Nation’s 17,000 people, including ambulatory care, internal medicine, family practice, and obstetrics. The tribe is one of two in Wisconsin that have an “open-door policy,” Danforth said, which means that the facility is open to members of any federally recognized tribe.

But Danforth and many other tribal health officials say Medicaid cuts would cause service reductions at health facilities that serve Native Americans.

Indian Country has a unique relationship to Medicaid, because the program helps tribes cover chronic funding shortfalls from the Indian Health Service, the federal agency responsible for providing health care to Native Americans.

Medicaid has accounted for about two-thirds of third-party revenue for tribal health providers, creating financial stability and helping facilities pay operational costs. More than a million Native Americans enrolled in Medicaid or the closely related Children’s Health Insurance Program also rely on the insurance to pay for care outside of tribal health facilities without going into significant medical debt. Tribal leaders are calling on Congress to exempt tribes from cuts and are preparing to fight to preserve their access.

“Medicaid is one of the ways in which the federal government meets its trust and treaty obligations to provide health care to us,” said Liz Malerba, director of policy and legislative affairs for the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, a nonprofit policy advocacy organization for 33 tribes spanning from Texas to Maine. Malerba is a citizen of the Mohegan Tribe.

“So we view any disruption or cut to Medicaid as an abrogation of that responsibility,” she said.

Tribes face an arduous task in providing care to a population that experiences severe health disparities, a high incidence of chronic illness, and, at least in western states, a life expectancy of 64 years — the lowest of any demographic group in the U.S. Yet, in recent years, some tribes have expanded access to care for their communities by adding health services and providers, enabled in part by Medicaid reimbursements.

During the last two fiscal years, five urban Indian organizations in Montana saw funding growth of nearly $3 million, said Lisa James, director of development for the Montana Consortium for Urban Indian Health, during a webinar in February organized by the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families and the National Council of Urban Indian Health.

The increased revenue was “instrumental,” James said, allowing clinics in the state to add services that previously had not been available unless referred out for, including behavioral health services. Clinics were also able to expand operating hours and staffing.

Montana’s five urban Indian clinics, in Missoula, Helena, Butte, Great Falls, and Billings, serve 30,000 people, including some who are not Native American or enrolled in a tribe. The clinics provide a wide range of services, including primary care, dental care, disease prevention, health education, and substance use prevention.

James said Medicaid cuts would require Montana’s urban Indian health organizations to cut services and limit their ability to address health disparities.

American Indian and Alaska Native people under age 65 are more likely to be uninsured than white people under 65, but 30% rely on Medicaid compared with 15% of their white counterparts, according to KFF data for 2017 to 2021. More than 40% of American Indian and Alaska Native children are enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP, which provides health insurance to kids whose families are not eligible for Medicaid. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

A Georgetown Center for Children and Families report from January found the share of residents enrolled in Medicaid was higher in counties with a significant Native American presence. The proportion on Medicaid in small-town or rural counties that are mostly within tribal statistical areas, tribal subdivisions, reservations, and other Native-designated lands was 28.7%, compared with 22.7% in other small-town or rural counties. About 50% of children in those Native areas were enrolled in Medicaid.

The federal government has already exempted tribes from some of Trump’s executive orders. In late February, Department of Health and Human Services acting general counsel Sean Keveney clarified that tribal health programs would not be affected by an executive order that diversity, equity, and inclusion government programs be terminated, but that the Indian Health Service is expected to discontinue diversity and inclusion hiring efforts established under an Obama-era rule.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also rescinded the layoffs of more than 900 IHS employees in February just hours after they’d received termination notices. During Kennedy’s Senate confirmation hearings, he said he would appoint a Native American as an assistant HHS secretary. The National Indian Health Board, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates for tribes, in December endorsed elevating the director of the Indian Health Service to assistant secretary of HHS.

Jessica Schubel, a senior health care official in Joe Biden’s White House, said exemptions won’t be enough.

“Just because Native Americans are exempt doesn’t mean that they won’t feel the impact of cuts that are made throughout the rest of the program,” she said.

State leaders are also calling for federal Medicaid spending to be spared because cuts to the program would shift costs onto their budgets. Without sustained federal funding, which can cover more than 70% of costs, state lawmakers face decisions such as whether to change eligibility requirements to slim Medicaid rolls, which could cause some Native Americans to lose their health coverage.

Tribal leaders noted that state governments do not have the same responsibility to them as the federal government, yet they face large variations in how they interact with Medicaid depending on their state programs.

President Donald Trump has made seemingly conflicting statements about Medicaid cuts, saying in an interview on Fox News in February that Medicaid and Medicare wouldn’t be touched. In a social media post the same week, Trump expressed strong support for a House budget resolution that would likely require Medicaid cuts.

The budget proposal, which the House approved in late February, requires lawmakers to cut spending to offset tax breaks. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees spending on Medicaid and Medicare, is instructed to slash $880 billion over the next decade. The possibility of cuts to the program that, together with CHIP, provides insurance to 79 million people has drawn opposition from national and state organizations.

The federal government reimburses IHS and tribal health facilities 100% of billed costs for American Indian and Alaska Native patients, shielding state budgets from the costs.

Because Medicaid is already a stopgap fix for Native American health programs, tribal leaders said it won’t be a matter of replacing the money but operating with less.

“When you’re talking about somewhere between 30% to 60% of a facility’s budget is made up by Medicaid dollars, that’s a very difficult hole to try and backfill,” said Winn Davis, congressional relations director for the National Indian Health Board.

Congress isn’t required to consult tribes during the budget process, Davis added. Only after changes are made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and state agencies are tribes able to engage with them on implementation.

The amount the federal government spends funding the Native American health system is a much smaller portion of its budget than Medicaid. The IHS projected billing Medicaid about $1.3 billion this fiscal year, which represents less than half of 1% of overall federal spending on Medicaid.

“We are saving more lives,” Malerba said of the additional services Medicaid covers in tribal health care. “It brings us closer to a level of 21st century care that we should all have access to but don’t always.”

This article was published with the support of the Journalism & Women Symposium (JAWS) Health Journalism Fellowship, assisted by grants from The Commonwealth Fund.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.