Joanne Kenen, Author at ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:14:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.6 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Joanne Kenen, Author at ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News 32 32 161476233 Some CT Scans Deliver Too Much Radiation, Researchers Say. Regulators Want To Know More. /health-industry/ct-scans-cancer-risk-radiation-rules-research/ Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1994219 Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a professor at the University of California-San Francisco medical school, has spent well over a decade researching the disquieting risk that one of modern medicine’s most valuable tools, computerized tomography scans, can sometimes cause cancer.

Smith-Bindman and like-minded colleagues have long pushed for federal policies aimed at improving safety for patients undergoing CT scans. Under new Medicare regulations effective this year, hospitals and imaging centers must start collecting and sharing more information about the radiation their scanners emit.

About 93 million CT scans are performed every year in the United States, according to IMV, a medical market research company that . More than half of those scans are for people 60 and older. Yet there is scant regulation of radiation levels as the machines scan organs and structures inside bodies. Dosages are erratic, varying widely from one clinic to another, and are too often unnecessarily high, Smith-Bindman and other critics say.

“It’s unfathomable,” Smith-Bindman said. “We keep doing more and more CTs, and the doses keep going up.”

One CT scan can expose a patient to 10 or 15 times as much radiation as another, Smith-Bindman said. “There is very large variation,” she said, “and the doses vary by an order of magnitude — tenfold, not 10% different — for patients seen for the same clinical problem.” In outlier institutions, the variation is even higher, according to research she and a team of international collaborators

She and other researchers estimated in 2009 that high doses could be responsible for 2% of cancers. Ongoing research shows it’s probably higher, since far more scans are performed today.

The cancer risk from CT scans for any individual patient is very low, although it rises for patients who have numerous scans throughout their lives. Radiologists don’t want to scare off patients who can benefit from imaging, which plays a crucial role in identifying life-threatening conditions like cancers and aneurysms and guides doctors through complicated procedures.

But the new data collection rules from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued in the closing months of the Biden administration are aimed at making imaging safer. They also require a more careful assessment of the dosing, quality, and necessity of CT scans.

The requirements, rolled out in January, are being phased in over about three years , , and physicians. Under the complicated reporting system, not every radiologist or health care setting is required to comply immediately. Providers could face financial penalties under Medicare if they don’t comply, though those will be phased in, too, starting in 2027.

When the Biden administration issued the new guidelines, a CMS spokesperson said in an email that excessive and unnecessary radiation exposure was a health risk that could be addressed through measurement and feedback to hospitals and physicians. The agency at the time declined to make an official available for an interview. The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

The Leapfrog Group, an organization that tracks hospital safety, welcomed the new rules. “Radiation exposure is a very serious patient safety issue, so we commend CMS for focusing on CT scans,” said Leah Binder, the group’s president and CEO. Leapfrog has for to imaging radiation, “and we find significant variation among hospitals,” Binder added.

CMS contracted with UCSF in 2019 to research solutions aimed at encouraging better measurement and assessment of CTs, leading to the development of the agency’s new approach.

The American College of Radiology and three other associations involved in medical imaging, however, when they were under review, arguing in written comments in 2023 that they were excessively cumbersome, would burden providers, and could add to the cost of scans. The group was also concerned, at that time, that health providers would have to use a single, proprietary tech tool for gathering the dosing and any related scan data.

The single company in question, Alara Imaging, supplies free software that radiologists and radiology programs need to comply with the new regulations. The promise to keep it free is included in the company’s copyright. Smith-Bindman is a co-founder of Alara Imaging, and UCSF also has a stake in the company, which is developing other health tech products unrelated to the CMS imaging rule that it does plan to commercialize.

But the landscape has recently changed. ACR said in a statement from Judy Burleson, ACR vice president for quality management programs, that CMS is allowing in other vendors — and that ACR itself is “in discussion with Alara” on the data collection and submission. In addition, a company called Medisolv, which works on health care quality, said at least one client is working with another vendor, Imalogix, on the CT dose data.

Several dozen health quality and safety organizations — including some national leaders in patient safety, like the Institute of Healthcare Improvement — have supported CMS’ efforts.

Concerns about CT dosing are long-standing. A landmark study by a research team that included experts from the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and universities estimated that CT scans were responsible for 29,000 excess cancer cases a year in the United States, about 2% of all cases diagnosed annually.

But the number of CT scans kept climbing. By 2016, , up 20% in a decade, though radiologists say dosages of radiation per scan have declined. Some researchers have noted that U.S. doctors order far more imaging than physicians in other developed countries, arguing some of it is wasteful and dangerous.

More recent studies, some looking at pediatric patients and some drawing on radiation exposure data from survivors of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, have also identified CT scan risk.

Older people may face greater cancer risks because of imaging they had earlier in life. And scientists have emphasized the need to be particularly careful with children, who may be more vulnerable to radiation exposure while young and face the consequences of cumulative exposure as they age.

Max Wintermark, a neuroradiologist at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who has been involved in the field’s work on appropriate utilization of imaging, said doctors generally follow dosing protocols for CT scans. In addition, the technology is improving; he expects artificial intelligence to soon help doctors determine optimal imaging use and dosing, delivering “the minimum amount of radiation dose to get us to the diagnosis that we’re trying to reach.”

But he said he welcomes the new CMS regulations.

“I think the measures will help accelerate the transition towards always lower and lower doses,” he said. “They are helpful.”

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø 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 .

This article first appeared on ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and is republished here under a .

]]>
1994219
Trump Wants Harris To Pay a Political Price for Generous Immigrant Health Policies /aging/immigrant-health-coverage-undocumented-trump-harris-policies-gop-attacks/ Fri, 01 Nov 2024 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1935957 Maria Sanchez immigrated to the Chicago area from Mexico about 30 years ago. Now 87, she’s still living in the U.S. without authorization. Like many longtime immigrants, she has worked — and paid taxes, including Medicare taxes — all that time.

But Sanchez never had health insurance, and when she turned 65, she couldn’t enroll in Medicare. She has never had preventive care or screenings. No physicals. No cholesterol checks. No mammograms.

“Nada, nada, nada,” she said in an interview conducted in Spanish. Nothing, nothing, nothing.

When she did get sick, she delayed seeking care until she was so ill that she was twice hospitalized with pneumonia. She finally got covered last year under a landmark Illinois program for older people without legal residency that took effect in December 2020.

Democratic-led states such as Illinois are increasingly opening public insurance programs to immigrants lacking permanent legal status. A dozen had already covered children; even more provided prenatal coverage. But now more states are covering adults living in the country without authorization — and some are phasing in coverage for seniors, who are more expensive and a harder political sell than kids.

The expansions recognize the costs that patients living here illegally can otherwise impose on hospitals. But the policies are under harsh attack from former President Donald Trump and other Republicans who seek to make his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, the face of reckless immigration policies.

Republicans point to Harris’ home state of California’s to immigrants of all ages regardless of legal status, saying it comes at the expense of American citizens.

It’s a regular complaint for Trump. “She’ll go around saying, ‘Oh, Trump is going to do bad things to Social Security,’” he said of Harris at a . “No, she’s going to do it because she’s putting these illegal immigrants onto Social Security, onto Medicare, and she’s going to destroy those programs, and the people are going to have to pay.”

Harris’ choice of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate has added fuel to Republican attacks at the intersection of immigration and health policy.

Under a law Walz signed, immigrants living without authorization in Minnesota will be able to gain health coverage starting next year through the state’s for people with low incomes who aren’t eligible for Medicaid.

The issue is top of mind for some Americans. At an in Las Vegas, an audience member event host Univision identified as Ivett Castillo asked Harris what her administration would do about health care for people like her mother, who had immigrated from Mexico without authorization many years ago, worked her whole life, and died this year without ever receiving “the type of care and service that she needed or deserved.”

“What are your plans, or do you have plans, to support that subgroup of immigrants who have been here their whole lives, or most of them, and have to live and die in the shadows?” Castillo asked.

Harris noted her past support for a path to citizenship for unauthorized residents — and for a bipartisan border security bill that Senate Republicans killed earlier this year at the behest of Trump.

“This is one example of the fact that there are real people who are suffering because of an inability to put solutions in front of politics,” Harris said.

Even without such policies, immigrants can get free or inexpensive primary care at community clinics throughout the country — assuming they know it’s an option and feel safe at the facilities. But primary care can’t take care of all medical needs, particularly as people age and develop more complex health problems and chronic illnesses. So immigrants often rely on charity care, go into debt, or, like Sanchez, skimp. Some even return to their home countries for care.

Illinois, where Sanchez got covered, was a pioneer in extending insurance coverage to unauthorized migrants. Now, — all led by Democrats — cover at least some low-income older immigrants under Medicaid or Affordable Care Act waivers. Minnesota next year will become the seventh. State funds must be used for the expansions, as federal dollars generally can’t cover people lacking legal status.

Whether or how quickly more states follow remains to be seen, and if Trump wins the White House, his administration would likely try to thwart the trend, given that he has . Coverage for all immigrants is still a tough sell economically and politically — and the noncitizen population can’t vote its gratitude at the ballot box. Immigrant health have fizzled or been scaled back.

Maryland, for example, settled on opening its Obamacare exchange to people living in the state without authorization, starting in 2026 — but without taxpayer subsidies for their premiums.

Still, there’s enough activity in states to make advocates for immigrant health believe something has shifted. The pandemic’s severity and its uneven toll helped build support for covering older immigrants, said Lee Che Leong, the senior policy advocate at Northwest Health Law Advocates in Washington state.

“People are looking around and realizing that our health is interconnected, both globally and locally,” Leong said. “The pandemic really brought that home, that when you look at the disparities in who got covid, who was exposed to covid, and who died from covid.”

Access to U.S. health care has long been an obstacle for immigrants, even those in the country legally. People with green cards must wait five years for coverage under Medicaid or other government health programs. Some older green-card holders have to pay extra premiums for Medicare Part A — the portion that covers hospital care — if they haven’t been employed for at least 10 years in the U.S.

The new state health programs close those gaps, said Shelby Gonzales, vice president for immigration policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In July, Washington state started covering low-income immigrants in a Medicaid-like program called Apple Health Expansion, using a federal waiver. Enrollment is capped and the program filled quickly, but some slots were reserved for people 65 and older, Leong said. Earlier this year, the state opened its Obamacare exchange to immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization.

Oregon and Colorado now also offer some coverage to people in their states who lack legal status, though the Colorado program didn’t attract many older immigrants, according to data recently presented to the state Affordable Care Act exchange oversight committee.

New York has covered child immigrants lacking legal residency for years, and the state’s Medicaid program was opened in January to all adult immigrants regardless of status. About 25,000 people signed up in the first four months, according to New York Medicaid Director Amir Bassiri.

Back in Illinois, Maria Sanchez said her new coverage has been life-changing — and possibly lifesaving. Her bouts of pneumonia were severe, partly because she had delayed care. After her second hospitalization, she needed follow-up cardiac care. The hospital didn’t charge her for her stay.

But now, with her “tarjeta médica” — her medical card — she can see a doctor. Her heart condition is under control. She has seen a dentist. She’s getting her cataracts removed.

“With my medical card, I have peace of mind,” Sanchez said.

Illinois has gradually added coverage for other age groups; in summer 2022, it lowered eligibility to age 42. That means immigrants like Gaby Piceno, 45, can age more healthily.

“I don’t have to worry anymore,” she said, referring not just to herself but to her family.

But the coverage expansion has cost more than Illinois projected. People like Sanchez and Piceno, already on the rolls, remain covered, but new enrollment was paused this year. More people signed up than expected, and many continued seeking care in more costly hospital emergency departments rather than at doctors’ offices, said the state’s acting insurance commissioner, Ann Gillespie, who was an Illinois state senator when the program was established.

The state is now shifting covered immigrants into Medicaid managed-care plans, hoping to bring down the cost over time.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø 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 .

This article first appeared on ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and is republished here under a .

]]>
1935957
Remote Work: An Underestimated Benefit for Family Caregivers /aging/remote-work-an-underestimated-benefit-for-family-caregivers/ Fri, 19 May 2023 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1685199 For Aida Beltré, working remotely during the pandemic came as a relief.

She was taking care of her father, now 86, who has been in and out of hospitals and rehabs after a worsening series of strokes in recent years.

Working from home for a rental property company, she could handle it. In fact, like most family caregivers during the early days of covid-19, she had to handle it. Community programs for the elderly had shut down.

Even when Beltré switched to a hybrid work role — meaning some days in the office, others at home — caring for her father was manageable, though never easy.

Then she was ordered back to the office full time in 2022. By then, Medicaid was covering 17 hours of home care a week, up from five. But that was not close to enough. Beltré, now 61, was always rushing, always worrying. There was no way she could leave her father alone so long.

She quit. “I needed to see my dad,” she said.

In theory, the national debate about remote or hybrid work is one great big teachable moment about the demands on the 53 million Americans taking care of an elderly or disabled relative.

But the “return to office” debate has centered on commuting, convenience, and child care. That fourth C, caregiving, is seldom mentioned.

That’s a missed opportunity, caregivers and their advocates say.

Employers and co-workers understand the need to take time off to care for a baby. But there’s a lot less understanding about time to care for anyone else. “We need to destigmatize it and create a culture where it’s normalized, like birth or adoption,” said Karen Kavanaugh, chief of strategic initiatives at the Rosalynn Carter Institute for Caregivers. For all the talk of cradle to grave, she said, “mostly, it’s cradle.”

After her stepmother died, Beltré moved her father into her home in Fort Myers, Florida, in 2016. His needs have multiplied, and she’s been juggling, juggling, juggling. She’s exhausted and, now, unemployed.

She’s also not alone. About , and nearly a third have quit a job because of their caregiving responsibilities, according to a report from the Rosalynn Carter Institute. Others cut back their hours. The Rand Corp. has estimated that caregivers in family income each year — an amount that’s almost certainly gone up since the report was released nearly a decade ago.

Beltré briefly had a remote job but left it. The position required sales pitches to people struggling with elder care, which she found uncomfortable. She rarely gets out — only to the grocery store and church, and even then she’s constantly checking on her dad.

“This is the story of my life,” she said.

Workplace flexibility, however desirable, is no substitute for a national long-term care policy, a viable long-term care insurance market, or paid family leave, none of which are on Washington’s radar.

President Joe Biden gave family caregivers a shoutout in his State of the Union address in February and followed up in April with an executive order aimed at supporting caregivers and incorporating their needs in planning federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Last year, his Department of Health and Human Services released a outlining how federal agencies can help and offering road maps for the private sector.

Although Biden checked off priorities and potential innovations, he didn’t offer any money. That would have to come from Congress. And Congress right now is locked in a battle over cutting spending, not increasing it.

So that leaves it up to families.

Remote work can’t fill all the caregiving gaps, particularly when the patient has advanced disease or dementia and needs intense round-the-clock care from a relative who is also trying to do a full-time job from the kitchen table.

But there are countless scenarios in which the option to work remotely is an enormous help.

When a disease flares up. When someone is recuperating from an injury, an operation, or a rough round of chemo. When a paid caregiver is off, or sick, or AWOL. When another family caregiver, the person who usually does the heavy lift literally or metaphorically, needs respite.

“Being able to respond to time-sensitive needs for my dad at the end of his life, and to be present with my stepmother, who was the 24/7 caregiver, was an incredible blessing,” said Gretchen Alkema, a well-known expert in aging policy who now runs a consulting firm and was able to work from her dad’s home as needed.

That flexibility is what Rose Garcia has come to appreciate, as a small-business owner and a caregiver for her husband.

Garcia’s husband and business partner, Alex Sajkovic, has Lou Gehrig’s disease. Because of his escalating needs and the damage the pandemic wrought on their San Francisco stone and porcelain design company, she downsized and redesigned the business. They cashed in his retirement fund to hire part-time caregivers. She goes to work in person sometimes, particularly to meet architects and clients, which she enjoys. The rest of the time she works from home.

As it happened, two of her employees also had caregiving obligations. Her experience, she said, made her open to doing things differently.

For one employee, a hybrid work schedule didn’t work out. She had many demands on her, plus her own serious illness, and couldn’t make her schedule mesh with Garcia’s. For the other staff member, who has a young child and an older mother, hybrid work let her keep the job.

A third worker comes in full time, Garcia said. Since he’s often alone, his dogs come too.

Aida Beltré (clockwise from front left) and her four children — Guillermo Richard, Gabriel Almonte, Anthony Almonte, and Paola Pérez — surround her father, Eugenio, in April. Beltré had been helping care for her father, who had experienced a series of strokes, as she worked remotely during the pandemic. When ordered back to the office full time last year, she couldn’t leave her father alone long, so she quit her job. (Sofia German)

In Lincoln, Nebraska, Sarah Rasby was running the yoga studio she co-owned, teaching classes, and taking care of her young children. Then, at 35, her twin sister, Erin Lewis, had a sudden cardiac event that triggered an irreversible and ultimately fatal brain injury. For three heartbreaking years, her sister’s needs were intense, even when she was in a rehab center or nursing home. Rasby, their mother, and other family members spent hour after hour at her side.

Rasby, who also took on all the legal and paperwork tasks for her twin, sold the studio.

“I’m still playing catch-up from all those years of not having income,” said Rasby, now working on a graduate degree in family caregiving.

Economic stress is not unusual. Caregivers are disproportionately women. If caregivers quit or go part time, they lose pay, benefits, Social Security, and retirement savings.

“It’s really important to keep someone attached to the labor market,” the Rosalynn Carter Institute’s Kavanaugh said. Caregivers “prefer to keep working. Their financial security is diminished when they don’t — and they may lose health insurance and other benefits.”

But given the high cost of home care, the sparse insurance coverage for it, and the persistent workforce shortages in home health and adult day programs, caregivers often feel they have no choice but to leave their jobs.

At the same time, though, more employers, facing a competitive labor market, are realizing that flexibility regarding remote or hybrid work helps attract and retain workers. Big consultant companies like BCG offer advice on “.”

Successful remote work during the pandemic has undercut bosses’ abilities to claim, “You can’t do your job like that,” observed Rita Choula, director of caregiving for the AARP Public Policy Institute. It’s been more common in recent years for employers to offer policies that help workers with child care. Choula wants to see them expanded “so that they represent a broad range of caregiving that occurs across life.”

Yet, even with covid’s reframing of in-person work, telecommuting is still not the norm. A March report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics private businesses had some or all of their workforce remote last summer — a dropoff from 40% in 2021, the second pandemic summer. Only about 1 in 10 workplaces are fully remote.

And remote and hybrid work is mostly for people whose jobs are largely computer-based. A restaurant server can’t refill a coffee cup via Zoom. An assembly line worker can’t weld a car part from her father-in-law’s bedside.

But even in the service and manufacturing sectors, willing employers can explore creative solutions, like modified shift schedules or job shares, said Kavanaugh, who is running pilot programs with businesses in Michigan. Cross-training so workers can fill in for one another when one has to step into caregiving is another strategy.

New approaches can’t come soon enough for Aida Beltré, who finds joy in caregiving along with the burden. She’s looking for work, hybrid this time. “I am a people person,” she said. “I need to get out.”

She also needs to be in. “Every night, he says, ‘Thank you for all you do,’” she said of her father. “I tell him, ‘I do this because I love you.’”

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø 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 .

This article first appeared on ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and is republished here under a .

]]>
1685199